Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) Link to this
I move, That the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill be now read a second time. In order to maintain public confidence in the role of justices of the peace—or JPs—in a system preserving the good name of the office, the Government introduced the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill to reform three areas: training, discipline, and retirement. The bill establishes a modern framework for a long-established and venerable community institution. The bill is divided into two parts. The first part relates to the training of newly appointed JPs, and the authorisation to use the designation “JP (retired)”. The second part provides an appropriate and clear disciplinary process for JPs.
At this point—and I am sure that Simon Power, a member of the Law and Order Committee, will join with me—I congratulate and thank not only all the JPs that serve our community but also the immediate past President of the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations, Gavin Kerr, who, from the point of view of the royal federation, shepherded through this bill. I note that he has been honoured in this year’s Honours List, and I think he will receive his honour in the next 24 or 48 hours. I thank him, together with Alan Hart, the royal federation’s registrar, and, of course, the incoming president, John Falconer. I also thank the Law and Order Committee, especially its chair, Martin Gallagher, and its members—Ron Mark, Simon Power, and others—who have shepherded this bill through the House. The bill, by its nature, is pretty bipartisan and non-controversial, and I thank those members and those parties for their support.
The main amendments include the following: clarifying that initial training will occur prior to appointment; introducing a requirement that justices complete compulsory judicial training before exercising a judicial function, such as presiding in a court; clarifying the suspension period in working days; defining the secretary as the Secretary for Justice, as mentioned in the bill; changing the age when a justice may apply for exemption from performing judicial functions from 68 years to 70 years; and introducing a distinction in the legislation between the act of retiring and resigning.
The committee also considered introducing into the bill a provision for limited tenure for JPs. Although I understand the motivations for the committee to consider fixed-term appointments for JPs, with a review before reappointment, I have to say that I am happy to see that that was not pursued. Limited tenure would be an expensive business to establish and to administer. I am confident that the issues justifying such a system will be dealt with effectively through the disciplinary provisions in the bill, and through the administrative guidelines being developed outside the legislation.
The committee also discussed the issue of remuneration for JPs, but as noted by the committee itself, this bill is not the appropriate vehicle by which to approach this issue. Recognising the contributions of JPs in the New Zealand court system is a topic being explored by Ministry of Justice officials and by the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations, outside of the legislation.
I am confident that this bill will enhance public confidence in the role of JPs. The introduction of compulsory initial training before appointment, and the provision of an effective disciplinary process, will improve the quality and consistency of the work carried out by our JPs. These measures also indicate the high standard of behaviour that is expected of JPs as respected members of our community. The disciplinary provisions in the current Justices of the Peace Act are over 50 years old, and they allow for a JP to be removed from office in only the most serious of cases. The bill enhances the disciplinary regime by specifying the grounds for removal or suspension of a JP, and the process that must be followed to secure removal or suspension. A lower level set of disciplinary measures in the bill will ensure that JPs who are not performing to an acceptable level, but whose actions do not warrant removal from office, can receive an official written rebuke, and can be required to attend suitable training or receive counselling. I consider that specifying the disciplinary regime in the legislation provides a consistent, fair, and transparent basis for decision making.
Justices of the Peace have a proud history of service to our country. This Government—and, I know, all members of this House—commend the significant amount of time and effort that justices of the peace volunteer in the performance of their duties. As Associate Minister of Justice responsible for this part of the justice portfolio, and as one who has travelled around New Zealand—with the privilege of visiting with JPs from Dunedin, to Invercargill, to Auckland, and of attending the conference of JPs this year in Napier—I am mindful of the huge amount of voluntary time and effort that these people put in. They are not paid; they are volunteers. Many very senior members of our community, by their very nature, want to give something back to their communities after finishing long and honourable careers.
Before concluding, I again pay tribute to Gavin Kerr, the immediate past president of the royal federation. That gentleman is an innovator. He has been a JP for many, many years and has contributed a huge amount to our communities. When he came in last year as president, he set the organisation on a path not only to provide support to push through this bill but also to push best practice. Simon Power and others will be aware—as we go through and do a stocktake in order to get best practice in some of the customs and practices that are outside the legislation, and in the systems that have developed—that Gavin Kerr has championed that process. We will go out for consultation with a document that has been agreed to by the royal federation and the ministry, in order to consult with JP branches and associations, in order to get unanimity, and in order to get consistency of these customs and practices and best practice performance. That consultation is supported, I know, by Gavin Kerr.
Equally, I commend Alan Hart, a long-time registrar of the royal federation—the ballast, if you like, in the administration, in the organisation—and also John Falconer for the zest and vigour that he exhibited at the royal federation conference as the incoming president of the federation. He wants to continue the work, along with Gavin Kerr, who will remain an integral part of these reforms as they flow through. As a way of recognising the commitment of long-serving JPs, it is also noteworthy that the bill allows former JPs who have served for at least 10 years to apply to use the title “JP (retired)”. If someone has contributed for 10 years, and wants to keep the honorific but feels he or she wants to take a step back, I believe that that person has earned it.
I commend the bill to the House as an important and necessary step in modernising the roles of justices of the peace, so that the New Zealand public may continue to have confidence in this office, and so that the good name of the office can be upheld.
