Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) Link to this

Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this very important legislation, which National has supported right through from the first reading, back on 19 July last year, and the second reading. We are now supporting it in the Committee stage, and will be supporting it at the third reading.

Part 1 refers to the appointment of justices of the peace and their continuing in office. One of the concerns that has surprised me over the years that I have dealt with is self-promotion. People in the community will ring up and say that they are interested in becoming a JP. When one questions them and asks why they want to do that, they say they are retired and have the time to put into it. But when one sits down to see what their motivation really is, one sees that it is not necessarily about serving the community but more about saying that they are a JP and having that honorific behind their name.

On occasions, however, there are shortages of JPs. I mentioned in the second reading someone I know very well who is a JP and who no longer lives in the same rural district. Another person who was a JP in that district had died, and a third person had been a JP for about 5 years and was not prepared to do anything at all. That rural community was not being serviced, and that made it very difficult to have continuity and for that community to access the services that JPs are required to do.

One of the aspects of this bill that I fully support is that justices will undertake training before they are actually appointed and gazetted. That will streamline the process considerably. A number of JPs—in fact, the registrar gave me some information about that and it is about 500 or 600—are not members of any justices association in the country. There is no requirement at the present time for them to undertake any training. In Matamata, where I have been the president of the local branch for a number of years, we have undertaken training on a regular basis so that local justices have an opportunity to be up to speed with all the legislation and, more important, the practical aspects of being a ministerial JP.

When 500 to 600 JPs are not members of any justices association, it makes it very difficult to have some continuity and some acceptable standards. It is not an onerous task to become a JP if one meets the requirements and there is a need. If one can ascertain that there is a need in a community for another JP, that is great, but in many cases there is not. I had someone ring today wanting to nominate someone. I said that if that person showed me a need in the community, I would look to support that nomination. Unless that can be done, then I am afraid we are often talking about self-promotion. I see heads nodding on the other side of the Chamber.

Another thing that I think is important as a JP is that I always carry the little booklet. It is always in my possession, because in it one can see exactly what the roles are, and one can refer to it and find out what is actually required. If one is going to issue a summons for a defendant or be involved in a search warrant, it explains word by word what to do and how to go about that. So I always carry that in my bag, and on numerous occasions over the years it has been very, very useful to have.

Of course, most JPs get involved only in witnessing documents. That role is probably very straightforward. Other duties are to take statutory declarations and oaths of allegiance. Probably not many JPs would issue search warrants, but on occasion that happens. JPs issue summonses and warrants to arrest, and also, sometimes, if the Minister wants someone to, they can be involved in citizenship ceremonies. So, all in all, JPs are a very valuable community asset. They have earned prestige and are well respected in the community and they carry that with them.

In the area of training, I think this bill goes a long way to making sure that justices are brought up to speed. JPs must do that training before they are gazetted. I will quote from a submission that was made to the Law and Order Committee. I did not sit on the select committee, but I can identify with this case, and I think it is really worth mentioning it here. A 62-year-old woman who presented herself for training did not cope well with the course. She had three private training sessions, a further round of training with another induction group, and completed a CD-ROM training programme. After all this training, some 14 hours, and a lot of one-on-ones, she sat the test, which is standardised throughout New Zealand. At 12 marks out of 50 she failed the test, but she still became a JP. That is the sort of situation this bill will tidy up. We are looking for standards and we are looking for integrity in the process—that is very, very important.

The other area this bill deals with is the retired status. The registrar emailed me and said that—these figures are probably out of date now, but I think they highlight a point—there are about 220 JPs born before 1920, with 94 of those aged over 90 years. That is a significant number of people, who at that age probably are not really interested in doing JP duties. Having the retired status and the honorific behind their name will show that they have made a valuable contribution to society, and they will be recognised in that way without having to go through the process of any other training or having to be called on for duties.

So with those few words I say that this is important legislation for justices of the peace throughout New Zealand. The Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations can be congratulated. This has been in the pipeline for a long time, and I know how impatient JPs have been getting in some cases. This bill is certainly a move in the right direction.

