Mark Ron: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mark Ron: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8362] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Pretty much all that needs to be said has been said but it remains for me to put on the record New Zealand First’s position in respect of the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill. First I have to say it was a pleasure working with the Law and Order Committee as we went through the legislation. Occasionally we have bills before select committees that are contentious and where issues are fought out. In the case of this bill I think all parties recognised—or if they did not recognise it the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations certainly made it clear to them—that the legislation as it stood from 1957 was outdated outmoded and in need of an urgent review to enable some workability to be restored to the regime and to give some security and confidence going forward. 
New Zealand First members put on record that we respect and appreciate the men and women who are the justices of the peace of New Zealand and who take on the onerous task and responsibility of working for the people—largely for absolutely nothing in return. We understand and respect the responsibilities and burdens that they bear and their acceptance that they might well be woken at all hours of the night by a knock on the door from someone in blue or someone in need of help to get documents signed be they search warrants or Government documents that need to be validated as being true and accurate copies of the original. Such boring and mundane tasks are vitally important to citizens when they need the help and support of a justice of the peace in those areas. 
It was pretty widely known that there had become a political practice particularly within the two old parties National and Labour of using the JP regime as a means of rewarding people for their dutiful and loyal service and enabling them to gather an honorific such as “JP” after their names. It was always a nice tidy way of acknowledging someone’s contribution and support in certain areas and making use of his or her skills. It is interesting that we also often found that a number of persons out there bearing the title of JP were not actually doing the mahi. They were not doing the work and they were not slow to inform people that they were not interested. That was of enormous concern to the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations it was a concern to the Minister and it was a concern to the select committee. 
As a result we welcome a tightening up and a broader cross-party—if I could put it that way—agreement that there is a need for change there is a need to put in place criteria against which people will be assessed and there are expectations that will now be enshrined in the legislation that nominees will undergo and complete training before they commence their duties as justices of the peace. Essentially if they do not do that training they simply will not start work. We think that was a very very sensible amendment to the Act. 
The age of exemption had to be an issue given that it was only a month or so ago that we passed legislation to increase the age at which judges may continue to serve to 70. I noted that the original bill wanted to lower the retirement age for justices of the peace from 72 to 68. We settled at the happy medium of 70 which brought it into line with the legislation affecting the judiciary. 
The other area that Simon Power covered so well was the question of limited tenure. Again I have to put on record an endorsement of those words and say that we in New Zealand First actually see this as a first step—an important step. That step that has been taken at some pace because of the urgent need to get the legislation corrected. But we would envisage that this legislation will be back before the House again in time that there will be some fine-tuning to it and that the question of limited tenure is most likely to be on the agenda again for discussion and analysis. New Zealand First members signal concurrence and agreement with what Mr Power was saying—that there is room in the legislation for providing some mechanism by which we are able to limit the tenure or fix a period for which people must serve. 
Hand in hand with such a provision will also go I would assume steps to enable the system to analyse and assess the performance of those people who have held the title of JP over the time for which they have been appointed. It is nonsensical in this day and age I would argue that people’s appointments could be renewed and that those people could be allowed to continue in those appointments without an analysis having been conducted of their work performances over the period of time that they have held their appointments. It is also nonsensical that those people could be allowed to continue serving and holding the title without it being known precisely what they have been doing and how effectively they have been doing it. I hear people screaming in this House for accountability measurability and performance assessments all the time— 
Hon Member 
: Transparency. 
RON MARK 
: They are always carping on about transparency. It is true that we need transparency and we need accountability. But if we do not address those failings as they currently exist in this legislation in the long term we might well regret that. 
We believe that the addition of the honorific “JP” to those who are retiring as justices of the peace is eminently sensible. We believe that it is a good thing. It is the very least that Parliament can do to give recognition to the service of some New Zealanders who have given so unselfishly at cost to themselves and their families of their time and who have worn the burden of responsibility. It is a civic duty for which they have not been remunerated or compensated for to the degree that we believe they should be or could be. 
That brings me to the final point. There has been a lot of discussion about remuneration. I guess we would point out once again that a lot of people in this country give of their time freely—they do not give just of their time; they give of their assets. Anyone who was watching television tonight would have seen Mr Stephen Tindall. The discussion was about the amount of money that he through his business and through his trusts has given to New Zealanders to charities and to organisations for good causes. “Bob the Builder” may think Mr Tindall is not giving a good service to the country but I believe he is. I believe that New Zealanders such as him are very rare. We would be the poorer without New Zealanders like him. That is true of the men and women who bear the title of justice of the peace. It is nice— 
Bob Clarkson 
: I like your tie. 
RON MARK 
: Well there we go. That is the man whom Tauranga elected to Parliament—a gibbering old idiot who sits over there prattling on during the heart of a debate about which there is unanimity and consensus. The contribution “Bob the Builder” makes to the House is to come into this Chamber having drunk I do not know what over dinner and start prattling on about my tie. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated please. The member has been here long enough to know that members cannot refer to other members by a nickname. I refer him to Speakers’ rulings 26/6 and 26/7. The member will come to order. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Mark made a derogatory comment about my colleague Bob Clarkson. As many members will know Bob does not consume alcohol. The implication was made that he had been drinking. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated please. It is up to the member himself to raise the issue not Mr Tisch. 
RON MARK 
: The man I was referring to was Mr Bob Clarkson. How bizarre is that? Lindsay Tisch the dumped whip stood up and broke the Standing Orders by seeking to make some sort of explanation for Mr Clarkson which he did not need to do. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot now take liberties with the House and refer to the point of order. The member must continue with his speech and desist from that action. 
RON MARK 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for reminding me of exactly that point. I ask you Mr Assistant Speaker given that you are so well versed in the Standing Orders to apply the Standing Order that deals with trivial interjections and points of order that are designed to break up a member’s speech as that member’s point of order clearly did. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. I am the sole judge whilst Speaker of the House. I did not consider that to be a frivolous interjection. I considered it to be something the member may not have known about. When he was informed he sat down straightaway. 
RON MARK 
: I will just say to the House in general how interesting it is when we are dealing with such important legislation that the major contribution from Mr Clarkson—in fact the only contribution I think this House has heard from him for probably a month or more or probably 2 months or 10 months—is some comment about how a member is dressed in the House and in particular about my pink tie. If that is the contribution that Tauranga has bequeathed to the nation then I have to say good on Tauranga as it has just made itself the laughing stock of the whole country. By crikey! Roll on the next election. 
I conclude by saying that New Zealand First supports this legislation. I congratulate the Law and Order Committee and Kate Wilkinson and Simon Power on their contributions throughout the consideration of this bill. I look forward to the Committee stage.