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) Link to this
In the 47 seconds I have before the dinner break, I will start by congratulating the Associate Minister of Justice, Clayton Cosgrove, on shepherding the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill through the process to get it to its second reading. I also take this opportunity to congratulate Martin Gallagher, who chaired the Law and Order Committee, and who did a good job, actually, of managing what at first appeared to be a simple and straightforward matter. But as we, as a select committee, spent more time in getting into the issues, we discovered that the opportunity may have been ripe for a wider overhaul in this area.
Before the break I was congratulating Martin Gallagher on his work as the chair of the Law and Order Committee. I will not do that again, because it would then appear twice in Hansard, and that would be less than satisfactory.
I think that when the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill arrived at the select committee the Associate Minister, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, had formed the view that it was a speedy matter and simply one of form to put in place legislation that reflected the wishes and desires of the Justices’ Associations, and that the matter would be straightforward. Of course, once the matter reached Martin Gallagher’s powerful Law and Order Committee, it became a bill that Parliament was concerned with, not just the Minister. At that point the select committee spent some time considering one or two other matters outside what would, I guess, technically be called the original scope of the bill.
The officials who sat in on this process were not—well, they did not say so, but it was pretty evident—overly thrilled with this approach, but the point was that we had to take the opportunity to consider one or two things. One of those was something that the JPs had sought from the Government and was contained in the legislation to a point, and that was compulsory training prior to a warrant being issued. Many MPs who have recommended JPs over the years will have been disappointed on the odd occasion when a nominee did not carry out the duties of a JP in the way that the local constituency electorate MP thought the JP may have done at the point the recommendation was signed off.
At that point we, as a committee, agreed with the Justices’ Associations that undergoing and passing training should be a requirement before a warrant was executed. Of course, that is not the case now, whereby a warrant is executed, then, if JPs are so inclined, they move towards a training regime that may or may not include court or judicial training—something that I personally believe all JPs should do. In fact, in my electorate I have adopted the practice of not signing a nomination for a JP unless that person gives me an undertaking, face to face, that he or she will undergo judicial training and at some point—maybe not immediately—take a seat on the bench and make a contribution from time to time in the District Court or, most often of course, on hearings relating to bail applications, depositions in some cases, and the like.
Of far more interest to the committee—and it was not without controversy—was the issue of limited tenure. We carefully considered whether to include in the bill provisions limiting the tenure of JPs to a 10-year period. In the end the committee decided against this, but it decided to consider putting in place a practising certificate, the idea being that those who were actively engaged in the process of providing services as a JP would simply renew their practising certificate after a 10-year period, for a nominal fee—or, if not a fee, a cost picked up by the Government of the day—and proceed about their business. But for those who held the designation of a justice of the peace but were not actively engaged in their community or actively using the powers or rights of their warrant, the Justices’ Associations—or a body delegated by it to look at these matters—would at that point be able to sit down with the candidate and say: “Well, you”—
Not quite, but the point is that they could sit down with a candidate and say: “What have you, as a justice of the peace, been up to for the last 5 or 6 years? We don’t seem to have an extensive record of your community activity, of your sitting on the bench and executing a ministerial warrant from time to time, and we’re really wondering what you have been up to.”
This particular proposal was rejected by the committee, but not without some debate. In fact, the chairman, who at that point was well in control of proceedings, asked whether the Justices’ Associations could return before the committee for a second time to talk to us about whether the issue of limited tenure would be one they were attracted to. Without dobbing in the Justices’ Associations on this issue, it is worth saying that at some point in the future the committee would like to see this matter looked at again. I think that in 5 or 10 years, when this legislation is still in place and the National Government is in its second or third term, it would be useful to sit down and say: “Well, do we need to consider whether limited tenure for justices of the peace is a worthwhile thing?”.
In any appointment that contains a ministerial warrant granted by the Governor-General, a certain standard is expected—not just a standard of application in terms of exercising the duties and powers of a justice of the peace but a standard of participation. That was something the select committee considered very closely. The House can see from the commentary on the bill that there were some concerns about the lack of tracking and monitoring of justices of the peace after their initial appointment, and that we were concerned that the current system did not allow easy recognition of JPs who were not committed to the exercise of roles, powers, and functions.
Of course, there is always the vexed question of remuneration hanging over a JP’s appointment and the extensive time that JPs often put into community activities with little or no financial recompense. As a committee we considered this. In fact, the chairman—now totally in control of proceedings—asked the Justices’ Associations whether it had a view on remuneration. Again, without dobbing in the Justices’ Associations, that is also something the House might like to consider at some later point. The reason I say that is that by this time the Associate Minister, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, was, by some accounts, becoming toey about the delays occurring at the Law and Order Committee in returning the bill to the House. This, of course, motivated the Opposition to look at these issues further and in more detail, which it did for some time.
In the end, though, in the interests of expediting legislation that is essentially for the justices themselves, it is, if the House will allow me, their legislation. On that basis the Opposition formed the view, under the strong hand of Martin Gallagher, that we were to move in a direction that would allow this legislation to return to the House as swiftly as possible.