KATE WILKINSON (National) Link to this

In rising to take a brief call on Part 1 in the Committee stage of this Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill, I reiterate and certainly endorse what my colleague Mr Tisch has just said. In fact, he has taken half of my notes from me.

By way of background, and just for the record, there are approximately 10,700 JPs in New Zealand, and they undertake a variety of duties. Some duties are more administrative than others, such as witnessing signatures and taking oaths and declarations, and some are more specialised duties, such as issuing search warrants or summons warrants to arrest, etc. I understand that about 400 JPs undertake a judicial role.

JPs have a crucial role in our community. They are, and should be, available for a variety of issues and functions. Mr Tisch has already said that, demographically, most JPs are older. We heard in the Law and Order Committee that 81 percent are aged between 51 and 80—and that is only of those who are members of the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations. Not all JPs are members of that federation—in fact, of the 10,700 JPs, only some 7,500 are members, 35 percent being women and 65 percent being men.

In relation to Part 1, which we are addressing, we have already heard that it provides mainly for, firstly, training—JPs will have to undertake training before assuming their duties—and, secondly, a retired status, which allows JPs to use the designation “JP (retired)”. In relation to training, currently training has been made available for most JPs, although this has been under a voluntary regime. Under this bill, however, training will now be mandatory for newly appointed JPs, prior to taking their oath of office.

It is vitally important that JPs do understand the significance and responsibilities of the role they are about to take on, whether or not they intend to undertake judicial work. It is certainly disturbing to hear from some submitters that some of the nominees—and, indeed, some JPs once appointed—simply cannot read and write English to a satisfactory standard. The standard of English required is quite high, as some of the legalistic vocabulary and concepts are unfamiliar to many lay people. They are bad enough for those for whom English is a first language, let alone for those for whom it is a second language. Mr Tisch has already mentioned the appointee who had three training sessions and, even at the end of those, according to submitters, she was unable to perform any of the functions of a JP except to sign her name. It was quoted: “It is an indictment on the current system that she was nominated in the first place, and that she progressed through the system.”

It certainly should be easy to ascertain through scrupulous interviewing whether candidates have the necessary literary levels. This bill also provides for compulsory judicial training, and to have that undertaken before the JP is appointed and sworn in. It is obviously too late if the candidate has already been sworn in and it is found that he or she will never be able to perform his or her duties satisfactorily. I have said that most districts do have a training regime in place, but it is important and comforting to know that that regime is now mandatory. Training is current practice, but now at least it is enshrined in statute and is a statutory requirement.

Many associations already have a policy that JPs must attend a number of refresher courses per year in order to be on the judicial panel. With JPs as judicial officers, consistency of standards is especially vital, and this is emphasised by the requirements of the bill, which enshrines what has become prudent practice. It does recognise the importance of the role of JPs in the court, in the specialist area it is. Although it is not new, at least it is now mandatory. It is aimed at maintaining a degree of national consistency, and now it is supported by legislation.

Mr Tisch has already mentioned that JPs can now have the designation “JP (retired)”. To be a JP is a respected and honourable position, and by allowing the designation “JP (retired)” respect is still shown without the JP having to be active and available for normal JP duties. Needless to say, there is a distinction between a JP resigning and a JP retiring, and the designation reflects that distinction. A “JP (retired)” will no longer be able to exercise any of the duties and functions of the office. On that note, I can say that National supports Part 1 of the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) Link to this

I will take a call to reinforce—given the unanimity about this bill—some of the comments that have already been mentioned.

I will touch first on Mr Tisch’s point about self-promotion. I think, in essence, that his point is valid, although I have to say that prior to my becoming Minister, probably the vast majority of the JPs I nominated were people I did not know. They were people who had actually come forward as community-minded people. I suspect that Mr Tisch was talking about those who are self-promoters in the worst sense of the word—and he is nodding. But there are community-minded people who come forward and say that they want to contribute; they have heard about this thing called a justice of the peace, and they want to know what it involves and how they can contribute.

