Wilkinson Kate: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8586] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 In rising to take a brief call on Part 1 in the Committee stage of this Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill I reiterate and certainly endorse what my colleague Mr Tisch has just said. In fact he has taken half of my notes from me. 
By way of background and just for the record there are approximately 10700 JPs in New Zealand and they undertake a variety of duties. Some duties are more administrative than others such as witnessing signatures and taking oaths and declarations and some are more specialised duties such as issuing search warrants or summons warrants to arrest etc. I understand that about 400 JPs undertake a judicial role. 
JPs have a crucial role in our community. They are and should be available for a variety of issues and functions. Mr Tisch has already said that demographically most JPs are older. We heard in the Law and Order Committee that 81 percent are aged between 51 and 80—and that is only of those who are members of the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations. Not all JPs are members of that federation—in fact of the 10700 JPs only some 7500 are members 35 percent being women and 65 percent being men. 
In relation to Part 1 which we are addressing we have already heard that it provides mainly for firstly training—JPs will have to undertake training before assuming their duties—and secondly a retired status which allows JPs to use the designation “JP (retired)”. In relation to training currently training has been made available for most JPs although this has been under a voluntary regime. Under this bill however training will now be mandatory for newly appointed JPs prior to taking their oath of office. 
It is vitally important that JPs do understand the significance and responsibilities of the role they are about to take on whether or not they intend to undertake judicial work. It is certainly disturbing to hear from some submitters that some of the nominees—and indeed some JPs once appointed—simply cannot read and write English to a satisfactory standard. The standard of English required is quite high as some of the legalistic vocabulary and concepts are unfamiliar to many lay people. They are bad enough for those for whom English is a first language let alone for those for whom it is a second language. Mr Tisch has already mentioned the appointee who had three training sessions and even at the end of those according to submitters she was unable to perform any of the functions of a JP except to sign her name. It was quoted: “It is an indictment on the current system that she was nominated in the first place and that she progressed through the system.” 
It certainly should be easy to ascertain through scrupulous interviewing whether candidates have the necessary literary levels. This bill also provides for compulsory judicial training and to have that undertaken before the JP is appointed and sworn in. It is obviously too late if the candidate has already been sworn in and it is found that he or she will never be able to perform his or her duties satisfactorily. I have said that most districts do have a training regime in place but it is important and comforting to know that that regime is now mandatory. Training is current practice but now at least it is enshrined in statute and is a statutory requirement. 
Many associations already have a policy that JPs must attend a number of refresher courses per year in order to be on the judicial panel. With JPs as judicial officers consistency of standards is especially vital and this is emphasised by the requirements of the bill which enshrines what has become prudent practice. It does recognise the importance of the role of JPs in the court in the specialist area it is. Although it is not new at least it is now mandatory. It is aimed at maintaining a degree of national consistency and now it is supported by legislation. 
Mr Tisch has already mentioned that JPs can now have the designation “JP (retired)”. To be a JP is a respected and honourable position and by allowing the designation “JP (retired)” respect is still shown without the JP having to be active and available for normal JP duties. Needless to say there is a distinction between a JP resigning and a JP retiring and the designation reflects that distinction. A “JP (retired)” will no longer be able to exercise any of the duties and functions of the office. On that note I can say that National supports Part 1 of the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill.