Roy Eric: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Roy Eric: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4104] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I did not come down to the House with the specific intention of seeking a speaking slot. I am delighted to see that the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill is the item on the Order Paper that we are now dealing with. I would like to make just a few brief comments. I appreciated the comments of my learned friend Chris Finlayson. I am actually a JP and have been for some considerable time. I serve in all sorts of capacities in Wellington the district I live in and in Invercargill. I carry my stamps and paraphernalia with me. It is a task that many people do willingly and they make a contribution to the community. I am sure Parliament would recognise the service that JPs give. Nevertheless there are some important issues. 
I certainly support the tenor of the first part of the bill—that there needs to be some training and some ongoing training. However I have a concern and I would not like this to be taken out of context. The great majority of people who are JPs do it as part of their community service. They do it to the best of their endeavours and they make their best endeavours to keep skilled for the job’s requirements. However there are a few people who like “JP” after their name and they do not contribute greatly to the services of being a JP. [ 
Interruption 
] I will come to the selection process in a minute. I have more concerns around that than around almost anything that JPs do. 
 The very status of justice of the peace is interesting and it is probably regarded more highly outside New Zealand than it is within New Zealand. Just on Monday of this week a foreign national from Malaysia wanting to renew a passport came to see me. That person had had all the relevant documents certified as exact copies by the registrar of the court but the copies had been rejected by the Malaysian authorities because they wanted the copies signed by a justice of the peace. I would have thought that the registrar of the court would outrank by many degrees my humble self in my role as a justice of the peace—who knows? The passport may have been rejected subsequently. However around the world the role of justice of the peace may certainly differ slightly but justices of the peace are held in reasonably high regard. 
I support the regular training of justices of the peace. Training should not be limited to the initial training but there should also be regular refresher courses. The justice of the peace association to which I belong does its very best to continue with training programmes. However there is no mandatory requirement for justices of the peace to be attached to the association nor is there any mandatory requirement that justices of the peace do any ongoing training and I have to say that attendance at the association is probably only about 50 percent in the area I am in which concerns me. I do not think that is something we can legislate for; however we need to acknowledge that that area needs some kind of attention. 
The other area I wish to comment on is the selection process and I alluded to this matter earlier. I know that some members of Parliament make recommendations for the appointment of justices of the peace—or at least those members are certainly in a position to make recommendations to the Minister if not the appointments themselves—and some interesting people have been appointed as justices of the peace. In the past entire campaign committees have been made justices of the peace and I am aware that the appointment process for justices of the peace has been abused. Because of that I have set some ground rules in my area. If anybody approaches me as an MP who could make a recommendation I tell them that the people I listen to are members of the justices of the peace association. Again I am trying to empower and strengthen the association’s role and that keeps people in touch as well. If the association gives an applicant its approval I will sign off the application. I think that doing it that way takes into consideration ethnicity location and ability because it is very easy to find people who are prepared to authorise documents and that sort of thing but people who can take the next rung do some of the court work and step up to the mark in that capacity are a little harder to find. We need to have our MPs working with the justices of the peace association more in that area to ensure that we have the right kind of person coming through. 
Another issue I wish to raise which is not covered in this bill is the safety of justices of the peace. I am aware of at least two justices of the peace in my area who have either done court service or been required to make some kind of decision as to whether they will authenticate documents and then have received anonymous threats by phone by mail and by various other means. I think we can assume that those threats are some kind of repercussion from what those justices of the peace have done while acting in good service—which they are not paid for—and now they are reasonably concerned about their situation. I would hope that the Minister of Justice is giving that area some due consideration. 
I am sure this issue certainly rates very highly with the two justices of the peace whom I am aware of and I would suggest that theirs is not a unique situation. Although the police are prepared to act it takes quite a bit of police effort to actually trace anonymous calls and letters. Meanwhile those justices of the peace are still receiving the threats—despite having the police drive by reasonably frequently and doing what monitoring they can. So I raise that issue for the House’s information. A number of people in the community are fulfilling the role of justice of the peace with the best of intentions yet they face a very adverse reaction from some undesirable people in the community for doing that. So that is an issue we need to give some consideration to. 
I note also that there is provision in here to have a “JP (retired)” section. I stated earlier that some people like the title. I think after people have given a lifetime of service for which they are not paid it is nice to acknowledge that and I support that provision. I am not sure whether it is in the principal Act—I did not have time to read it—but in clause 5 in Part 2 there is a “when JPs turn bad” section to defrock them or whatever the term is to remove them from office. I wonder how often that happens or whether something has occurred that has precipitated that to be considered in here. I would be very interested to receive the explanation on that. 
In general I support the legislation. I echo the comments my colleague Chris Finlayson made. It is a rather lengthy amendment bill for the three short sections it deals with and the principal Act is not so lengthy. I support it going to a select committee and I look forward to seeing what sorts of submissions come in particularly from any JPs out there now who have some concerns around this. Maybe there are some issues that need to be considered because an amendment bill to the Justices of the Peace Act is not something that would come before this House very often. It is an opportunity for other issues to be considered as well.