I—and, I know, most other members of Parliament—have tended to follow the set of rules that fall outside the legislation and are directives from the office of the Minister of Justice. These are guidelines that require, for instance, a person to go and get three references, if you will, or letters of community support. I often say to my nominees that they should go and pull a CV together and get as many letters of community support as they can. I think, in essence, that for us as members of Parliament who are nominating JPs—and I acknowledge that the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations has also raised this issue—that goes some way towards quality control checking of the motivations of those who have put their names forward. I do not have a problem with people who self-nominate—those who come and say they want to have a go.

Members have made reference to the age of justices of the peace, which is a problem. In one respect it is a great problem to have, because with age, of course, comes experience. We have a large number of mentors and leaders in the justice of the peace community who can provide that leadership and training for younger people as they come on. I know that Gavin Kerr, the immediate past-president of the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations with whom I worked closely this year, Alan Hart, the royal federation registrar, and the incoming president, John Falconer, and I are all agreed that we have to encourage younger people and more diverse people in the community, such as those who can speak foreign languages. It is of little help in some ways if a JP is a member of a community with, say, a large number of Korean members, but the JP cannot speak the lingo. There are some in our communities who may frown upon those people of ethnicity becoming JPs, but I think the vast majority of this Parliament—probably the entire Parliament—would welcome it.

So the royal federation, myself, and others believe that there has to be encouragement of diversity and of younger people coming on. We must foster those senior JPs, and ask them to mentor and lead the younger folks through. I support self-promotion but, as Mr Tisch quite rightly says, self-promotion must be for the best motives.

The bill deals with compulsory training. It will be compulsory for new JPs to undergo a training course, whether they are judicial or ministerial. One member has alluded to the fact that there are various customs and practices in different associations, and that one association requires ongoing training for a judicial JP. The issue with that, though, is that there is no legal requirement; it is a sort of custom and practice that has been adopted by one association.

As we go through this legislation it is worth noting in the Committee that, running alongside this, the royal federation, myself, and the ministry have developed a stocktake document, which is being released. That document lists all the customs and practices that have been adopted—some very good, some inspired, and some downright awful. It will be taken out and given to members of Parliament, and to JP associations and their members. They will be asked to comment on the recommendations. So as we pass this bill we are also looking for standardisation of best practice. I believe that that stocktake document was alluded to in the Law and Order Committee.

I have to say that neither training of itself nor anything in this bill of itself gives a JP association or the royal federation the power of veto over a candidate. The power to nominate lies with a member of Parliament, and the power to confer that nomination lies with the Minister of Justice. This bill does not delegate power to an association to effectively vet or veto. As one member has alluded to, I believe that the training—and there are some famous or infamous cases—will allow some quality control. JPs and the royal federation have said to me that there was one individual whose literary skills were not known—or the lack of them, sadly—until the individual picked up the warrant card to swear the oath.

There will be joint, robust interviews between registrars and association members that uncover the motivations and highlight the qualities of nominees. If there are issues, they will be able to be dealt with without, shall we say, the embarrassment as under the present system of having somebody nominated, accepted, and gazetted publicly, and then our finding out there is an issue. The issue may be linguistic or literal, but effectively it creates a huge problem and a huge embarrassment. But I say again that though training is compulsory, it does not confer a power of veto or vetting on the associations.

Can I make just a couple of other points. We have talked about the age of JPs, and I will refer to the late Mick Goldsbro, who had—and my officials may tell me—60 or 70 years as a JP. At the time of his death he was, I think, the longest-serving justice of the peace in New Zealand history. We honoured him. He was residing in Hamilton and I, along with Martin Gallagher, the chair of the Law and Order Committee, had the privilege of meeting him. He exhibited all the best that is our JP community. JPs are volunteers. They are people who give of their time—the late Mick Goldsbro gave of his time throughout his life. In this day and age of hustle and bustle where there is no longer the 8-hour day or the 5-day working week, I think it is noteworthy to remember for a moment the justices of the peace who have passed away and also the current crop, who every day save a heck of a lot of taxpayers’ money in doing their job, whether it be on the bench judicially or in their ministerial capacity.

In respect of training, things have moved on. We now have moved into the new era of the CD-Rom; we have the training manual on CD-Rom. We have a purchase agreement, if you will, for services between the Government and the royal federation. Training is no longer a case of going to the crusty, draughty rugby clubrooms on a Saturday afternoon and doing half a day of training. That does not suit some people’s lives, and sometimes the training product that is given is not appropriate. Now, technology provides for a lot of self-education in one’s own home and at one’s own speed and in one’s time.

