Worth Richard: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:3972] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 On behalf of the National Party I would like to start by saying that National supports the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill. We have had a most informative speech from the Minister as to the content of the legislation in the course of which he has seen it as appropriate to offer a testimonial to Martin Gallagher MP justice of the peace as Martin prepares for his next career! 
When I was talking to Mr Finlayson earlier this evening he reminded me of the comments of Titus Livius the Roman author and historian who said: “Better late than never”. When the Minister said that the bill has been a long time in the coming he was so right for National has pressed and pressed for the legislation to be introduced and advanced into the House. The justices of the peace have become as an association and a federation more and more vexed and concerned at the unnecessary and unreasonable delays that have beset the advancement of this important statute. 
It is right to start I believe by noting that the office of justice of the peace is an ancient and honourable institution. Indeed the ability to recommend the appointment of a justice of the peace is the last bastion of a constituency MP’s patronage. There were at last count approximately 10000 justices of the peace in New Zealand and all undertake to provide ministerial duties document processing and the taking of statutory declarations as a free service to the community. Some of course serve as judicial justices with their jurisdiction extending to cover more than 90 separate Acts of Parliament. Some of those Acts give jurisdiction over deposition hearings bail remands summary offences minor offences local authority infringements and the swearing of search warrants. 
I think it is interesting to reflect on the latest statistics—which the Minister did not refer to in his informative speech—that in the year ended October 2005 the actual number of charges heard by justices were these. There were 12731 deposition or preliminary hearings; 35603 minor and summary offences including traffic offences; and 21046 bails and remands. So that is a total of 69380 charges heard—and all of that was done voluntarily with only lunch money of $16 and travel costs reimbursed. So those justices contributed about 26000 voluntary hours. I think one of the issues that will disappoint some of the justices of the peace when they come to look at this legislation is that the Government has not seized the nettle and dealt with the issue of pay for justices of the peace. I know that the Minister is implacably opposed to rewarding justices even in the most modest way for the work they do. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Not true. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: I would just like to capture those words “not true” on the record. It is always important to be flexible and the Minister has shifted his ground in the last few hours to make it clear that there may well be it seems for justices that promise of bounty at the end of the day. 
I am a staunch advocate for the role that justices of the peace play in the community and I would like to see that role strengthened and extended. Although I have spoken about the work that justices of the peace do in a judicial capacity there is a degree of doubt that the future role of justices of the peace in court duties will continue under the present Government. I say that because the Law Commission proposed in its report called  
Delivering Justice for All: A Vision for New Zealand Courts and Tribunals 
 that community justice officers be appointed with the intent that they should generally be experienced lawyers. 
In one of a series of written questions that I asked the Government last year to which the responses were not particularly enlightening the Government stated that it had not made decisions on the long-term future of the judicial roles of justices of the peace. Nicky Wagner has reminded me that the role of justice of the peace is an ancient and honourable one and that is assuredly so. It can be traced back to the unpaid post of wardens conservators and keepers of the peace in the 14th century and there has been a tradition of unpaid service accordingly dating back more than 600 years. It is a matter of historical note that in New Zealand the first justice of the peace appointed was the missionary Thomas Kendall who was given responsibility in the Bay of Islands and throughout the islands of New Zealand. When New Zealand became a separate British colony regular appointments of justices were made and three senior justices were required to be members of the Legislative Council. 
There is an issue on which I would briefly like to comment and when I first made these comments they provoked some controversy. The Auckland association which is a strong part of the justices of the peace grouping became concerned that about half the justices of the peace in Manukau City clearly an important constituent part of the Auckland region were ignoring their responsibilities to the public. There are approximately 600 justices of the peace in Manukau but only about 300 were carrying out their duties. It would not surprise me at all if similar statistics could be found for other associations. That is relevant to the issue of the appointment of justices because a statutory test requires the Minister before making fresh appointments to see how well served a particular district is. I believe that process involves little more than a numerical look to see the number of justices in a particular area. That is why there is intrinsic merit in those parts of the bill that deal with training and tenure and permit in the way the Minister has described those who have given service to retire honourably and have the honorific “JP (retired)” after their name. 
I am in favour and the bill certainly proposes this of a much stricter vetting of applications and the validating of the commitment by an individual to undertake the role if appointed. For there are many who see in the honorific “JP” the opportunity of post-nominal initials and not much more than that. That is a challenge that those administering the legislation must constantly grapple with. I also support compulsory membership of associations and the continuing education of JPs. For those who are not prepared to commit to the task I would cancel their warrants. For those who perform sterling service as so many do and who are not able to continue I believe they should retain the honorific as a mark of the service they have given. 
Quite clearly without judicial justices of the peace the legal system would not function at the primary level. That will continue to be the case if the Criminal Procedure Bill which is currently on the Order Paper is passed. That bill provides that the standard committal procedure in indictable criminal proceedings will be presentation of evidence in written form and automatic committal for trial unless either party applies for an oral hearing. I certainly have some reservations about that part of the bill because the way that the legislation is drafted—I believe in error—will make it extremely difficult to secure an oral evidence order. There is a school of thought that says only qualified lawyers should exercise an adjudicative jurisdiction but I do not subscribe to that. Despite what the Minister might think lawyers do not have the monopoly on wisdom in the legal domain. A justice of the peace can bring to the bench a close knowledge of the community and its aspirations as well as robust common sense. National commends the bill to the House.