Gallagher Martin: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Gallagher Martin: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8589] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 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. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 100 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 4 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.