So outstanding issues remain in respect of limited tenure for JPs and remuneration, but I will finish by making two or three comments. The first is that the National members of Parliament want to put on record the great value they place on the work of justices of the peace throughout New Zealand. They are a fine group of volunteers who do a considerable amount of work for the community, often with little or no recognition, and certainly with no financial reward. This is a group of people who selflessly give up time, not only to execute documents for their local community, to act as referees, or to swear affidavits or the like, but also, in the case of those who are particularly dutiful, to sit on the benches of our various District Courts, from time to time. We on the National side say to justices of the peace across New Zealand that we hope this legislation presents itself to them as useful, working legislation that reflects the modern realities of taking on this community job, with one or two issues outstanding that members on this side of the House would like to see addressed at some point in the future.
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) Link to this
I rise as chair of the Law and Order Committee, whose pleasure it was to consider the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill, and acknowledge the contribution of Simon Power and the Minister the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. This is one of those interesting and rare moments—although perhaps not very rare in terms of percentages—where there is agreement across the House. We come back to the Chamber with an essentially unanimous report.
First of all, I particularly acknowledge members of the select committee—the deputy chair Ron Mark, Simon Power, Kate Wilkinson, Chester Borrows, Jill Pettis, and the Hon Winnie Laban. They all worked together very constructively and proactively to try to come back with a bill in an amended form that will be the template—the platform—for the honourable office of justice of the peace for New Zealand to carry on into the 21st century. I will come back in a minute to the issue of limited tenure, because I think it deserves a mention; no doubt we will hear further mention of it in our third reading contributions.
First of all, I join with the previous two speakers in emphasising that justices of the peace play an extremely valuable and vital role in communities throughout New Zealand. They embody the spirit of the genuine community volunteer, in terms of their selfless work. I give the Minister the Hon Clayton Cosgrove particular praise in finally achieving the bringing of a bill to the House that basically updates and refines JP legislation. I believe that this legislation will greatly enhance the work of JPs. It is certainly a very clear and concise bill.
I take this opportunity also to pay particular tribute to the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations for its excellent work over the years as it tirelessly lobbied for this bill. Previous Ministers whom I have worked with will certainly testify to that. I am mindful that the bill has taken quite some time to come to the House, and I thank the Ministers for their patience. The royal federation, as a lobby group—if I can use that phrase, because obviously it plays that role—has a relationship with the Government, Opposition, and all parties in this House. I pay tribute to the federation, particularly its registrar Alan Hart, for the very professional way in which it has interacted with a number of members of this Parliament over the years. The bill is a reflection of that—that it has patiently put forward a view that we needed to update the legislation, which we have finally done.
I also note a media statement issued by the federation as a result of its latest excellent conference in Napier, which I and others attended. I pay particular tribute, first of all, to the immediate past president, Gavin Kerr, who, as the Minister has acknowledged, was honoured with a well-deserved Queen’s honour in the new year. I pay particular tribute to his leadership during this time. In the media statement, Gavin Kerr and the incoming president, Mr John Falconer, raised the issue of complacency. I will quote from the statement: “A loophole in the Justice of the Peace system that sees some JPs ‘disappear’ may be changed with a bill on its way through parliament, said Gavin Kerr and John Falconer, who were in Napier for the national JP conference last week.” This comes back to the issue of limited tenure, which I will return to. The statement continues: “Complacency is a major issue and, to be blunt, in the past there have been people who regard it as a reward system and we would like to see that totally done away with … We owe it to the New Zealand public to have competent and accessible JPs.” The statement also acknowledged that a small minority of JPs disappeared once they had been given the title.
I acknowledge the current and former Ministers for tightening up on the process by which JPs are nominated. As all MPs are aware, for a person now to be nominated by a member of Parliament, he or she first of all has to have at least two community references and a personal reference. The Minister’s office has to see some very clear, concise evidence of community service. I think that is excellent. The media statement also urged members of this Parliament to consider a nominee’s ability “to do the job, as if processes were mishandled in a public office, ramifications could be severe.” In other words, the very respectful message to us as members of Parliament, who are the first people in the chain who physically nominate JPs, is that we need to give great care and consideration to the process of nomination and make sure we have suitable people—by means of CVs, community references, and personal references at least. There has to be some evidence given to the Minister’s office that we are putting up suitable people.
What the bill does very positively—and I think this is a huge step forward—is give a final national consistency for the interview process. The federation has some views on that process. Once a person is interviewed and recommended back to the Minister for appointment to the office, he or she, as a result of this bill, now has to undergo compulsory, mandatory training. That is a final, good backstop, because obviously a person has to be willing to submit to that training, and if someone, having gone through all the other processes, is not suitable, then that is a backstop.
The other good provision is for the “JP (retired)” designation, which will do two things. First, it will give a JP who has given long and meritorious service the right to retain the title “JP (retired)”, which is an acknowledgment of that historic, meritorious community service. To allow those JPs to keep the letters after their name is a good way for the community to give them that kind of acknowledgment. However, I think that when this provision comes in there will be a number of JPs who feel that they have given service, who do not really want to be in the situation where they have disappeared, and who may reflect that it is time for them to genuinely retire. There will be a process where we will hopefully whittle down the list of JPs to those who are what we call “active JPs” per se.
