Finlayson Christopher: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:7644] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I have just a couple of points to make about Part 2. The first is to address a question that the Law Society raised in a letter it sent to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The letter said there was quite a good argument for the retirement age to go back to 72—indeed some people would say it should go up to 75. That is perhaps a question for the future but in the meantime I think that the move to 70 is about right and for the reasons I have already said—it is basically in line with what happens in other jurisdictions. 
Admittedly however many fine people have retired from our bench then gone on to serve in other courts for quite a number of years. I refer for example to the former President of the Court of Appeal Sir Robin Cooke as he then was. He retired as President of the Court of Appeal in 1996 and uniquely for a New Zealander he was appointed to the House of Lords where he sat dealing with English appeals. He also sat on the Privy Council dealing with New Zealand appeals. He did that for another 5 or 6 years. So he continued to make a huge contribution there. He also continued to sit even after he retired from the House of Lords on the Court of Appeal of Samoa and a number of the other courts around the Pacific. 
A more recent example is that of Sir Kenneth Keith who having served with distinction on the Court of Appeal and on the new Supreme Court retired from the Supreme Court last year after his appointment as a judge of the International Court of Justice. He retired from the Supreme Court at the age of 68 and he will be able to sit on the International Court of Justice until the age of 78. The points made by the Law Society are not without merit and I think the question will be revisited sometime in the future. 
I have only one question of the Minister which may entice him to get to his feet and that concerns Subpart 5 which deals with amendments to the Coroners Act 1988. I am not quite sure—and I would be grateful if the Minister could elucidate—why exactly it is necessary to refer to the 1988 legislation when of course Subpart 6 refers to the Coroners Act 2006. As the Minister well knows that legislation went through this House last year. If my memory serves me correctly the Government has already appointed a new chief coroner who is a former District Court judge from Christchurch and is in the process of appointing the 14 or 15 coroners who will serve full-time as is anticipated by the new regime. So perhaps the Minister could tell me why it is necessary to amend legislation that I know has not been repealed. I know there are some transitional provisions but it would seem to be a bit of a waste of time because the new regime will be in place very soon indeed. 
The final point I make and it is in the nature of a suggestion to the Minister for Courts is that when one looks at the various legislation we are amending like the District Courts Act 1947 and the Judicature Act 1908 one can see that those Acts are long overdue for comprehensive reform. I suggest to the Government that there would be much to commend it if we had a comprehensive Courts Act. For example when one reads through the Judicature Act 1908 one sees that in the space of 99 years it has been amended on a huge number of occasions and at least half of the sections that were originally in that Act have been repealed. When one looks at the various court statutes in this way one sees that a very strong case can be made for a consolidated Courts Act. I suggest to the Minister that 2008 the 100th anniversary of the passage of the Judicature Act 1908 would be a very good time to do that. It should not be too much work; it would be a question of consolidating the various statutes. [ 
Interruption 
] It is a complicated matter but I believe that the Minister should take it on board because it would be a very good piece of work and I could assure him that the Justice and Electoral Committee with its usual sedulous approach to the dispatch of business would deal with it very carefully. But I would be very interested to know why we are amending legislation that is very soon to be totally repealed.