Tisch Lindsay: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Tisch Lindsay: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12987] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 It is interesting that to correct all the mistakes in a 158-page bill the Minister has tabled a 50-page Supplementary Order Paper. Given that we have to make so many corrections to correct the original bill I want to ask about the process that the select committee has just gone through. To me there is something radically wrong—and it is an insult to Parliament—when so many changes have to be made after the select committee has reported back the bill and when we now have to front up in the Committee stage to make the corrections that have been identified as being problems. 
Brian Connell 
: That is why it’s called the Corrections Bill. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: There we have it—the Corrections Bill. We are not on the title debate yet but I guess if it was the title debate we could say that it is aptly named. I will not put up an alternative to the title. 
What I will spend time on is the definition of “Visiting Justice” in clause 3 which states: “Visiting Justice in relation to a prison means (a) a District Court Judge; or (b) a person appointed under section 19(2) to be a Visiting Justice for that prison”. One of the concerns that has been expressed—and the Minister in the chair Paul Swain may like to take a call on this—is that justices of the peace have in the past been visiting justices. In this bill that provision is taken away. I do note however that an amendment to clause 19(2)—which is in Part 2 but still relates to the definition in Part 1—set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 states that: “The Governor-General may on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice appoint any Justice of the Peace or barrister or solicitor of the High Court to be a Visiting Justice for every prison.” The Minister acknowledged that that has now been brought back in and we applaud that. It is our view of course that it should never have been taken out. The Minister has acknowledged that justices of the peace are now back in the bill. That will satisfy the thousands of JPs around the country who have been quite concerned about the fact that JPs were excluded in the bill as introduced. That is certainly an area we support. 
I also note that if we were to look here in Parliament—I have here the parliamentary telephone directory for April 2004—for the justices of the peace who are MPs or who work here there are three Labour MPs and Madam Chairperson is one of those. The Hon George Hawkins Janet Mackey and Lindsay Tisch are mentioned here as well. There are also six other JPs who work in Parliament. 
While some members may carry out only ministerial duties which is a function that I have had for many many years as a JP there are many who have undertaken the judicial course and have sat on the bench in various courts around the country. The demise of JPs sitting on the bench came when the move to community magistrates came into force. I do not know how many community magistrates there are around but I know there are still some in Hamilton. There was concern when community magistrates were introduced that JPs who had done judicial training and who had experience in courts were sidelined. 
The point I bring forward for the Minister is that although his Supplementary Order Paper corrects what the bill states concerning visiting justices—who will now include JPs and barristers and solicitors of the High Court—it has to be asked who will pay for this service. JPs at the moment give their time voluntarily. They are the leaders in the community. They have got there because of their standing in the community but who will pay the barristers and solicitors?