Hughes Darren: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hughes Darren: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8365] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to speak tonight in support of the second reading of the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill. It is legislation that has taken many years and a lot of ideas and thought to get here tonight. We are now debating the recommendations made by the Law and Order Committee and are picking up on work that has been done by three Ministers in a row starting with Paul Swain when Labour came into Government at the end of 1999. His work was continued in the second term by Rick Barker and was brought to a legislative form by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove who moved the first reading last year. 
It seems to me that when we are dealing with this area—and all members who have spoken have reflected on the importance this office holds in all our communities—it is important that we have a high level of agreement within the House that there is consensus and that the bill not be seen to be rushed through because it is very important that this office retains its integrity in the community. That is why it has been heartening to hear the speeches of so many members of Parliament here tonight. 
The legislation replaces a law that is now 50 years old. When we think of the changes that have occurred in our communities over the last 50 years we can see that it is necessary now to modernise and bring this legislation up to date. I think that is what the bill seeks to achieve. 
Many members have talked about their practices in their own electorates. In my electorate of Otaki we have a very high number of justices of the peace. When I look at the reforms proposed in this bill I think they will assist enormously in the efficient administration of the JP system in the Otaki electorate. My electorate has more people over the age of 65 than any other electorate. A lot of people who have performed a lifetime of good work and good service as JPs in their community then retire to the Kapiti Coast and Horowhenua and because there has been no provision within the 50-year-old law for a designation of “JP (retired)” they have stayed on as active JPs. This means it is very difficult to appoint new JPs; the argument is that there are already a lot in the area. 
One of the provisions in this bill that I am most keen on is that we are creating a new category of “JP (retired)” which honours all the work that has gone on before and states that the contribution that has been made is not being overlooked or forgotten. It means that people come off the active list if you like and that when we are looking at new appointments we are able to make a fairer assessment of whether there are enough justices of the peace in an area. So I am particularly pleased to welcome that provision. 
The new category of “JP (retired)” as the select committee talked about actually gives the appointment and the privilege of it much more of a career structure. The work that has been done by way of training reinforces that point. People might start off at a younger age as a JP undertake training to try to ensure that they can do that job to the best of their ability then once they finally get to the stage when they have finished making an active contribution they get to stay part of that wider justice community by way of the “JP (retired)” category. I am very much in favour of that. 
I note in the papers I have read about this bill that although there are about 10700 JPs in New Zealand and we receive anywhere upwards of 350 nominations a year in the last year only 12 nominations came in for people under the age of 50. That is an area that members of Parliament when they are making appointments need to think about so as to ensure that we are getting some younger people coming through as justices of the peace who are prepared to make that long-term commitment do the training be part of the system and be active. 
It is at this point that I would like to mention the practice I have followed. Mr Tisch talked about his own practice and so did Mr Power. I acknowledge Lindsay Tisch as someone who has had a long-term interest in JP issues; in fact he is often called upon in this complex to perform JP responsibilities and he takes that very seriously indeed. One of the most effective ways in which I have dealt with people who have come to my office and said that a lot of people want them to be a JP and could I please nominate them is to say that if that is the case if so many people are asking them that would they like to come back with some letters of support from people—maybe from just two or three groups in our community who are in favour of their receiving that appointment. It is striking to me how often that is the last meeting I have with people. Normally what happens is that people suggest a name to me and I can work through it. 
I have always said not everybody is cut out for the judicial role but I would at least expect people to be open to considering that once they have settled in. The training which up until now has been more of a voluntary nature—certainly for the bulk of the time of the law we are amending—must be undertaken. I think it is important that people participate in their local JP association. There is a real reluctance among some appointees to do that kind of thing. They think once their appointment is all signed off by the Governor-General that is the end of their involvement. I think it is very very important that they be involved in their local JP association. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I hear Bob Clarkson and Lockwood Smith interjecting. Here we are trying to debate and discuss quite a non-partisan proper issue about the administration of justice and democracy in our communities and all they want to do is make cheap political points and chip chip chip away. I think JPs play a very important role in our society. If those members do not think that that is fine but all I ask them to do is to show respect for the 10700 people who do perform a role as a JP. Lockwood Smith was telling us earlier on in the House that he has been in Parliament for 23 years. Presumably he has appointed a lot of people in that time. If he is not interested in debating that maybe he should go and do something else but those of us who are here and want to participate in the debate think this issue is very very important. 
The other point that has come up very strongly is around training. Lockwood Smith might not know that the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations has developed a very good CD-Rom that is now being used to undertake training right across the country including in rural and isolated areas where maybe the associations are not very strong. That CD-Rom is beefing up the capacity of our JPs all across the country. It was a joint project funded by the Government and the federation. Of course to be fair all the legwork was done by the federation. Getting that CD-Rom out across the country has assisted our JPs in such an important way. In particular if people do not carry out certain parts of the role very often then their being able to have that resource right there on the computer is very important. The training aspect is crucial in terms of retaining public confidence in the system and not allowing that confidence to fritter away. 
The discipline issue has been mentioned by other colleagues tonight in terms of what lower levels of correctional behaviour can be taken rather than our taking the shotgun kind of approach of saying that a person will be kicked out of the system which I do not think people would want to see for smaller transgressions. Again that reinforces my earlier point about having active local associations. Sometimes some of the best stuff can be done by local JPs talking to one another and getting mentoring and training. 
The process of the bill has been good. We have all gone out and talked to our local JPs. I certainly have done so over the last 5 years in Horowhenua and Kapiti. I have asked JPs what they need. I have said to them that we were going to change this law for the first time in 50 years and have asked what would be good to have in it. That is what we have been able to put in this bill. The committee has looked at the bill enhanced it and made it even better which has been a worthwhile and beneficial thing. The other good aspect of this reform has been the way in which the Government the Ministry of Justice and the select committee itself have in a non-partisan way been able to work with those representing the federation of JPs. That is very good. 
I conclude by paying tribute in that regard to Gavin Kerr who has been the president of the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations through most of the time we have been looking at this bill. Gavin Kerr is of course well known to me as the former principal of Horowhenua College in my electorate; he was principal at the time when I was a student at that fine establishment. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: He couldn’t still be alive. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: I tell Mr Benson-Pope that that was very recently—just in the last decade in fact. Gavin has put a huge amount of energy and time into this bill particularly around the training aspect and around making sure the federation had some quite sharp contributions to make as to how this bill ended up. I think that not only the federation but our Parliament have been well served by Gavin’s contribution. I am absolutely delighted that today he was at Government House receiving a New Zealand Royal Honour. I cannot think of a more fitting tribute for somebody for whom I have enormous respect and whom I think of as a man of extraordinary integrity. This matter is just one aspect of his life’s work and I think everyone will agree we are better off for his contribution to the bill. I pay tribute to him tonight. 
I support the second reading of the bill.