Dunne Peter: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4255] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to speak in favour of the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill from a couple of points of view. Firstly I speak as someone who over a reasonable period of time in this House has nominated a number of people to be justices of the peace and who has seen some rather—as I am sure other members have too—extraordinary stories presented as to why someone should be appointed. Secondly I speak as someone who has actually had the privilege as a Minister of appointing justices of the peace and who has therefore had a little to do with what they actually do. 
If I can take the first point first it has always struck me that in the absence of legislation of this type there has been a certain uncertainty and ambiguity about the role of justices of the peace. Many of them have been putting themselves forward for good and noble reasons but many have also put themselves forward on the basis of some self-flattery and determination to gain a status in the community that requires them to do very little. I recall one individual who came to see me once. I asked him whether he was interested in doing any court work and he said yes that was his great passion. I asked him what his experience was and he said he watched a lot of television and was familiar with courtroom procedure from having watched  
Boston Legal 
 and that type of show. The sad thing was that he was deadly serious. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: There’s nothing wrong with Denny Crane. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: No that is not a qualification for a justice of the peace in New Zealand. 
I also recall one—probably unlamented—former Labour MP who on the day before the 1990 election when I was the Associate Minister of Justice looking after JP appointments came into my office with a list of that person’s campaign committee and all their filled-out JP nominations. The MP expected me to appoint them then and there on the spot. That person’s parliamentary career ended 24 hours later and those nominations never proceeded beyond that. I think that is the downside of this issue. There is an important role for justices of the peace but for too long they have been seen as either elderly semi-muddled people or do-gooder enthusiasts who rush around and preside over deposition hearings and do not do much else. 
In my electorate we have a very large number of JPs. One of the constant battles I face in nominating people is that I am always told I have far more JPs than is the accepted norm. The problem that I constantly encounter is one of people wanting to get access to one of that large number of justices of the peace and finding the justices of the peace are too busy on holiday or do not do that sort of thing any more. I am delighted in fact that an active group of local JPs has now through my electorate office set up a regular clinic where we can provide for the needs of people who require the services of a JP. 
All of that brings me to say that the provisions in this bill regarding the retirement of JPs—both the ways in which they can be retired and the status to be accorded to them once they retire—are long overdue. I can think of many many justices of the peace who vigorously cling to their title but who have no desire to do anything associated with the role. In some cases that is because they are too old or too infirm or do not live in the area any more. Those people would welcome the opportunity to style themselves “JP (retired)”. That would hopefully then free up a slot for others who are more active and who would take a greater role in terms of the traditional witnessing of documents some of the services associated with the police—nominated witnesses and those types of things—and the increasing use of justices of the peace in the early stage of court hearings. This bill is a rather elegant way of addressing what has been a longstanding problem. 
I think the bill also provides a level of status for justices of the peace that indicates their role has some point in the justice system. For a long time they have felt they were the proverbial spare part used from time to time in a very junior or menial role and then readily discarded when others came along who had greater expertise. I recall the proposals some years ago to do away with justices of the peace and bring in what I think were to be called community magistrates to get around the whole issue of the role that justices of the peace perform. The proposal did not go very far because a number of JPs felt very strongly about the fact that they would be disenfranchised but it did put some focus on what they actually did. I am pleased to see that over subsequent years successive Ministers have had a focus on appointing younger and more active JPs than had been the case previously. 
I think the provisions contained in the bill regarding the JP (retired) title are a neat step forward. I do have a mild concern however about some of the conditions under which that title may be taken up. It concerns me a little that for instance JPs may be able to use the title if they have left the office in somewhat less than appropriate circumstances. I would have thought that we need to be very clear about that but some of the provisions in new section 3C inserted by clause 4 are not entirely clear in that respect. I think the select committee may need to pay some attention to that. 
But on the whole this is a good bill. It is one the JPs themselves have lobbied for for some years. I think it squares the circle in the sense that it shows that Parliament recognises there is an appropriate role for justices of the peace. It puts them on a more professional footing through the requirement for training and through establishing legitimate exit procedures. It also means that we are able to get people to serve as justices of the peace who are active committed concerned for their communities and not just there for the honour and glory of the position. Hopefully that may mean the people who present themselves at our electorate offices will be people who are on the whole dedicated to achieving that objective. 
I welcome this bill and I wish it Godspeed as it begins its path through the legislative process.