In terms of limited tenure—in the brief time I have left—the select committee asked why we should wait for 5 or 10 years or whatever. If some JPs are not doing the job, there should be other processes put in place so that they can be weeded out. I am aware that the federation is doing ongoing work with the Minister in terms of keeping the roles updated and trying to track people who have literally disappeared into the woodwork. In my view, those people, through some sort of process, should be invited either to become active or to exercise their right to retire.
Finally, I say that the Minister—and it is probably a bit of an understatement—has been exceptionally keen to get this bill through. That is good. He was aware that this was long overdue and needed legislation. As a committee we have diligently and conscientiously gone through all the issues. As a result, I think we have brought back a good bill to Parliament and, as I said at the opening of my contribution, it will be a good template and platform for the very wonderful office of justice of the peace in New Zealand. I say “wonderful” in terms of the wonderful spirit of the volunteer and community service that the office of justice of the peace of New Zealand performs for the 21st century. Thank you.
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) Link to this
I am a staunch advocate of the role of JPs in communities. I spoke on 19 July last year on the role and background of a JP. I mentioned in particular the very ancient and honourable status that has been conferred on JPs over the last 600 years. The Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill acknowledges the status of retired JPs, and that is very good. As Martin Gallagher said, that is part of the JP programme that National fully supports.
The role of the JP has become much more complex in recent times as a result of legislation, and training now needs to take place before a warrant can be issued. I think that is a very good move, because at that stage one can determine whether the person nominated for the role of justice of the peace is committed to the particular role that will be involved.
Upskilling and training are very important in the ongoing development of a justice of the peace. I am in favour of there being much stricter vetting of applications when people come forward, in order to validate their commitment as individuals to what the role actually entails. There are numerous examples in our communities of people who have the honorific “JP” but, in fact, are not prepared to do anything. Over this last weekend a JP approached me who had left a district. This person told me that another JP in the same district had died, and that there was a third person who had been a justice of the peace for 5 years. That person was not prepared to do any work as a justice of the peace—to witness the signing of documents, and to do basic things that a JP is required and, on many occasions, requested to do. When a JP does not do these very simple tasks in a rural community, it is difficult for that community to be serviced. We spoke at length about what should happen. This person is looking to nominate someone and to get the information that is required—CVs and statements of support from organisations to the effect that there needs to be a JP within the area.
So there are those who have the honorific “JP” but are not prepared to do anything. Maybe in future reviews those people need to be looked at closely, and it needs to be decided whether there is a role for them to play in the future. In fact, I would advocate that if such people are not prepared to commit to the task, then their warrants could be cancelled. That is just a point that maybe we can consider in the future. Then there are those who do valued service and have performed loyal and honourable service for many, many years. To them we say “Thank you very much”.
The Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations has a proud reputation. It has stood the test of time over many, many years. It is highly regarded, and JPs who take an active part in it are highly regarded. National supports what that association is doing. It is worthy of this Parliament’s recognition and support. National is privileged to be able to support this bill at the second reading.
RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this
Pretty much all that needs to be said has been said, but it remains for me to put on the record New Zealand First’s position in respect of the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill. First, I have to say it was a pleasure working with the Law and Order Committee as we went through the legislation. Occasionally we have bills before select committees that are contentious and where issues are fought out. In the case of this bill I think all parties recognised—or, if they did not recognise it, the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations certainly made it clear to them—that the legislation as it stood from 1957 was outdated, outmoded, and in need of an urgent review to enable some workability to be restored to the regime, and to give some security and confidence going forward.
New Zealand First members put on record that we respect and appreciate the men and women who are the justices of the peace of New Zealand, and who take on the onerous task and responsibility of working for the people—largely for absolutely nothing in return. We understand and respect the responsibilities and burdens that they bear and their acceptance that they might well be woken at all hours of the night by a knock on the door from someone in blue or someone in need of help to get documents signed, be they search warrants or Government documents that need to be validated as being true and accurate copies of the original. Such boring and mundane tasks are vitally important to citizens when they need the help and support of a justice of the peace in those areas.
It was pretty widely known that there had become a political practice particularly within the two old parties, National and Labour, of using the JP regime as a means of rewarding people for their dutiful and loyal service, and enabling them to gather an honorific such as “JP” after their names. It was always a nice, tidy way of acknowledging someone’s contribution and support in certain areas and making use of his or her skills. It is interesting that we also often found that a number of persons out there bearing the title of JP were not actually doing the mahi. They were not doing the work, and they were not slow to inform people that they were not interested. That was of enormous concern to the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations, it was a concern to the Minister, and it was a concern to the select committee.
As a result, we welcome a tightening up and a broader cross-party—if I could put it that way—agreement that there is a need for change, there is a need to put in place criteria against which people will be assessed, and there are expectations that will now be enshrined in the legislation that nominees will undergo and complete training before they commence their duties as justices of the peace. Essentially, if they do not do that training they simply will not start work. We think that was a very, very sensible amendment to the Act.
The age of exemption had to be an issue, given that it was only a month or so ago that we passed legislation to increase the age at which judges may continue to serve to 70. I noted that the original bill wanted to lower the retirement age for justices of the peace from 72 to 68. We settled at the happy medium of 70, which brought it into line with the legislation affecting the judiciary.
