Power Simon: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Power Simon: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8639] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to thank the Hon Clayton Cosgrove for his kind and bipartisan-like words on the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill. On behalf of the National Party I too take this opportunity simply to say a few quick words regarding the third reading of this bill. 
 Firstly like the Labour Party National would like to take this opportunity publicly to thank JPs for the voluntary work they do in our community. Often it is difficult to quantify exactly the level of depth and breadth of work done and the only time we will truly know the commitment and the effort made by JPs on a voluntary capacity I suspect is if one day they are not there. On that basis I want to take this opportunity formally to thank JPs across New Zealand for their work. 
I too add to the Minister’s thanks to the royal federation because as I said during the second reading this is in many ways its bill its legislation although there were some important debates in the Law and Order Committee. In the first instance the legislation looked simple but it actually was not because other issues have remained unanswered as this legislation is being passed—which I will return to shortly. I too would like to thank Alan Hart for the work he does on behalf of the federation and I apologise for not attending the cake ceremony recently. 
I also take this opportunity to thank Gavin Kerr the immediate past president for the work that he has done. This legislation was largely an initiative driven by him in a way that saw him exercise frankly quite some political skill because the Minister had bold ideas about how quickly this legislation would travel through the select committee—and so he should have had. But the select committee of course is not a creature of the Minister’s wishes and wanted to take some time to discuss the bill in some detail. 
I am interested to find out that Martin Gallagher is a JP. He did not declare that at the point the legislation went through the committee. So that was quite interesting. I was thinking back about it and he did not make too much of a contribution when we started talking about remuneration. So maybe we will forgive him in relation to that potential conflict of interest. 
I think that the appointment and training processes that have been initially suggested by the Ministers—two or three of them who are present in the House—and also by the select committee are appropriate. Members of Parliament at the time they make a recommendation for an appointment of a JP worry that those people may not front and do the job that they I guess in front of the member when being interviewed have committed to do. So I think that swapping the presumptive nature of the order in which the training and the warrant are bequeathed is the right way to go—training first then receipt of the warrant and not the other way around. I think that is sensible and I think that is to be encouraged. 
The disciplinary clauses are important but largely thematic actually. I suspect that they will be used in a very minor way if at all by the federation. There are some unanswered questions as I indicated earlier. The committee during its deliberation considered carefully and seriously the issues of limited tenure practising certificates and registration and licensing—or their equivalent. The idea of renewal after a certain period of time in the job—maybe 5 maybe 10 or maybe 15 years—was attractive to the committee at those stages. But in the end it was after two or three different discussions with the federation—we asked the federation back to discuss those issues I think on two occasions after the initial submission was made—that we decided to leave the issue of tenure and that of remuneration for that matter for another time. 
I do share however the Minister’s concerns although he did not express them as concerns to see more diverse JPs appointed. This is not a club and it is not up to the federation to invite people to become JPs to the exclusion of those whom others in the community may think might make good JPs. On that basis I endorse the Minister’s view that ultimately the decision to have the warrant placed on a JP should be at the recommendation of the Minister or Associate Minister of Justice of whatever political stripe that individual may be. I think that is important. That is not to take away from the fact that most members of Parliament as I understand it work closely with their JP associations to make sure that appointments are acceptable both to the association and to the member. But let us not forget that ultimately any high office bestowed by the likes of the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Government of the day must reflect the make-up of New Zealand society at any one point. That does mean having more women JPs. That does mean having more Maori JPs. That does mean having more Asian and Pasifika JPs and frankly it does mean having younger people in the job as well. I would like to take this opportunity to put those thoughts on record. After having sat through what I thought was going to be a straightforward piece of legislation it struck me that it was not—and that we had to get it right. 
I want to thank the officials who sat through the select committee’s deliberations. They were patient and we thank them for that. They steered us in the right direction and although the Minister was chomping at the bit I think he will agree that the legislation that came out of the select committee and has been through the House was worth waiting for. It is going pretty much to the timetable he envisaged and I think all members of the House are to be congratulated on that. 
Lastly I am going to finish where I started and say thank you to the JPs of New Zealand for the work they do. Its value is immeasurable. Their contribution will continue to be valued long after this legislation makes it through its third reading today. I wish them well and I look forward to a continuing association with them as I am sure do all members of the House.