Finlayson Christopher: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:7641] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Congratulations Mr Chairman on your promotion. I think it befits you very well. I am just sorry that the Minister in the chair Rick Barker had to turn up because Winnie Laban was far more attractive and far more pleasant. But there we go. 
I will briefly address Part 1—and I place emphasis on the adverb “briefly” because Part 1 simply deals with the machinery aspects of the bill. We do not yet know when the Act will come into force but the purpose clause succinctly states exactly what this bill is all about. As I said in my speech the other night in 1980 the retiring age for judges was reduced from 72 to 68. That reduction in the retirement age was consequent upon the Beattie commission on the courts which reported in 1979. As I observed in my speech there was no discussion of the rationale for reducing the age. That is why I think that the other night all speakers from both sides of the House tried to explain the rationale for at least increasing it. The bill brings the age of retirement for High Court judges and the other judges mentioned into line with other jurisdictions. 
Perhaps I should observe that every judge of the High Court Court of Appeal and Supreme Court is sworn in as a High Court judge even though certain of them—nine in the Court of Appeal and five in the Supreme Court—sit as appellate court judges. So when we see the term “judges” in relation to High Court judges we know that it also includes Court of Appeal judges and Supreme Court judges. 
I think that other speakers apart from myself also mentioned the fact that in many states of the United States the retirement age is around 70. In the United Kingdom Australia and Canada the retirement age is about 70. Some jurisdictions have no retirement age. Indeed that issue was touched on by my friend Dr Worth in his speech when he sought to explain the rationale for why there is a retirement age. If there is no retirement age there is the risk that judges can stay on for far too long and can in fact become an impediment to justice. I can think of a number of foreign judges who come into that category. They simply sat on the United States Supreme Court or the English Court of Appeal for too long. I recall very clearly the case of Lord Denning a former Master of the Rolls. He was an outstanding judge—probably one of the greatest judges in Anglo - New Zealand - Australian history—but he left his high office in a very tragic way. He had stayed on too long and made some silly remark about a jury which hastened his pretty well immediate retirement. I think that when he retired he was about 88. 
So there are very good reasons for having a retirement age but there are extremely good reasons for the age of retirement to be increased from 68 to 70 years. This reflects increasing longevity on the part of all of us and the fact that judging is an art that requires much reflection. It is a job that is naturally suited to people in their 60s and into their early 70s—I say into their early 70s because on occasion judges will be asked to come back as temporary judges. In the case of judges of the Supreme Court after their retirement they can come back and sit until the age of 75. From time to time in the High Court there are judges who come back and sit after their retirement in order to assist with workloads and so on. That principle applies not only to judges of the superior courts and the appellate court but also to associate judges of the High Court and quite sensibly to coroners and community magistrates. 
As I said a few days ago National supports this legislation. It is a sensible provision that we are dealing with here. I do not think I need to detain the Committee any longer.