Power Simon: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Power Simon: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8357] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 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. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
SIMON POWER 
: 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”— 
Hone Harawira 
: You’re out of here! 
SIMON POWER 
: 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.