Cosgrove Clayton: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8355] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. In order to maintain public confidence in the role of justices of the peace—or JPs—in a system preserving the good name of the office the Government introduced the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill to reform three areas: training discipline and retirement. The bill establishes a modern framework for a long-established and venerable community institution. The bill is divided into two parts. The first part relates to the training of newly appointed JPs and the authorisation to use the designation “JP (retired)”. The second part provides an appropriate and clear disciplinary process for JPs. 
At this point—and I am sure that Simon Power a member of the Law and Order Committee will join with me—I congratulate and thank not only all the JPs that serve our community but also the immediate past President of the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations Gavin Kerr who from the point of view of the royal federation shepherded through this bill. I note that he has been honoured in this year’s Honours List and I think he will receive his honour in the next 24 or 48 hours. I thank him together with Alan Hart the royal federation’s registrar and of course the incoming president John Falconer. I also thank the Law and Order Committee especially its chair Martin Gallagher and its members—Ron Mark Simon Power and others—who have shepherded this bill through the House. The bill by its nature is pretty bipartisan and non-controversial and I thank those members and those parties for their support. 
The main amendments include the following: clarifying that initial training will occur prior to appointment; introducing a requirement that justices complete compulsory judicial training before exercising a judicial function such as presiding in a court; clarifying the suspension period in working days; defining the secretary as the Secretary for Justice as mentioned in the bill; changing the age when a justice may apply for exemption from performing judicial functions from 68 years to 70 years; and introducing a distinction in the legislation between the act of retiring and resigning. 
The committee also considered introducing into the bill a provision for limited tenure for JPs. Although I understand the motivations for the committee to consider fixed-term appointments for JPs with a review before reappointment I have to say that I am happy to see that that was not pursued. Limited tenure would be an expensive business to establish and to administer. I am confident that the issues justifying such a system will be dealt with effectively through the disciplinary provisions in the bill and through the administrative guidelines being developed outside the legislation. 
The committee also discussed the issue of remuneration for JPs but as noted by the committee itself this bill is not the appropriate vehicle by which to approach this issue. Recognising the contributions of JPs in the New Zealand court system is a topic being explored by Ministry of Justice officials and by the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations outside of the legislation. 
I am confident that this bill will enhance public confidence in the role of JPs. The introduction of compulsory initial training before appointment and the provision of an effective disciplinary process will improve the quality and consistency of the work carried out by our JPs. These measures also indicate the high standard of behaviour that is expected of JPs as respected members of our community. The disciplinary provisions in the current Justices of the Peace Act are over 50 years old and they allow for a JP to be removed from office in only the most serious of cases. The bill enhances the disciplinary regime by specifying the grounds for removal or suspension of a JP and the process that must be followed to secure removal or suspension. A lower level set of disciplinary measures in the bill will ensure that JPs who are not performing to an acceptable level but whose actions do not warrant removal from office can receive an official written rebuke and can be required to attend suitable training or receive counselling. I consider that specifying the disciplinary regime in the legislation provides a consistent fair and transparent basis for decision making. 
Justices of the Peace have a proud history of service to our country. This Government—and I know all members of this House—commend the significant amount of time and effort that justices of the peace volunteer in the performance of their duties. As Associate Minister of Justice responsible for this part of the justice portfolio and as one who has travelled around New Zealand—with the privilege of visiting with JPs from Dunedin to Invercargill to Auckland and of attending the conference of JPs this year in Napier—I am mindful of the huge amount of voluntary time and effort that these people put in. They are not paid; they are volunteers. Many very senior members of our community by their very nature want to give something back to their communities after finishing long and honourable careers. 
Before concluding I again pay tribute to Gavin Kerr the immediate past president of the royal federation. That gentleman is an innovator. He has been a JP for many many years and has contributed a huge amount to our communities. When he came in last year as president he set the organisation on a path not only to provide support to push through this bill but also to push best practice. Simon Power and others will be aware—as we go through and do a stocktake in order to get best practice in some of the customs and practices that are outside the legislation and in the systems that have developed—that Gavin Kerr has championed that process. We will go out for consultation with a document that has been agreed to by the royal federation and the ministry in order to consult with JP branches and associations in order to get unanimity and in order to get consistency of these customs and practices and best practice performance. That consultation is supported I know by Gavin Kerr. 
Equally I commend Alan Hart a long-time registrar of the royal federation—the ballast if you like in the administration in the organisation—and also John Falconer for the zest and vigour that he exhibited at the royal federation conference as the incoming president of the federation. He wants to continue the work along with Gavin Kerr who will remain an integral part of these reforms as they flow through. As a way of recognising the commitment of long-serving JPs it is also noteworthy that the bill allows former JPs who have served for at least 10 years to apply to use the title “JP (retired)”. If someone has contributed for 10 years and wants to keep the honorific but feels he or she wants to take a step back I believe that that person has earned it. 
I commend the bill to the House as an important and necessary step in modernising the roles of justices of the peace so that the New Zealand public may continue to have confidence in this office and so that the good name of the office can be upheld.