Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I am pleased to take a call in this Committee stage of the Judicature Modernisation Bill. I do note that this is a significant piece of legislation. It has been a long time in the making but it also goes all the way back I guess to the pillars of our constitution—with the courts. I was surprised to learn just by way of trivia that it goes all the way back to the year after the Treaty when the courts were first established. I found that quite fascinating—those were the first measures that our young colony took: to set up and establish our High Court. The law has been updated significantly only twice since 1841. It was done in the 1880s and then we had the Judicature Act of 1908 which we are now finally modernising through the passage of this bill.This is quite a sizable piece of a bill but I have been doing some speed-reading. I do want to actually focus on what I have picked up in Part 1. I do remember—it is a proud moment for anyone who gets admitted to the Bar and becomes a barrister and solicitor. That is quite a proud moment—and I do think back to many years ago when I signed a roll and took the oath over the road there. It is nice as a member who has practised and is part of the legal community as a solicitor in years gone by that we are updating and modernising our court system. Part 1 deals with putting all of our senior courts into their own Act of Parliament. That is a very sensible way of structuring all of the sequential amendments that are taking part. So Part 1 consolidates all of our senior courts—which are the High Court the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court—into one piece of legislation and it goes into great detail also around the appointment of judges.That is where I want to pick up. If we look at clause 6A(1) I just have a question for the Minister of Justice which is in relation to the actual number of judges. In that clause it says that the total number of judges must not exceed 55. I understand that that provision is actually in the current Judicature Act and it goes back quite a few years. My question is: why is it set at 55? What is the calculation that has come to that magical number? Also we have set a maximum number but we have not set a minimum number. Why is there not a minimum number of judges at any one time? Why have we not placed a cap on that? I would be interested if the Minister could perhaps address that point because I think it is very important.If for instance we have got a population of 4.5 million - odd Kiwis and we have a capped number of only 55 judges that is not very many judges per head of population. So I would be interested because this number has been carried over—it has not been changed—so I was just wondering why we have not looked at that. I understand that the Law Commission did not address this point but I think it would be good to know whether there is a formula whether there is some reason why we have only a statutory capped number.Another reason why I say that is—my goodness—because I have been somewhat bamboozled by the different types of judges whom we now have in this legislation. In addition to the judges of the courts at each level we have got additional judges we have got associate judges we have got acting judges and we have got part-time judges—there is such a wide array of judges. We are modernising the law but I have just been absolutely quite confused by the different types of judges who have now been put into this modern piece of legislation. The reason I say that is that if we look at the number we have a capped number of 55 High Court judges in Aotearoa New Zealand. We cannot go over that amount but there are always exceptions that they put into the legislation. I was intrigued to see that the Governor-General can appoint additional judges to the 55 but only in the case where a judge is anticipating retirement or is on leave pending retirement. So that begs the question: why do the judges not just retire? Why do you have to bring in an additional judge in anticipation or while the judge takes leave before retiring? That then exceeds the cap so then they have had to put in this statutory exception which exceeds the cap of 55.It goes further. I think we do need to look at these provisions because there is an age limit of 70 years; a judge cannot hold office unless they are under 70 years of age—unless they are an acting judge. In that case they can go on for up to an extra 5 years. Why cap judges' eligibility at 70 years of age and yet say they can continue on as a judge until they are 75 years of age? Why do we not just set the limit at 75? Because in many instances those judges just carry on and they just give themselves a new label whether it is acting judge part-time judge associate judge—or whatever judge. So why do we not just give them a 75-year age limit and leave it at that? Do not give them leave and give them a different title while they are pending retirement. I also want to return to the point. These are very valid points that I am raising. This is very important because this is the High Court of New Zealand. These are senior judges whom we are talking about. These are very valid questions that I would like the Minister to address.The final point that I would like to make is that we have addressed the point about the age limits. As we know 70 years of age is also quite relatively young. I know of the two candidates running for the President of the United States of America: both of them are just hitting 70 years of age right now—or there or thereabouts. Hon Member: Not a good example.RINO TIRIKATENE: Sure one might be a bit māuiui at the moment but they are going for the highest office in the world—the leader of the free world—and they are 70 years of age now. And we are cutting off our judges at 70 years of age. I think consideration should be given to extending that retirement age—yes right through to the 75-year age limit which is already allowed in an exceptional circumstance.This may seem a bit dry and it is very arcane a lot of this stuff—a lot of the subject matter in this bill—but it is very important. If we are modernising if we are trying to rejuvenate our court system and in particular our senior courts—what I find is that lawyers love to consider every conceivable scenario and then they can draft for it and add exceptions to any legal drafting that takes place. That is what I see here. There are a lot of exceptions and different labels for different terms of office but at the end of the day we just want qualified senior members of our judiciary—the best jurists in the country—to be able to hold those very esteemed offices and responsibilities that they have in those roles. I do believe that some of the provisions in this so-called modernisation Act are may be leading to a bit more confusion. But then again I have not gone back to the Judicature Act 1908 so that could be addressed. Thank you.