Gallagher Martin: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Gallagher Martin: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8359] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I rise as chair of the Law and Order Committee whose pleasure it was to consider the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill and acknowledge the contribution of Simon Power and the Minister the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. This is one of those interesting and rare moments—although perhaps not very rare in terms of percentages—where there is agreement across the House. We come back to the Chamber with an essentially unanimous report. 
First of all I particularly acknowledge members of the select committee—the deputy chair Ron Mark Simon Power Kate Wilkinson Chester Borrows Jill Pettis and the Hon Winnie Laban. They all worked together very constructively and proactively to try to come back with a bill in an amended form that will be the template—the platform—for the honourable office of justice of the peace for New Zealand to carry on into the 21st century. I will come back in a minute to the issue of limited tenure because I think it deserves a mention; no doubt we will hear further mention of it in our third reading contributions. 
First of all I join with the previous two speakers in emphasising that justices of the peace play an extremely valuable and vital role in communities throughout New Zealand. They embody the spirit of the genuine community volunteer in terms of their selfless work. I give the Minister the Hon Clayton Cosgrove particular praise in finally achieving the bringing of a bill to the House that basically updates and refines JP legislation. I believe that this legislation will greatly enhance the work of JPs. It is certainly a very clear and concise bill. 
I take this opportunity also to pay particular tribute to the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations for its excellent work over the years as it tirelessly lobbied for this bill. Previous Ministers whom I have worked with will certainly testify to that. I am mindful that the bill has taken quite some time to come to the House and I thank the Ministers for their patience. The royal federation as a lobby group—if I can use that phrase because obviously it plays that role—has a relationship with the Government Opposition and all parties in this House. I pay tribute to the federation particularly its registrar Alan Hart for the very professional way in which it has interacted with a number of members of this Parliament over the years. The bill is a reflection of that—that it has patiently put forward a view that we needed to update the legislation which we have finally done. 
I also note a media statement issued by the federation as a result of its latest excellent conference in Napier which I and others attended. I pay particular tribute first of all to the immediate past president Gavin Kerr who as the Minister has acknowledged was honoured with a well-deserved Queen’s honour in the new year. I pay particular tribute to his leadership during this time. In the media statement Gavin Kerr and the incoming president Mr John Falconer raised the issue of complacency. I will quote from the statement: “A loophole in the Justice of the Peace system that sees some JPs ‘disappear’ may be changed with a bill on its way through parliament said Gavin Kerr and John Falconer who were in Napier for the national JP conference last week.” This comes back to the issue of limited tenure which I will return to. The statement continues: “Complacency is a major issue and to be blunt in the past there have been people who regard it as a reward system and we would like to see that totally done away with … We owe it to the New Zealand public to have competent and accessible JPs.” The statement also acknowledged that a small minority of JPs disappeared once they had been given the title. 
I acknowledge the current and former Ministers for tightening up on the process by which JPs are nominated. As all MPs are aware for a person now to be nominated by a member of Parliament he or she first of all has to have at least two community references and a personal reference. The Minister’s office has to see some very clear concise evidence of community service. I think that is excellent. The media statement also urged members of this Parliament to consider a nominee’s ability “to do the job as if processes were mishandled in a public office ramifications could be severe.” In other words the very respectful message to us as members of Parliament who are the first people in the chain who physically nominate JPs is that we need to give great care and consideration to the process of nomination and make sure we have suitable people—by means of CVs community references and personal references at least. There has to be some evidence given to the Minister’s office that we are putting up suitable people. 
What the bill does very positively—and I think this is a huge step forward—is give a final national consistency for the interview process. The federation has some views on that process. Once a person is interviewed and recommended back to the Minister for appointment to the office he or she as a result of this bill now has to undergo compulsory mandatory training. That is a final good backstop because obviously a person has to be willing to submit to that training and if someone having gone through all the other processes is not suitable then that is a backstop. 
The other good provision is for the “JP (retired)” designation which will do two things. First it will give a JP who has given long and meritorious service the right to retain the title “JP (retired)” which is an acknowledgment of that historic meritorious community service. To allow those JPs to keep the letters after their name is a good way for the community to give them that kind of acknowledgment. However I think that when this provision comes in there will be a number of JPs who feel that they have given service who do not really want to be in the situation where they have disappeared and who may reflect that it is time for them to genuinely retire. There will be a process where we will hopefully whittle down the list of JPs to those who are what we call “active JPs” per se. 
In terms of limited tenure—in the brief time I have left—the select committee asked why we should wait for 5 or 10 years or whatever. If some JPs are not doing the job there should be other processes put in place so that they can be weeded out. I am aware that the federation is doing ongoing work with the Minister in terms of keeping the roles updated and trying to track people who have literally disappeared into the woodwork. In my view those people through some sort of process should be invited either to become active or to exercise their right to retire. 
Finally I say that the Minister—and it is probably a bit of an understatement—has been exceptionally keen to get this bill through. That is good. He was aware that this was long overdue and needed legislation. As a committee we have diligently and conscientiously gone through all the issues. As a result I think we have brought back a good bill to Parliament and as I said at the opening of my contribution it will be a good template and platform for the very wonderful office of justice of the peace in New Zealand. I say “wonderful” in terms of the wonderful spirit of the volunteer and community service that the office of justice of the peace of New Zealand performs for the 21st century. Thank you.