Donnelly Brian: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8644] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I think back to the early days of the first MMP coalition Government in 1997 after the dust had settled somewhat from the quite prolonged negotiations held with both National and Labour and I say to Minister Clayton Cosgrove who is presenting this bill to the House that I do not think that members of his party were extremely happy just before that Christmas. But that was in 1997 when the dust had settled somewhat and we were getting back into our work. One of the very first questions that came to our caucuses—and a few members here in the House may remember this—concerned how we would deal with recommendations to the position of JP under MMP because for the first time we had two different sorts of MPs. We had electorate MPs and list MPs. So it seemed—certainly to myself at that time—that the process would be made a mockery of if every list MP were to charge forth and make a whole list of recommendations. It was decided I think by all the caucuses at that time that we would put all JP recommendations through electorate MPs. That seemed to me to be a very sensible process. 
It is certainly one that I continue in my electorate. If there are brought to my attention any potential nominations or areas where there are shortfalls in terms of numbers then I put them through Phil Heatley for his processing. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Who? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Phil Heatley. If the member has not heard there is somebody who is actually the MP for Whangarei by the name of Phil Heatley. I know him because I happen to live in the same area. I put those nominations through him largely because he is in receipt of the bigger picture. I do not know whether that is still the norm but I think it is the right thing to do. 
JPs are a critical part of our judicial system and have been for a long long time. I think the critical role that JPs play is not always recognised by members of the public. It is certainly good this evening for example that that role is being acknowledged by all parties—acknowledged recognised and appreciated. I think 10500 JPs is the number that has been mentioned. It has to be recognised that the service is carried out by volunteers who willingly give up their time to make sure that this critical role within our system actually works. 
It would be interesting to see the real cost to New Zealand of having this voluntary service. Maybe some research money could be taken away from looking at the lifestyle of bogans and put towards finding the real cost of JPs and what it would mean for example if it had to be a charged service. Nevertheless the voluntary system I think should maintain itself because of the provisions and safeguards it provides. 
We are talking about the requirements of training and I think that it is obvious that our society has become much more complex and the law particularly for those who go into the judicial field has become far far broader and far far more complex. But I know that training has been available for JPs. My father became a JP in Mangakino way back in the 1980s. As someone who did not have any school qualifications—his only qualifications I think had been in becoming a machine-gunner and a shirt cutter—he was very proud of the training he undertook there and of the assignments he did. He used to tell us about the sort of training he was being given etc. and that was very important to him. So it is not as if training has not been available. But this legislation—and it has been mentioned that this is the first updating of the Act for 50 years—actually strengthens the provision for the requirement of training before people can undertake certain roles as JPs and in particular their roles as JPs in the judicial area. 
 We have seen a fairly large example of the need for accountability and credibility in all parts and all sectors of our justice system in the last week or so—it is something that has been ongoing—and I refer to the police. So it is important to the public that we can ensure that systems are in place that safeguard the credibility of the JP system. Of course I am talking now about having the potential to take disciplinary action and to take intermediary disciplinary action when somebody is possibly operating at a shortfall but certainly has not brought himself or herself into total disrepute. Once again we believe that the proposed required training for some JPs who may not be fulfilling their functions to the fullest as expected is a very positive step. It will strengthen the provisions of the JP system and ensure that it is able to professionalise and will continue to professionalise into the future. 
We think that the recognition of long-serving JPs or people who have worked as JPs for over 10 years by allowing them to use the term “JP (retired)” is a very worthy recommendation and addition to the statute. I will come to the point that Simon Power made as it is true and a very important point. The reality is that a number of people come into the JP role when they have a bit more time on their hands such as possibly when their families are out of their way. There will also come a time when they get to the stage they want to move out of the role. Maybe they do not have the energy to keep on going. Putting the “JP (retired)” term in place so that their service over the years is recognised is very meritorious. 
I refer to the point that I think was most strongly made by Simon Power and that is the need for diversity within the JP system. There is a need for example for electorate MPs in making their recommendations to ensure that the diversity of the population of New Zealand is reflected in the make-up of the body of JPs. One group referred to by Simon Power which I must admit would not readily have sprung to mind is younger people. It is worthwhile taking note of the point that Simon made and keeping it in mind in terms of making sure that the diversity of JPs parallels the diversity within our population. There are younger people within our population. In fact the judicial system impacts upon quite a number of younger people; therefore their perceptions of the world etc. should be taken into consideration. 
I finish with one other point. Rick Barker congratulated Clayton Cosgrove on getting this legislation on the Order Paper. But given the amount of legislation on the Order Paper I think the process went somewhat like this: I think that Michael Cullen said: “Look we’ve got nothing to go on the Order Paper. Has anyone got anything to put there?”. Clayton put up his hand and said he had something and Michael thanked him and said he could have it. Nevertheless the legislation is here and I think that everybody in this House is pleased to see its passage. Hopefully it will come to its fruition this evening. New Zealand First supports this bill. Thank you.