There was a call to have compulsory ongoing training. The Government does not support that, because with 10,500-odd JPs, I do not want to spend a bucket load of money on training somebody who is out in a region and may once or twice be asked to give his or her services. I would rather, as many of the associations do, target those, for instance, who are doing technical work like signing search warrants, or whatever, or who are on a preferred list because they are active and actively pursuing regular training. I think that is smarter than simply having a scattergun approach, spending a bucket load of money, and having ongoing training simply for training’s sake.

I thank members of the House, and particularly the chair of the Law and Order Committee, Martin Gallagher, who have supported this bill. I also thank members of the Opposition and others. It was a slightly more drawn out process than any of us expected, but I think the product we have on the Table today is a bipartisan bill that has the general support—or total support, I would hope—of all members.

The point was made that justices of the peace have waited some time for this, and that is true, but I know they look forward to it with relish. They are embarking on the sort of new world order that further professionalises their profession, and far from downgrading any part of the JP community this bill will actually enhance it.

I think the clause providing for the use of “JP (retired)” after 10 years is very apt. It allows those JPs who have given their all but would like to retain the honorific to do so. At the end of the day that is the only gift, as it were, that is conferred upon many of our JPs, especially those in the ministerial role. They can withdraw their service and retain the honorific as a symbol of the service they have rendered to our community and to our nation.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) Link to this

I follow on from the previous speakers, who I think have all given a very excellent summary of some of the issues facing the office of justice of the peace. I just reflect that the office goes back hundreds of years, literally to the Middle Ages—certainly to the ancient realm of England, when it was an ancient realm. Originally, the office of justice of the peace was a very venerable institution—and still is. Over the years it has evolved. Historically, English law spread, as a result of British settlement around the world, and New Zealand, as a former colony, inherited, if you like, this particular office of JP.

I think the first JP in New Zealand was appointed in the early 19th century—I am sure that the Associate Minister of Justice, Clayton Cosgrove, will be quick to correct me if I am wrong. Virtually with the arrival of Samuel Marsden we were looking at some form of justice of the peace—certainly prior to the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. If we look across the Tasman, we see that justices of the peace were obviously established very early on in terms of the initial colonisation by the British of Australia. As we are aware, Australia was a series of colonies before federation. So we are going right back to the 18th century in the case of Australia, and certainly to the very early 19th century in the case of New Zealand.

I know that my good colleague the Hon Dover Samuels is listening very keenly and intently to this debate, and the challenge, as he has mentioned to me on previous occasions, is how we evolve this office to suit the framework of our current society and how we not so much modernise but evolve an office that has a very proud, ancient tradition to suit the needs of society today.

One of the interesting issues that Part 1 raises, and it has been touched on, is the issue of lay involvement, or community participation, in the judiciary, whereby good women and men work and participate in the community and are able to serve in this way.

It was a great pleasure to serve as the chair of the Law and Order Committee that considered this bill, and on previous occasions I have given great praise to the Minister for his considerable encouragement and understanding of the committee in getting this bill on its way. I have had many very warm, good conversations with the Minister. He would say to come to his office after 10 o’clock at night, and he would ask how the bill was going and say he was really keen to get it through. I thank the Minister for his immense encouragement at all times. I certainly hope that I conveyed that to members of the committee.

I have already praised members of the select committee, and I think there are three key people to praise. I want to praise a lot of former presidents of the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations. I certainly want to mention Mary Symmans and Bob Armstrong from the Waikato for their historical influence on this bill. There are other presidents of the federation and executive, and I certainly give them particular praise. I previously mentioned Gavin Kerr, who is the immediate past-president of the federation, and I also mention John Falconer, the current president, and the executive team, including Alan Hart, who have impressed upon us over the last 2 or 3 years in particular the need for this bill.

