Tanczos Nandor: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8643] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I rise to support the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill. Like other members I want to begin by thanking JPs for the excellent work that many of them do and for the very real and valuable contribution they make to New Zealand in that role. They perform judicial functions and some more mundane tasks which members have referred to. In the past I myself have had recourse to the services of JPs for certification of documents and various things like that. I have found the access to JPs in the community and the dispersion of individuals to be enormously valuable in terms of getting access to those services. I thank them for the work they do. Having said that I recognise the need to acknowledge that there have been some problems in the past. That is why this bill is before the House. 
Simon Power has mentioned the issue of homogeneity among JPs and the need to ensure greater diversity in terms of gender ethnicity and the like. I think that that is true. In that regard I am not sure that I entirely agree with that member and the Associate Minister of Justice Clayton Cosgrove who both said that the current appointment process is the best possible way to ensure diversity. If there is an issue of homogeneity the current process is what has led us to that position. So I think there is a debate to be had but that it is a debate for another occasion. So we take that as a given in terms of the current bill. 
The other issue which I have raised in the past is around the use by police of tame JPs to get speedy search warrants on the basis of what is not always full information. That is why I particularly welcome the provisions around the training of JPs before they can perform any judicial function. I think it is important where JPs are signing off on search warrants and the like—and these are serious infringements on the rights of New Zealand people—that there is a clear understanding that those JPs have been through judicial training that they understand the rights and responsibilities associated with those issues and that they exercise those powers carefully and judiciously. So we wholly commend the new provision new section 3B(1) to be inserted by clause 4 which states that a JP “must not exercise or perform any judicial power or function unless he or she has completed training in the exercise and performance of judicial powers and functions to the satisfaction of the Chief District Court Judge.” 
The other issue is around the disciplinary action that is now available for a variety of reasons. This again is something we fully support because in recognising that most JPs do excellent work we believe that there has to be some procedure for dealing with individuals whose performances are falling down. So in proposed new section 5(1)(b) to be inserted by clause 5 the bill provides for the ability to remove or suspend a JP from office on the basis that he or she has neglected or refused to perform his or her functions has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment while being a JP has been adjudged bankrupt or has failed or refused to comply with the requirement. So it is a useful thing that that provision has been introduced. 
There is a safeguard in the bill in the form of proposed section 5A to be inserted by clause 5 which provides that the Minister must consult the Chief District Court Judge before recommending the removal or suspension of a JP. There are some provisions around constraining that and those are welcome as well. New section 5D to be inserted by clause 5 lists a range of actions that can be taken at a lower level than suspension or removal. Justices of the Peace can be given an official written rebuke; they can be required by written notice to apologise to a person or people; they can be required by written notice to undertake training or further training; and they can be required by written notice to receive counselling or further counselling. So those are examples of lower-level sanction that can be used. 
New section 5D(2) states that the Minister must not recommend the giving of such a direction unless he or she is satisfied that the JP concerned has behaved in a way that is “inappropriate or undesirable for a Justice (otherwise than in relation to the exercise or performance of judicial powers or functions); or (b) has performed a function of Justice while suspended from office; or (c) has neglected his or her … functions as a Justice. Again there are some constraints around that in terms of the requirement that proper notice and an opportunity to reply be given and so forth. 
So some disciplinary actions have now become available with some safeguards around them. These provisions are thoroughly welcome—along with the other provisions that I have mentioned around training—in order to clarify issues around JPs and to professionalise and standardise the service that is being offered. We think that those provisions are wholly welcome and that they in no way reflect on the majority of JPs who already do an excellent job. We thank the JPs for the services they provide and the Minister for bringing this bill through the House. We will vote for the bill at this reading.