Wilkinson Kate: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — Second Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7516] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I will take only a brief call in relation to this bill in support of it. In speaking to the bill which as we have heard increases the retirement age for judges coroners etc. from 68 to 70 years of age it is perhaps opportune to reflect on the arbitrary nature of age itself and age limits themselves. When is old too old—when is one too old to function—and conversely when is one old enough? This bill is not about saying that at 70 one is too old to carry out one’s duties and obligations; it is about setting an arbitrary age at which judges coroners justices etc. must retire. 
Whenever we look at the issue of age whether in terms of too young or too old we will always see inconsistencies. For example throughout the alcohol purchasing age legislation we learnt that someone can marry at 18 go to war at 18 hold a firearms licence at 16 drive a motor vehicle at 15 and sell adult material at any age—although not buy it at any age—yet if the bill had progressed young people would not have been able to buy a beer at 18. What arbitrary age restrictions do is remove the requirement for any subjective assessment as to a person’s maturity sense of responsibility and ability. It is similarly so with judges because under the Judicial Retirement Age Bill the age of retirement is upon them at 70 whether or not they like it. 
We have heard the comparisons with other countries. Our existing retirement age is 68 which is relatively young—it is interesting that the closer one comes to such an age the younger that age seems. By comparison in the United Kingdom Australia and Ireland the retirement age is 70. In Canada it is as high as 75. Just out of interest I asked the Minister the current ages of our judges and I would like to mention them for the record. Of our current District Court judges three are under 40 years of age with 25 between the ages of 41 and 50 82 between the ages of 51 and 60 12 between the ages of 61 and 64 and nine between the ages of 65 and 68. By comparison of the High Court judges seven are between the ages of 40 and 50 14 between the ages of 51 and 60 nine between the ages of 61 and 64 and two between the ages of 65 and 68. So I think we could say that they are a pretty young bunch really. 
One of the reasons given by the Minister for a compulsory retirement age is that of judicial independence. I totally agree that the separation of powers is vital to the integrity of our democracy. Judges must—and must be able to—act independently of the executive and of us. Similarly we should not blame judges for giving inadequate sentences to criminals when it is members of Parliament as lawmakers who provide them with the rules for such sentences. If we do not like that we need to change the law not criticise the judges. That is the essence of judicial independence and separation of powers. 
So I speak in support of this bill although it must be re-emphasised that 70 years of age is not an indication of either ability or inability; it is an arbitrary age limit and for many it is still very young. Even by fixing the age limit at 70 years we will be losing valuable judicial resources on the bench but it is important that we set some age limit and 70 years of age certainly seems consistent with other jurisdictions and reasonable in the circumstances. Accordingly on behalf of National I speak in support of this bill. 
Bill read a second time.