The other area that Simon Power covered so well was the question of limited tenure. Again, I have to put on record an endorsement of those words, and say that we in New Zealand First actually see this as a first step—an important step. That step that has been taken at some pace because of the urgent need to get the legislation corrected. But we would envisage that this legislation will be back before the House again in time, that there will be some fine-tuning to it, and that the question of limited tenure is most likely to be on the agenda again for discussion and analysis. New Zealand First members signal concurrence and agreement with what Mr Power was saying—that there is room in the legislation for providing some mechanism by which we are able to limit the tenure or fix a period for which people must serve.
Hand in hand with such a provision will also go, I would assume, steps to enable the system to analyse and assess the performance of those people who have held the title of JP over the time for which they have been appointed. It is nonsensical in this day and age, I would argue, that people’s appointments could be renewed, and that those people could be allowed to continue in those appointments without an analysis having been conducted of their work performances over the period of time that they have held their appointments. It is also nonsensical that those people could be allowed to continue serving and holding the title without it being known precisely what they have been doing and how effectively they have been doing it. I hear people screaming in this House for accountability, measurability, and performance assessments, all the time—
They are always carping on about transparency. It is true that we need transparency, and we need accountability. But if we do not address those failings as they currently exist in this legislation in the long term, we might well regret that.
We believe that the addition of the honorific “JP” to those who are retiring as justices of the peace is eminently sensible. We believe that it is a good thing. It is the very least that Parliament can do to give recognition to the service of some New Zealanders who have given so unselfishly, at cost to themselves and their families, of their time, and who have worn the burden of responsibility. It is a civic duty for which they have not been remunerated or compensated for, to the degree that we believe they should be, or could be.
That brings me to the final point. There has been a lot of discussion about remuneration. I guess we would point out once again that a lot of people in this country give of their time freely—they do not give just of their time; they give of their assets. Anyone who was watching television tonight would have seen Mr Stephen Tindall. The discussion was about the amount of money that he, through his business and through his trusts, has given to New Zealanders, to charities, and to organisations, for good causes. “Bob the Builder” may think Mr Tindall is not giving a good service to the country, but I believe he is. I believe that New Zealanders such as him are very rare. We would be the poorer without New Zealanders like him. That is true of the men and women who bear the title of justice of the peace. It is nice—
Bob ClarksonWell, there we go. That is the man whom Tauranga elected to Parliament—a gibbering old idiot who sits over there, prattling on during the heart of a debate about which there is unanimity and consensus. The contribution “Bob the Builder” makes to the House is to come into this Chamber, having drunk I do not know what over dinner, and start prattling on about my tie.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
The member will be seated, please. The member has been here long enough to know that members cannot refer to other members by a nickname. I refer him to Speakers’ rulings 26/6 and 26/7. The member will come to order.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Mark made a derogatory comment about my colleague Bob Clarkson. As many members will know, Bob does not consume alcohol. The implication was made that he had been drinking.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
The member will be seated, please. It is up to the member himself to raise the issue, not Mr Tisch.
The man I was referring to was Mr Bob Clarkson. How bizarre is that? Lindsay Tisch, the dumped whip, stood up and broke the Standing Orders by seeking to make some sort of explanation for Mr Clarkson, which he did not need to do.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
The member cannot now take liberties with the House and refer to the point of order. The member must continue with his speech and desist from that action.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for reminding me of exactly that point. I ask you, Mr Assistant Speaker, given that you are so well versed in the Standing Orders, to apply the Standing Order that deals with trivial interjections and points of order that are designed to break up a member’s speech, as that member’s point of order clearly did.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
The member will be seated. I am the sole judge whilst Speaker of the House. I did not consider that to be a frivolous interjection. I considered it to be something the member may not have known about. When he was informed, he sat down straightaway.
I will just say to the House in general how interesting it is, when we are dealing with such important legislation, that the major contribution from Mr Clarkson—in fact, the only contribution I think this House has heard from him for probably a month or more, or probably 2 months or 10 months—is some comment about how a member is dressed in the House, and in particular about my pink tie. If that is the contribution that Tauranga has bequeathed to the nation, then I have to say good on Tauranga, as it has just made itself the laughing stock of the whole country. By crikey! Roll on the next election.
I conclude by saying that New Zealand First supports this legislation. I congratulate the Law and Order Committee, and Kate Wilkinson and Simon Power on their contributions throughout the consideration of this bill. I look forward to the Committee stage.
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou i te Whare. We heap so many accolades upon our justices of the peace that I am surprised we do not all just resign from our jobs here and hand it over to the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations to run the country.
I would like to take just a short call on the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill to share a few of the Māori Party’s views on the training, discipline, and retirement proposals for justices of the peace, and in particular the views we draw from the considerable experience of our co-leader Dr Pita Sharples, a JP of long standing himself. Dr Sharples was appointed as a JP in 1978, after considerable persuasion by people working in the courts who were quite taken by his efforts and the success of a community court programme for criminal offenders that he had pioneered, and a restorative justice programme that he was chairing in Auckland.
The Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations tells us that our JPs serve in their role primarily voluntarily, but that because they hold public office the royal federation has had to do quite a bit of work over the years to improve policies and practices to try to get good training so that JPs can properly carry out their roles. We support the recommendation from the Dunedin Community Law Centre that if we truly value the work of our JPs, we should make sure they get some decent training in the role before taking the oath. We also support the recommendation of the Law and Order Committee that full training be completed before appointment, so that the quality of work of potential JPs is guaranteed to be to the level and satisfaction required by the courts and the public at large.
The training for JPs also needs to include an awareness of the legal obligations and responsibilities that come with the role, and regular courses to ensure that all JPs are constantly aware of changes in legislation pertaining to their work. The level of training required to ensure that they can serve the public confidently and competently also suggests it might be desirable to ensure that there is a process by which JP licences can be reviewed.
Other matters that the Māori Party would like to include in the context of training for justices of the peace include an understanding of cultural safety, education around Te Tiriti o Waitangi, a basic understanding of tikanga Māori and te reo Māori, an awareness of the diverse cultural mix that makes up our population, and a basic course in the proper pronunciation of people’s names. I recall a Mr John Butler, the first clergyman ordained in Aotearoa, who was appointed a JP in July 1819. Although Butler was not the first magistrate in the country, he was recognised for his ability to work well with Māori because of his commitment to learning and conversing in Māori. Also noted was the generosity extended to him and Samuel Marsden by Hongi Hika, who gave them land for their settlement in Kerikeri.
This issue is not just about being PC, sensitive new-age, or anything like that. It is about affirming a statement made by the Prime Minister herself. She said, just a few years ago, that “the basis of constitutional government in this country is to be found in its founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi.” It is about validating the fact that the Māori language is rightfully recognised as an official language in Aotearoa, and it is about recognising the value and importance that all other cultures bring to our society in Aotearoa.
The bill, in recognition of the fact that JPs operate from a position of trust, also introduces new rules to ensure that the values of transparency, accountability, and public safety—which were mentioned earlier by Mr Ron Mark—are upheld. The Māori Party supports the view that anyone who has a role that impacts on the wider society should accept the responsibilities that go with that role.
The last proposal, of course, is to let retired JPs use the designation “JP (retired)” if they have held office for at least 10 years. We accept that proposal as well, even though we know it will be tough for Te Ururoa Flavell and I, who not only have to call our esteemed Te Aute - bred co-leader “Doctor” Pita Sharples, but we were told at caucus by the illustrious co-leader himself that he now expects us to refer to him as “Dr Pita Sharples, JP Retired”.
Finally, we note the advice from the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations that JPs should have a “genuine desire to serve the community, be of good standing in the community, and be respected as persons of good sense, character and integrity.” I will repeat that. JPs should have a genuine desire to serve the community, be of good standing in the community, and be respected as persons of good sense, character, and integrity. As those are the exact requirements to be able to stand as a member of Parliament for the only party that truly represents the hopes and aspirations of the tangata whenua, the mighty Māori Party, we can do no less than offer our support for this bill. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) Link to this
It is a great pleasure to speak tonight in support of the second reading of the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill. It is legislation that has taken many years, and a lot of ideas and thought, to get here tonight. We are now debating the recommendations made by the Law and Order Committee, and are picking up on work that has been done by three Ministers in a row, starting with Paul Swain, when Labour came into Government at the end of 1999. His work was continued in the second term by Rick Barker, and was brought to a legislative form by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, who moved the first reading last year.
It seems to me that when we are dealing with this area—and all members who have spoken have reflected on the importance this office holds in all our communities—it is important that we have a high level of agreement within the House, that there is consensus, and that the bill not be seen to be rushed through, because it is very important that this office retains its integrity in the community. That is why it has been heartening to hear the speeches of so many members of Parliament here tonight.
The legislation replaces a law that is now 50 years old. When we think of the changes that have occurred in our communities over the last 50 years, we can see that it is necessary now to modernise and bring this legislation up to date. I think that is what the bill seeks to achieve.
Many members have talked about their practices in their own electorates. In my electorate of Otaki we have a very high number of justices of the peace. When I look at the reforms proposed in this bill, I think they will assist enormously in the efficient administration of the JP system in the Otaki electorate. My electorate has more people over the age of 65 than any other electorate. A lot of people who have performed a lifetime of good work and good service as JPs in their community then retire to the Kapiti Coast and Horowhenua and, because there has been no provision within the 50-year-old law for a designation of “JP (retired)”, they have stayed on as active JPs. This means it is very difficult to appoint new JPs; the argument is that there are already a lot in the area.
One of the provisions in this bill that I am most keen on is that we are creating a new category of “JP (retired)”, which honours all the work that has gone on before and states that the contribution that has been made is not being overlooked or forgotten. It means that people come off the active list, if you like, and that when we are looking at new appointments we are able to make a fairer assessment of whether there are enough justices of the peace in an area. So I am particularly pleased to welcome that provision.
