Tanczos Nandor: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4254] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Like the previous speaker I am rising to outline my support for the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill. I think it is a good bill and that it does some things that are well overdue as Mr Mark indicated. 
First of all it requires all newly appointed justices of the peace to undertake training before taking the oath and that is important. Secondly it introduces a new disciplinary regime to enable a justice of the peace to be removed or suspended from office on serious grounds. It also provides for disciplinary action other than removal or suspension to be taken against justices of the peace. That is appropriate because for some behavioural issues some kind of action is needed other than removing a justice of the peace from office. Thirdly the bill enables justices of the peace who have served the community but who wish to withdraw their services and retire to use the designation “JP (retired)”. 
Moving to some of the specifics of that the section that empowers the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister to remove a justice of the peace from office gives the criteria that the person is unable to perform his or her functions has neglected his or her duties has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment has become bankrupt or has failed to comply with a requirement under section5D(1) in clause 5. But it states that the Minister must not recommend the removal unless the Chief District Court Judge has been consulted and has recommended the removal or suspension. That is quite a strong safeguard I think. It assures JPs that those powers will not be misused and I think that is appropriate. 
The Governor-General may also direct the Minister to give the justice of the peace an official written rebuke or to require the justice of the peace to apologise to a particular person or people for behaviour to undertake training in an aspect of the performance of his or her functions or to receive counselling where disciplinary action is to be taken but where the behaviour does not warrant suspension or removal. As I said it is good that those lesser sanctions are available. Again the Governor-General acts only on the recommendation of the Minister and the Minister has to believe that the justice of the peace has behaved in a way that is inappropriate undesirable or otherwise in relation to the exercise or performance of his or her judicial powers or functions. So it does not have that necessary sign-off by the Chief District Court Judge. 
I understand why it is necessary to apply this provision so that it relates to behaviour other than in relation to the exercise or performance of judicial powers or functions. The provision is similar to what we have for judges of course. But it does leave me wondering because one issue that is still to be resolved is the accountability in relation to behaviour by justices of the peace that is undesirable but relates to the exercise of their powers or functions. Let me say really clearly that I think justices of the peace by and large do a very good job; I think they play a very important role in the community and in the justice system. I know many JPs and I think they all deserve the thanks of both the House and the country for the very significant work they do. But I am also aware of some justices of the peace—and I think they are a minority—who essentially are nothing more than a rubber stamp for the police when it comes to things like the issuing of search warrants. 
It is partly the fault of the law that it allows hearsay to be the basis of a search warrant. There is generally no possibility for people who have had such a warrant being used against them to really examine or challenge the grounds under which the warrant was made. Of course this bill in no way addresses that and I really do wonder how we can hold JPs to account in those circumstances because we see essentially the police having what is almost like a pet JP to whom they go to get a search warrant when they want to execute one. They will get it very quickly and on the basis of I think inadequate evidence—and I have seen that happen. So I think that is an issue but this bill clearly will not address it. 
That is one of the issues the House has to turn its mind to and it is one of the reasons I think the Health Committee actually requested the Justice and Electoral Committee to hold an inquiry into the use of search powers by the police. It is an area that has very little oversight. Section 3B inserted by clause 4 does not address that but it does require newly appointed justices of the peace to undertake training provided by the Secretary for Justice before they take their oaths—and I am aware that justices of the peace who exercise those kinds of judicial functions already have to do training. I think it is good that justices of the peace across the board have access to better training. Their own request for that was highlighted by Ron Mark who spoke previously in the debate. I think that the judicial functions that are being exercised have become more complex as well. Of course it raises some issues in relation to the Criminal Procedure Bill and what the House intends to do in relation to deposition hearings where justices of the peace play a significant part. 
The last thing I will touch on is just to repeat that section3C in clause 4 empowers the Secretary for Justice to authorise retired justices of the peace who have served for 10 years or more to use the designation “JP (retired)”. They have to apply to the Secretary for Justice for the authority and the secretary must give that authority unless satisfied that before retiring and without reasonable excuse the justice of the peace abandoned or failed to perform the functions of the office retired while suspended or retired in order to avoid being removed suspended or otherwise disciplined. I think those are obvious safeguards. 
 So by and large I think the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill deserves the support of the House. It brings in some things that—as has been said—JPs themselves have been asking for that will help to improve the way JPs function across the board even though it may leave untouched some things that this House I think needs to address.