Other speakers have talked about the issue of training suitable people to take up this office. Notwithstanding this bill, I have noted as a member of Parliament that what Ministers—particularly the excellent Minister the Hon Rick Barker and the excellent Minister the Hon Paul Swain, who had oversight of JPs prior to the current Minister—have increasingly insisted on and focused on when a person has been nominated to become a justice of the peace for New Zealand is the need for CVs, personal references, and community references. Certainly, under those previous two Ministers there was very much a raising of the bar and raising of the standard in the Minister’s office in terms of nominations proceeding. In terms of the current Minister, I have to say that my office has had a phone call on a couple of occasions from the Minister’s office saying that I have not provided an adequate CV or that the Minister is looking for a personal reference or another community reference. I praise the staff in the current Minister’s office, because they are doing the job to make sure that all that information is available to the Minister prior to his or her decision on whether to support the nomination of a particular individual.

Lindsay Tisch and Kate Wilkinson have made very good contributions tonight. They also have talked around the issue of training. Lindsay Tisch talked about the example of a person who found some difficulty in coming up to the plate. Hopefully, the personal references, testimonials, and CVs—which, I have to say, have been requested since before this particular bill was introduced—will act as checks and balances. The point Lindsay Tisch made very clearly is that there will be a final backstop if we get that process wrong. The final backstop is that a justice of the peace will need to pass the appropriate training prior to his or her gazetting and appointment.

That also raises a very interesting issue that my good colleague the Hon Paul Swain and I have discussed, along with the current Minister and others, which is to make sure that the training and evaluation are robust. This is not just a situation of the people of the federation making the final decision on whether someone passes a training programme. The decision on whether someone passes a training programme has to stand up to good, objective criteria. The final training session has to be subject to good, objective criteria—and it is—so that the people who are finally sworn in as justices of the peace come up to the plate.

The other thing I will take the opportunity to talk about—and the Minister has alluded to this—is the issue of the information CD and the really excellent work that the royal federation has been doing with the Minister’s office and department officials in terms of the training package, the information package, and aids for current justices of the peace, in particular, as well as for new, intended justices. I know that the current Minister has spent a lot of time with his officials with regard to that CD-Rom and information package. I think that is really important.

In summary, we have a series of steps that make it more rigorous for a person wanting to be nominated and sworn in as a JP. Individuals who are serving as justices of the peace now have an ongoing, developing and, I think, excellent training package—a refresher course, if you like—that the federation itself provides. They are also aided and assisted by things like the CD-Rom, which in my view is absolutely excellent.

I will also talk a little bit about why the select committee has agreed with the federation around the issue of the designation of “JP (retired)”. My good colleague Kate Wilkinson mentioned this before. I will just add to her comments on that; I will not be too much longer. This bill is very, very important, and as chair of the Law and Order Committee I am, naturally, very enthusiastic about it. I want to say a few things about the term “JP (retired)”. I know that this particular item has caused Richard Worth quite a bit of reflection. I acknowledge Richard Worth in the Chamber and the great support he has given to this bill. I respect his very esteemed legal career and know that he is very, very supportive of the role of justices of the peace in New Zealand.

The “JP (retired)” designation does two things. First, it acknowledges absolutely those justices of the peace who have given faithful, meritorious voluntary service over many, many years. Indeed, the designation is a way in which they can hang up their plate, and it is an opportunity for us as a community to acknowledge and honour the work they have done. Second, I think that once this bill comes in, the designation of “JP (retired)” will encourage another group of justices to say that they have done their stint of 20 or 30 years. Clearly, what we are aiming for is to make sure that the justices still out there are active, trained, and able to give excellent service to the community.

I really do not feel I have had enough time, but I will finish here. Finally, I take the opportunity to acknowledge the role of justices of the peace. This bill is a very, very good step along the way, and I look forward to making further contributions to the debate on the other parts of this bill. Thank you.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) Link to this

I just want to—

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) Link to this

I sense from the amused smiles of those members on the Government side of the House that we are currently being subjected to something akin to filibustering. The Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill is legislation that the National Party supports. There is no need for the honourable member to espouse the virtues of this legislation, which are well known to us, are well known to the select committee, and—presumably—are well known to the public and to the members of the federation to which the member has spoken. Might we just get on with these events instead of this protracted process of non-advancement in terms of merit?