The new category of “JP (retired)”, as the select committee talked about, actually gives the appointment, and the privilege of it, much more of a career structure. The work that has been done by way of training reinforces that point. People might start off at a younger age as a JP, undertake training to try to ensure that they can do that job to the best of their ability, then, once they finally get to the stage when they have finished making an active contribution, they get to stay part of that wider justice community by way of the “JP (retired)” category. I am very much in favour of that.
I note in the papers I have read about this bill that although there are about 10,700 JPs in New Zealand and we receive anywhere upwards of 350 nominations a year, in the last year only 12 nominations came in for people under the age of 50. That is an area that members of Parliament, when they are making appointments, need to think about, so as to ensure that we are getting some younger people coming through as justices of the peace who are prepared to make that long-term commitment, do the training, be part of the system, and be active.
It is at this point that I would like to mention the practice I have followed. Mr Tisch talked about his own practice, and so did Mr Power. I acknowledge Lindsay Tisch as someone who has had a long-term interest in JP issues; in fact, he is often called upon in this complex to perform JP responsibilities, and he takes that very seriously indeed. One of the most effective ways in which I have dealt with people who have come to my office and said that a lot of people want them to be a JP and could I please nominate them is to say that if that is the case, if so many people are asking them that, would they like to come back with some letters of support from people—maybe from just two or three groups in our community who are in favour of their receiving that appointment. It is striking to me how often that is the last meeting I have with people. Normally what happens is that people suggest a name to me, and I can work through it.
I have always said not everybody is cut out for the judicial role, but I would at least expect people to be open to considering that once they have settled in. The training, which up until now has been more of a voluntary nature—certainly, for the bulk of the time of the law we are amending—must be undertaken. I think it is important that people participate in their local JP association. There is a real reluctance among some appointees to do that kind of thing. They think once their appointment is all signed off by the Governor-General, that is the end of their involvement. I think it is very, very important that they be involved in their local JP association. [Interruption]
I hear Bob Clarkson and Lockwood Smith interjecting. Here we are trying to debate and discuss quite a non-partisan, proper issue about the administration of justice and democracy in our communities, and all they want to do is make cheap political points and chip, chip, chip away. I think JPs play a very important role in our society. If those members do not think that, that is fine, but all I ask them to do is to show respect for the 10,700 people who do perform a role as a JP. Lockwood Smith was telling us earlier on in the House that he has been in Parliament for 23 years. Presumably he has appointed a lot of people in that time. If he is not interested in debating that, maybe he should go and do something else, but those of us who are here and want to participate in the debate think this issue is very, very important.
The other point that has come up very strongly is around training. Lockwood Smith might not know that the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations has developed a very good CD-Rom that is now being used to undertake training right across the country, including in rural and isolated areas where maybe the associations are not very strong. That CD-Rom is beefing up the capacity of our JPs all across the country. It was a joint project funded by the Government and the federation. Of course, to be fair, all the legwork was done by the federation. Getting that CD-Rom out across the country has assisted our JPs in such an important way. In particular, if people do not carry out certain parts of the role very often, then their being able to have that resource right there on the computer is very important. The training aspect is crucial in terms of retaining public confidence in the system and not allowing that confidence to fritter away.
The discipline issue has been mentioned by other colleagues tonight in terms of what lower levels of correctional behaviour can be taken rather than our taking the shotgun kind of approach of saying that a person will be kicked out of the system, which I do not think people would want to see for smaller transgressions. Again, that reinforces my earlier point about having active local associations. Sometimes some of the best stuff can be done by local JPs talking to one another and getting mentoring and training.
The process of the bill has been good. We have all gone out and talked to our local JPs. I certainly have done so over the last 5 years in Horowhenua and Kapiti. I have asked JPs what they need. I have said to them that we were going to change this law for the first time in 50 years, and have asked what would be good to have in it. That is what we have been able to put in this bill. The committee has looked at the bill, enhanced it, and made it even better, which has been a worthwhile and beneficial thing. The other good aspect of this reform has been the way in which the Government, the Ministry of Justice, and the select committee itself have, in a non-partisan way, been able to work with those representing the federation of JPs. That is very good.
I conclude by paying tribute in that regard to Gavin Kerr, who has been the president of the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations through most of the time we have been looking at this bill. Gavin Kerr is of course well known to me as the former principal of Horowhenua College in my electorate; he was principal at the time when I was a student at that fine establishment.
Hon David Benson-PopeI tell Mr Benson-Pope that that was very recently—just in the last decade, in fact. Gavin has put a huge amount of energy and time into this bill, particularly around the training aspect and around making sure the federation had some quite sharp contributions to make as to how this bill ended up. I think that not only the federation but our Parliament have been well served by Gavin’s contribution. I am absolutely delighted that today he was at Government House receiving a New Zealand Royal Honour. I cannot think of a more fitting tribute for somebody for whom I have enormous respect and whom I think of as a man of extraordinary integrity. This matter is just one aspect of his life’s work, and I think everyone will agree we are better off for his contribution to the bill. I pay tribute to him tonight.
I support the second reading of the bill.
