Barker Rick: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — First Reading 
Barker Rick: Judicial Retirement Age Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6565] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the Judicial Retirement Age Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration. 
This bill proposes to raise the retirement age for all judges of all courts associate judges of the High Court coroners and community magistrates from 68 to 70 years. Judicial retirement age has received little legislative attention since it was first introduced in 1903 when the Supreme Court Judges Act introduced a mandatory retirement age of 72 for judges of the higher courts. In 1908 the Judicature Act consolidated various Acts relating to the higher courts including the Supreme Court Judges Act and the retirement age of 72 was retained. The statutory retirement age for higher court judges has since been provided for by section 13 of the Judicature Act. 
In 1979 the report of the Royal Commission on the Courts noted that 72 years was out of line with the generally accepted retirement age for most public offices the civil service—where people at that time were required to retire at 60—and the business community. The commission recommended that the retirement age for all judges be reduced to 65. In 1981 the retirement age for higher court judges was reduced from 72 to 68 to bring the retirement age into line with that for judges of other courts such as the District Court where it had been set at 68 since 1924. 
A compulsory retirement age is desirable for a number of reasons. The first reason is that of judicial independence. Judicial independence is fundamental to the operation of a democratic society. Judges need to be able to act independently. They must be able to carry out their role of determining cases before them in accordance with the law and free of concern about their security of tenure. Judicial independence may be compromised if there is a perception that judges are not concerned with the merits of the case before them and instead are concerned with finding favour with the Government in order to secure appointment. An apparent lack of independence would also diminish public confidence in the administration of justice. Security of tenure and its counterpoint a compulsory retirement age are key protections of judicial independence. A compulsory retirement age enables judges to carry out their functions and duties fearlessly without concern as to their future term of office. 
The second reason a compulsory retirement age is seen is desirable is that it limits the need to monitor individual judges’ ability which might otherwise be required so as to ensure the continuing effectiveness of the judiciary. At present a judge can be removed from office only on the grounds of that judge’s misbehaviour or incapacity to discharge the functions of his or her office. Having a compulsory retirement age helps to ensure that issues of incapacity rarely arise. 
New Zealand’s current judicial retirement age of 68 is low compared with that in overseas jurisdictions. In the United Kingdom Australia and Ireland the retirement age is 70. In Canada all superior court judges retire at 75. Not only is a retirement age of 68 comparatively low in relation to that in overseas jurisdictions but also it does not reflect the fact that many people including judges are more than capable of working well past their 68th birthday. Improved health and lifestyle standards mean that many people now expect to actively participate in employment into their late 60s and in some cases beyond then. With many people able to continue working later in life the requirement to retire from the bench at 68 may also discourage some worthy candidates from accepting a position as a judge at a later stage in their legal career. 
The current retirement age of 68 causes a loss of valuable knowledge and experience to the judiciary. It removes from the bench a group that possesses experience maturity and judgment. In New Zealand many judges continue to work in related fields after retiring from the bench—for example as arbitrators. A number of retired judges have gone on to become highly regarded arbitrators. 
The bill is a simple one. It proposes to replace the retirement age of 68 with 70 in six Acts: the District Courts Act 1947 the Employment Relations Act 2000 the Judicature Act 1908 the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 the Coroners Act 1988 and the Coroners Act 2006. The new retirement age will apply to all existing appointments as at the date of commencement and to all new appointments following that date. I commend this bill to the House.