Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:3970] 
Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is my intention to move that the bill be referred to the Law and Order Committee. 
Justices of the peace play a valuable and vital role in communities throughout New Zealand. The office of justice of the peace is an institution built on volunteering. Justices of the peace share a proud history of community service in this country. The first-ever New Zealand justice of the peace was appointed in 1814 and there are currently approximately 10700 JPs one for about every 400 New Zealanders. 
A positive trend is the changing face of JPs which better reflects the increasingly diverse ethnic make-up of our society. Increasingly members of Parliament nominate to the office of justice of the peace people who add diverse language and cultural skills to their commitment to serve their communities. Equal numbers of men and women were appointed as JPs last year. The strength of those trends suggests that the spirit of community service is alive and well in New Zealand. 
In order to maintain public confidence in the role of JPs in a system preserving the good name of the office the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill proposes three areas of reform in training discipline and retirement. The bill proposes a modern framework for a long-established community institution and is divided into two parts. The first part relates to the training of newly appointed JPs and the authorisation to use the designation “JP (retired)” and the second part provides an appropriate and clear disciplinary process for justices of the peace. 
In March this year I launched the CD-ROM training programme to assist and support new JPs in their role. While there is an expectation that JPs will undertake training of their own accord there has never been any formal obligation for JPs to undertake such training. The bill makes training a statutory requirement for all new JPs prior to taking their oath of office. Of course the CD-ROM programme is a valuable resource for the training of new justices. The bill will not affect the judicial studies course currently undertaken by the approximately 400 JPs who carry out judicial functions. 
The bill proposes to recognise the work of retired JPs who have served the community for at least 10 years by establishing the statutory title of “JP (retired)”. There is no provision in the existing Act to retain the use of the post-nominal letters JP once a person no longer undertakes active justice of the peace duties. The use of that title will recognise the commitment and contribution of the person in performing an ongoing and important community service. It gives me great pleasure to introduce that measure—one long-sought by the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices Associations. 
It is important that justices of the peace are respected so as to maintain the credibility of their office. I consider that part of maintaining public confidence in JPs is to ensure they have a fair effective and transparent disciplinary system. The Justices of the Peace Act is over 50 years old and allows only in the most serious of cases for a JP to be removed from office. Part 2 enhances the disciplinary regime by specifying the grounds for removal or suspension of a JP and importantly the process to be followed to secure a removal or suspension. The grounds for such action may include misconduct a conviction for an offence punishable by imprisonment or the state of being adjudged bankrupt. 
The bill introduces a second-tier disciplinary system to address behaviour that requires remedial action but that does not warrant removal from office. Such action may include an official written rebuke or a written notice to require a JP to attend further training or receive counselling. I consider that specifying the disciplinary regime in the legislation provides a consistent and transparent basis for decision making. It also indicates the high standard of behaviour that is expected of JPs as respected members of the community. 
The justice of the peace system is an institution built as I said before on volunteering. Justices of the peace are justifiably proud of their history of service to the community and the Government commends the work and commitment of JPs throughout New Zealand. The Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices Associations in particular has waited patiently for the progress of the bill through the House. I am grateful to the federation and especially to its current president Gavin Kerr for working with my officials and liaising with its members on the form of the bill. This Government has delivered what the federation has asked for. I have developed a very positive working relationship with Mr Kerr the president and I am impressed by both his and his federation’s dedication and professionalism. I also pay tribute to Martin Gallagher MP JP and chair of the Law and Order Committee who has also worked on the bill and who has a proud history of community service as a justice of the peace. 
The bill will support JPs by modernising their legal framework to reflect their current role more appropriately. I believe that as with any legislation the law should be clear and effective for those who exercise powers and authority under it. The bill achieves clarity and effectiveness for justices of the peace and as a result New Zealanders may continue to have confidence in the office of justice of the peace. 
Before I conclude I want to note an example of the huge contribution that justices make. When as an Associate Minister of Justice I had the privilege some time ago of launching the CD-ROM training programme the opportunity was also taken—sadly—for the community to honour the man who was then New Zealand’s oldest and longest-serving justice of the peace. He was at 101 years old the late Mick Goldsbro’ from Hamilton. Mick Goldsbro’ was born in 1904 and appointed a JP on 28 August 1940. He actively served until the late 1960s having been then warranted as a JP for 65 years. When I became Minister I wanted to seek out the person who was our longest-serving and oldest JP and having had that privilege before he passed away which was soon after we honoured him I can say that Mick Goldsbro’ exemplified my view of the professionalism and the commitment that justices of the peace provide to our community. 
Those justices are volunteers. They do the job because they want to commit to our community. They want to offer something back and in the case of Mick Goldsbro’ a lifetime of service was offered back to this country. They often become embarrassed as volunteers do of course when one shines a light upon them and says what a fantastic job they have done because the nature of volunteering is that people do it for the pure motive of giving back to their community. They ask for nothing they ask for no thanks; they simply want to contribute and contribute in a serious way particularly in their role as justices of the peace. 