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this
It is a privilege to be able to speak to the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill. I will take a couple of moments just to say how grateful I am for the work that JPs do right around the country. As my parliamentary colleague mentioned, 10,700 of them operate around New Zealand, and every day of the week hundreds of them are sitting on depositions hearings, traffic courts, and infringement courts, and listening to bail hearings. I understand that about 34 percent of bail hearings in this country are conducted by justices of the peace, so they must save our judicial system a heck of a lot of money. JPs are in charge of distributing and allocating a heck of a lot of justice around our country. I wonder just how our system would cope without them. Many, many JPs have given years and years of careful consideration to the pleas of those appearing before them, and they have very much enhanced the system we have in this country.
I will take a couple of minutes to acknowledge the work that JPs put into making submissions in respect of constructing the bill. They raised three particular issues before us. The first one was what to do with long-serving JPs who, for one reason or another, cannot continue with their duties. How could we treat them graciously and with dignity, and not require them to continue to function when under pressure due to age or ill health? JPs take their function seriously, and so does the rest of the community. The ability to allow JPs to retain an honorific of “JP (retired)” treats those people with dignity and accords them the grateful thanks of New Zealanders for the work they have done for the country.
The next question raised by the JPs was how we supply JPs with training sufficient for the task before them, and how we create in them the capability to serve the community in their judicial office, a role which is becoming more complex and more demanding. The point was made that training should begin before a warrant is extended to JPs. A number of examples were given of JPs who, having been sworn into office, were unable to continue with their duties—were unable in some cases even to take up the most basic of duties—because of a lack of understanding of the language or a lack of understanding of the office they were to perform. Of course, we know that 70 percent of all criminal information that comes before the courts has been dealt with by justices of the peace, so they must have a huge level of understanding in order to make the decisions that they are called upon to make.
The last question raised was how we deal with the very small number of JPs who show a lack of competence in their duties, or for some reason cannot continue with their duties. Unfortunately, in respect of some of them, there has been an offence of some kind. How do we deal with JPs when they become unsuitable? That matter needed to be dealt with discreetly, with some sensitivity. I believe that this bill does that.
I reiterate the comments of others who served on the Law and Order Committee about the way the task of dealing with this legislation was addressed. It was done in good faith, and obviously a lot of time and commitment were put into it. In fact, there were six drafts of this bill before it was finally reported back to the House. Members of the committee worked well together and took seriously the matter before them.
DIANNE YATES (Labour) Link to this
I wish to speak on the second reading of the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill, and thank my colleague Martin Gallagher, who chaired the committee and who did a good deal of work—not only on this bill, but also he has done a tremendous amount of work with justices of the peace. I know he has made it a point throughout his parliamentary career to attend their conferences and to keep up to date with their issues. He was obviously a good person to chair the committee to deal with this issue of justices of the peace.
It is a role that has changed over a period of time, and I note that this bill does make some provisions, as has been said by a number of other members, in making sure that people have community support, and that those who seek to be nominated or who are nominated by others, get that community support and have a history of working in a community and being responsible to the communities in which they live.
They need that community respect in order to carry out their roles, and it is not an easy role. Many times, justices of the peace get hauled out of bed at 3.00 in the morning by the police in order to sign a search warrant. Many of them have their privacy invaded. They have people going to their houses wanting signatures at all times of the day and night, and they do a tremendous job. I would also like to thank those particular justices of the peace who work within new communities in New Zealand and who play the role often, not only of giving legal advice, but also they are there to help people who have language difficulties, in coming to terms with New Zealand life, and often at times when they need witnesses.
I particularly want to thank those justices of the peace who are based at universities, who actually work at a university and deal with the many overseas students who constantly need forms witnessed, and who need the services of a justice of the peace, and those employers who give people who are justices of the peace time from their work in which to deal with this public service.
So I do thank those who were involved with the bill, and I also thank those who worked on the aspects relating to training, discipline, and retirement, which has been mentioned. I thank the members of the Law and Order Committee, those who made submissions, and those from the justices organisation themselves, who are a very concerned group. They are concerned not only with their public duty but also with how our courts function, and they basically have a great sense of community service. I commend this bill to the House.
NATHAN GUY (National) Link to this
I acknowledge the good work that the Law and Order Committee did around this Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill. This evening we have heard in particular that this bill has been drafted, redrafted, and redrawn about six times to get to where it is in its present form. Sitting here listening to the addresses for the last hour or so, I know there is a lot of support around the House to get it right. Although we do have some concerns that some of the issues may not be addressed fully, and in the way the National Party would like them to be addressed, I think this is a good starting point.
In particular, I raise some concerns from the Horowhenua-Kapiti region, where we do at times, particularly in rural communities, find that it is a bit of a jaunt to get to a JP. Some of those in our rural communities have a bit of a struggle getting into a vehicle, finding a JP, and getting some of their documents signed, so I think that one of the real concerns out in rural communities around New Zealand is that JPs are accessible to those in areas that may be a little bit isolated. I think that one of the really important things for JPs is that they are accessible. It is great to have JPs running businesses, because people who need to get documents signed know that they can approach their JP, normally between the hours of 9 to 5.
This bill will actually allow JPs to have some training, which is very, very important. The most important thing is that JPs will have this training before they are approved or declined by the ministry, which I think is really important.
National supports this bill, and there is a lot of support across the House. However, we do have some reservations that longer term, I think, we will have to look at addressing. But the bill is a step in the right direction.