Cosgrove Clayton: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8587] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I will take a call to reinforce—given the unanimity about this bill—some of the comments that have already been mentioned. 
I will touch first on Mr Tisch’s point about self-promotion. I think in essence that his point is valid although I have to say that prior to my becoming Minister probably the vast majority of the JPs I nominated were people I did not know. They were people who had actually come forward as community-minded people. I suspect that Mr Tisch was talking about those who are self-promoters in the worst sense of the word—and he is nodding. But there are community-minded people who come forward and say that they want to contribute; they have heard about this thing called a justice of the peace and they want to know what it involves and how they can contribute.  
I—and I know most other members of Parliament—have tended to follow the set of rules that fall outside the legislation and are directives from the office of the Minister of Justice. These are guidelines that require for instance a person to go and get three references if you will or letters of community support. I often say to my nominees that they should go and pull a CV together and get as many letters of community support as they can. I think in essence that for us as members of Parliament who are nominating JPs—and I acknowledge that the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations has also raised this issue—that goes some way towards quality control checking of the motivations of those who have put their names forward. I do not have a problem with people who self-nominate—those who come and say they want to have a go. 
Members have made reference to the age of justices of the peace which is a problem. In one respect it is a great problem to have because with age of course comes experience. We have a large number of mentors and leaders in the justice of the peace community who can provide that leadership and training for younger people as they come on. I know that Gavin Kerr the immediate past-president of the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations with whom I worked closely this year Alan Hart the royal federation registrar and the incoming president John Falconer and I are all agreed that we have to encourage younger people and more diverse people in the community such as those who can speak foreign languages. It is of little help in some ways if a JP is a member of a community with say a large number of Korean members but the JP cannot speak the lingo. There are some in our communities who may frown upon those people of ethnicity becoming JPs but I think the vast majority of this Parliament—probably the entire Parliament—would welcome it. 
So the royal federation myself and others believe that there has to be encouragement of diversity and of younger people coming on. We must foster those senior JPs and ask them to mentor and lead the younger folks through. I support self-promotion but as Mr Tisch quite rightly says self-promotion must be for the best motives. 
The bill deals with compulsory training. It will be compulsory for new JPs to undergo a training course whether they are judicial or ministerial. One member has alluded to the fact that there are various customs and practices in different associations and that one association requires ongoing training for a judicial JP. The issue with that though is that there is no legal requirement; it is a sort of custom and practice that has been adopted by one association. 
As we go through this legislation it is worth noting in the Committee that running alongside this the royal federation myself and the ministry have developed a stocktake document which is being released. That document lists all the customs and practices that have been adopted—some very good some inspired and some downright awful. It will be taken out and given to members of Parliament and to JP associations and their members. They will be asked to comment on the recommendations. So as we pass this bill we are also looking for standardisation of best practice. I believe that that stocktake document was alluded to in the Law and Order Committee. 
I have to say that neither training of itself nor anything in this bill of itself gives a JP association or the royal federation the power of veto over a candidate. The power to nominate lies with a member of Parliament and the power to confer that nomination lies with the Minister of Justice. This bill does not delegate power to an association to effectively vet or veto. As one member has alluded to I believe that the training—and there are some famous or infamous cases—will allow some quality control. JPs and the royal federation have said to me that there was one individual whose literary skills were not known—or the lack of them sadly—until the individual picked up the warrant card to swear the oath. 
There will be joint robust interviews between registrars and association members that uncover the motivations and highlight the qualities of nominees. If there are issues they will be able to be dealt with without shall we say the embarrassment as under the present system of having somebody nominated accepted and gazetted publicly and then our finding out there is an issue. The issue may be linguistic or literal but effectively it creates a huge problem and a huge embarrassment. But I say again that though training is compulsory it does not confer a power of veto or vetting on the associations. 
Can I make just a couple of other points. We have talked about the age of JPs and I will refer to the late Mick Goldsbro who had—and my officials may tell me—60 or 70 years as a JP. At the time of his death he was I think the longest-serving justice of the peace in New Zealand history. We honoured him. He was residing in Hamilton and I along with Martin Gallagher the chair of the Law and Order Committee had the privilege of meeting him. He exhibited all the best that is our JP community. JPs are volunteers. They are people who give of their time—the late Mick Goldsbro gave of his time throughout his life. In this day and age of hustle and bustle where there is no longer the 8-hour day or the 5-day working week I think it is noteworthy to remember for a moment the justices of the peace who have passed away and also the current crop who every day save a heck of a lot of taxpayers’ money in doing their job whether it be on the bench judicially or in their ministerial capacity. 
In respect of training things have moved on. We now have moved into the new era of the CD-Rom; we have the training manual on CD-Rom. We have a purchase agreement if you will for services between the Government and the royal federation. Training is no longer a case of going to the crusty draughty rugby clubrooms on a Saturday afternoon and doing half a day of training. That does not suit some people’s lives and sometimes the training product that is given is not appropriate. Now technology provides for a lot of self-education in one’s own home and at one’s own speed and in one’s time. 
There was a call to have compulsory ongoing training. The Government does not support that because with 10500-odd JPs I do not want to spend a bucket load of money on training somebody who is out in a region and may once or twice be asked to give his or her services. I would rather as many of the associations do target those for instance who are doing technical work like signing search warrants or whatever or who are on a preferred list because they are active and actively pursuing regular training. I think that is smarter than simply having a scattergun approach spending a bucket load of money and having ongoing training simply for training’s sake. 
I thank members of the House and particularly the chair of the Law and Order Committee Martin Gallagher who have supported this bill. I also thank members of the Opposition and others. It was a slightly more drawn out process than any of us expected but I think the product we have on the Table today is a bipartisan bill that has the general support—or total support I would hope—of all members. 
The point was made that justices of the peace have waited some time for this and that is true but I know they look forward to it with relish. They are embarking on the sort of new world order that further professionalises their profession and far from downgrading any part of the JP community this bill will actually enhance it. 
I think the clause providing for the use of “JP (retired)” after 10 years is very apt. It allows those JPs who have given their all but would like to retain the honorific to do so. At the end of the day that is the only gift as it were that is conferred upon many of our JPs especially those in the ministerial role. They can withdraw their service and retain the honorific as a symbol of the service they have rendered to our community and to our nation.