Worth Richard: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Worth Richard: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13014] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity of contributing to this debate on the Corrections Bill—which National opposes. The particular topic I would like to speak about relates to the provisions dealing with justices of the peace and the role they are to play or not as visiting justices. Before I do that I would like to comment—and it is unfortunate the Minister responsible for the bill is not now prepared to take a call—that there are in this Supplementary Order Paper 213 no fewer than 42 amendments and they are not minor amendments. They are described as substantive amendments. When were these amendments put before us? On Tuesday 18 May—today! It does not reflect at all well on the democracy of parliamentary process that we should be presented with so many substantial amendments so late in the day. 
I make those comments in the context of Part 2 because it contains the guts of this bill. If there is to be a true parliamentary process if there is to be insightful consideration of clauses in a bill then it can scarcely be said to be satisfactory that amendments of this character and quantity arrive just so very very late in this process. 
The issue I would like to talk about though relates to the role of justices of the peace because as members of the Committee will be aware clause 19 originally proposed that JPs would be ruled out of what has been for them a substantial role. They had had the role of being visiting justices or as I understand the jargon in their part of the world to be “VJs”. The proposal was in respect of the bill as it was introduced that they were to have no further role at all. Instead there were to be visiting justices in two categories: and District Court judges and barristers or solicitors. 
I read with interest the comments that were made in the commentary on the bill about the argument that apparently took place before the Law and Order Committee prompted by the officials to cut justices of the peace out of the action. This detail is set out on page 6 of the commentary which I am not going to read but I simply flag that there were three arguments that basically indicated that this particular role was not for justices of the peace. 
The three arguments were identified as litigation risk; the complexity of cases—the argument that JPs could not get their minds around the issues; and an issue related to legal representation. I would like to say in that regard that the role of JPs is a hugely distinguished and venerable one. In fact it is traced back to the unpaid posts of wardens conservators and keepers of the peace in the 14th century. So there has been a tradition of unpaid service dating back more than 600 years and in New Zealand we have had a particular tradition which saw the first justice of the peace appointed the missionary Thomas Kendall who was given responsibility in the Bay of Islands and throughout the islands of New Zealand. 
So why have justices of the peace been cut from the action? I think that was a proposal that was hugely ill-considered and it reflects an arrogance I would suggest on the part of the Government and its advisers that only qualified lawyers should exercise an adjudicative jurisdiction; only qualified lawyers should have any role in the judging process. The judging process of course takes many forms—judging issues in a prison judging issues in the raft of courts that JPs currently have jurisdiction in. I simply do not subscribe to that. I do not believe that lawyers have a monopoly on wisdom in the legal domain. What of justices of the peace? 
Hon George Hawkins 
: That’s a bit obvious. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: I am glad the Minister of Police has intervened because clearly he agrees with that view too.