This bill has been long sought by the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices Associations. It is a privilege that I can bring the bill to Parliament. I pay tribute to the previous Minister Rick Barker who also did a lot of work to bring the bill to this point. It has been a marathon effort in some respects but I know that the federation—and it has said so publicly—is pleased that the bill will be introduced and put through its stages. 
I have to say to all MPs that I think this is probably one point in time—I live in hope of course—that politics will not get in the way because this is a pretty non-controversial bill. I think that both sides of the House—considering that all MPs nominate JPs—believe in the service that JPs provide and I hope that the bill can pass swiftly through the select committee process be brought back to the House and be passed. I hope that as a Parliament after more than 50 years we can pay tribute to our justices of the peace by passing the legislation in the fashion that they would expect. I commend the bill to the House. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 On behalf of the National Party I would like to start by saying that National supports the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill. We have had a most informative speech from the Minister as to the content of the legislation in the course of which he has seen it as appropriate to offer a testimonial to Martin Gallagher MP justice of the peace as Martin prepares for his next career! 
When I was talking to Mr Finlayson earlier this evening he reminded me of the comments of Titus Livius the Roman author and historian who said: “Better late than never”. When the Minister said that the bill has been a long time in the coming he was so right for National has pressed and pressed for the legislation to be introduced and advanced into the House. The justices of the peace have become as an association and a federation more and more vexed and concerned at the unnecessary and unreasonable delays that have beset the advancement of this important statute. 
It is right to start I believe by noting that the office of justice of the peace is an ancient and honourable institution. Indeed the ability to recommend the appointment of a justice of the peace is the last bastion of a constituency MP’s patronage. There were at last count approximately 10000 justices of the peace in New Zealand and all undertake to provide ministerial duties document processing and the taking of statutory declarations as a free service to the community. Some of course serve as judicial justices with their jurisdiction extending to cover more than 90 separate Acts of Parliament. Some of those Acts give jurisdiction over deposition hearings bail remands summary offences minor offences local authority infringements and the swearing of search warrants. 
I think it is interesting to reflect on the latest statistics—which the Minister did not refer to in his informative speech—that in the year ended October 2005 the actual number of charges heard by justices were these. There were 12731 deposition or preliminary hearings; 35603 minor and summary offences including traffic offences; and 21046 bails and remands. So that is a total of 69380 charges heard—and all of that was done voluntarily with only lunch money of $16 and travel costs reimbursed. So those justices contributed about 26000 voluntary hours. I think one of the issues that will disappoint some of the justices of the peace when they come to look at this legislation is that the Government has not seized the nettle and dealt with the issue of pay for justices of the peace. I know that the Minister is implacably opposed to rewarding justices even in the most modest way for the work they do. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Not true. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: I would just like to capture those words “not true” on the record. It is always important to be flexible and the Minister has shifted his ground in the last few hours to make it clear that there may well be it seems for justices that promise of bounty at the end of the day. 
I am a staunch advocate for the role that justices of the peace play in the community and I would like to see that role strengthened and extended. Although I have spoken about the work that justices of the peace do in a judicial capacity there is a degree of doubt that the future role of justices of the peace in court duties will continue under the present Government. I say that because the Law Commission proposed in its report called  
Delivering Justice for All: A Vision for New Zealand Courts and Tribunals 
 that community justice officers be appointed with the intent that they should generally be experienced lawyers. 
In one of a series of written questions that I asked the Government last year to which the responses were not particularly enlightening the Government stated that it had not made decisions on the long-term future of the judicial roles of justices of the peace. Nicky Wagner has reminded me that the role of justice of the peace is an ancient and honourable one and that is assuredly so. It can be traced back to the unpaid post of wardens conservators and keepers of the peace in the 14th century and there has been a tradition of unpaid service accordingly dating back more than 600 years. It is a matter of historical note that in New Zealand the first justice of the peace appointed was the missionary Thomas Kendall who was given responsibility in the Bay of Islands and throughout the islands of New Zealand. When New Zealand became a separate British colony regular appointments of justices were made and three senior justices were required to be members of the Legislative Council. 
There is an issue on which I would briefly like to comment and when I first made these comments they provoked some controversy. The Auckland association which is a strong part of the justices of the peace grouping became concerned that about half the justices of the peace in Manukau City clearly an important constituent part of the Auckland region were ignoring their responsibilities to the public. There are approximately 600 justices of the peace in Manukau but only about 300 were carrying out their duties. It would not surprise me at all if similar statistics could be found for other associations. That is relevant to the issue of the appointment of justices because a statutory test requires the Minister before making fresh appointments to see how well served a particular district is. I believe that process involves little more than a numerical look to see the number of justices in a particular area. That is why there is intrinsic merit in those parts of the bill that deal with training and tenure and permit in the way the Minister has described those who have given service to retire honourably and have the honorific “JP (retired)” after their name. 
I am in favour and the bill certainly proposes this of a much stricter vetting of applications and the validating of the commitment by an individual to undertake the role if appointed. For there are many who see in the honorific “JP” the opportunity of post-nominal initials and not much more than that. That is a challenge that those administering the legislation must constantly grapple with. I also support compulsory membership of associations and the continuing education of JPs. For those who are not prepared to commit to the task I would cancel their warrants. For those who perform sterling service as so many do and who are not able to continue I believe they should retain the honorific as a mark of the service they have given. 
Quite clearly without judicial justices of the peace the legal system would not function at the primary level. That will continue to be the case if the Criminal Procedure Bill which is currently on the Order Paper is passed. That bill provides that the standard committal procedure in indictable criminal proceedings will be presentation of evidence in written form and automatic committal for trial unless either party applies for an oral hearing. I certainly have some reservations about that part of the bill because the way that the legislation is drafted—I believe in error—will make it extremely difficult to secure an oral evidence order. There is a school of thought that says only qualified lawyers should exercise an adjudicative jurisdiction but I do not subscribe to that. Despite what the Minister might think lawyers do not have the monopoly on wisdom in the legal domain. A justice of the peace can bring to the bench a close knowledge of the community and its aspirations as well as robust common sense. National commends the bill to the House. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I acknowledge the contribution by the previous speaker the by and large good spirit in which it was given and the very comprehensive history of the role of justices of the peace. I also thank him very much for his very sincere expression of goodwill for my future but I assure the member that I want to be serving my Hamilton community in my current role for a number of years yet. 
I think praise is in order for the current Associate Minister of Justice the Hon Clayton Cosgrove because he has achieved the introduction of this bill on to the Order Paper of this Parliament. He is not a Minister who just goes along to a conference and gives a nice speech—he did that very well I believe on the West Coast—he has actually been able to achieve getting this bill into the House. He is a Minister who does not just give speeches. He works very well with the royal federation. In that context I observe all the very good work of Rick Barker Mr Cosgrove’s predecessor in this regard. 
I will not be partisan tonight. This is the one time in the Parliament of this country when we are talking about justices of the peace legislation when this Parliament should be absolutely non-partisan. We should be focusing our speeches on honouring the wonderful volunteers throughout our country who have given service as justices of the peace. 
I observe the observations of the president of the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices Associations Mr Gavin Kerr JP who in welcoming the introduction of the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill to Parliament paid tribute—and I am reading from the federation’s media statement—to the Associate Minister of Justice the Hon Clayton Cosgrove for expediting the introduction of the bill. It states: “We have greatly appreciated his guidance”—I know that Richard Worth will join me in this—“and support for our important work especially since he took on the role of Minister with responsibility for justices of the peace.” etc. 
I know that Richard will support me and in this moment of non-partisan debate will join with me in congratulating Clayton Cosgrove on getting this bill on to the floor of the House. I pay tribute to Richard’s very good contribution. He gave a very good exposition of the historic and very honourable role of justices of the peace in our society and in our jurisprudence. 
This bill also gives us an opportunity to reflect on the fact that there is a role for a community-spirited layperson in our judicial system. In terms of some of the very interesting and very good observations that Dr Worth was making on the Law Commission’s recommendations I believe that we move away from and give away the role of the JP at our peril in terms of the totality of our judicial system. That is an issue that I know the Minister will address particularly in terms of the court work of justices of the peace. I know that Richard Worth expressed concern in terms of some of the financial costs to those JPs who do work in the courts but I genuinely do not believe that the legislation is the mechanism by which that financial recompense should be addressed. I am totally aware that the Minister is working with the royal federation on that particular issue. Certainly I would say that the issue of remuneration is important in that we want to encourage a broad cross-section of JPs to serve in that particular role. 
I take the opportunity in this first reading to pay huge tribute to my own Waikato Justices of the Peace Association. I pay tribute to former royal federation presidents Mary Symmans and Bob Armstrong for their great work and their constant lobbying to get this bill in. Clayton Cosgrove talked about the spirit of volunteerism. The late Mick Goldsbro’ who was 101 or 102 was a serving justice of the peace for many many years. What a wonderful privilege it was to go to Hamilton with the Minister to launch the JP training CD-ROM in Mr Goldsbro’s presence. I was so grateful that we did that with the late Mick Goldsbro’ and his family while he was with us on this earth. He was a good example of a wonderful life of community service. In a way if the Minister will allow me to say Mr Goldsbro’ is kind of the inspiration for this bill. 
There is no doubt the legislation is long overdue for overhaul. As chairman of the Law and Order Committee to which the bill will be referred I look forward to hearing the submissions and I certainly look forward to the very comprehensive submissions and advice of the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices Association. I commend this bill. 
Debate interrupted.