Mallard Trevor: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4111. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to say that Lee-Ross Jami’s approach continues the patronising approach that we have seen from National members time and time again. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member needs to refer to another member by their correct name. It is Jami-Lee Ross. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I apologise. I just get confused by the member having three first names. 
Jami 
-Lee Ross 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not take offence. I realise the member has onset dementia. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Are you going to deal with that? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Sit. I am on my feet. The member did not need to get up and I said to sit down. I am giving the member the call. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am offended by that comment. It is yet another attack on older people and we are sick of it from this Government. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is not a point of order. I am inviting the member to take a call. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That offensive idiot Jami-Lee Ross has made yet another comment in this Chamber of the sort that those members make about anyone who is above 55. That is the sort of offensive nonsense that we expect from National and we have it time and time again. I am surprised that you Mr Chair who I think is of the same generation would not rule in a way that is appropriate. I am very surprised that you do not do that. 
I see the Green Party members laughing. I see the Green Party members laughing because they take the same offensive approach to older people. “Anyone over 55 must have dementia.” says Jami-Lee Ross—Jami-Ross Lee which one is it—Jami-Lee Ross says that. He has three first names. If his mother had given him a surname rather than three first names it would have been a lot simpler for him later in his life. 
The point I am making is that this provision of the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill is something that is ageist. It is clearly ageist and members opposite who do not realise that are people who clearly have not had a decent discussion with older people about rights and responsibilities. What is absolutely clear in the current legislation is that people who are ill people who do have good reasons for not serving and people who are older can get an exemption. The question is whether that exemption is something that should last for ever. 
I do accept that some older people have memory loss. There is no doubt about that at all. John Banks the very close friend of Jami-Lee Ross is someone who clearly suffers from memory loss. He cannot remember when he gets cheques. He cannot remember when he asks to get cheques. He cannot remember getting brown paper bags with money in them. He cannot remember getting envelopes from Skycity with cheques in them that are worth at least $15000. I can accept that there are some people who should not be Ministers and who should not serve on juries but to say it is only a matter of age is something that is wrong and that is what this Government is doing in its approach. I must say that this legislation is something that is frankly pretty badly drafted. I do not know—I understand it is something that came from a previous Minister but if one sees the repetition between clauses 4 and 12 where the purpose clause is repeated—absolutely absolutely unnecessary. It is not high quality drafting and the Minister here the Minister of Justice is someone who is responsible for that. 
The other point that I would like to make in relation to this goes to the question around evidence. My understanding in relation to new section 15A in clause 10 relating to the registrar’s discretion and duty to exclude people permanently and looking at section 15A(3) is that in fact as far as the age question is concerned that evidence is already available. Why should the registrar have the right to demand further evidence in this area when the registrar is already in possession of that evidence because of the way the jury is drawn? It is already available. I think also it is worth looking in clause 10 section 16(4) at whether the Minister has looked carefully at the interplay between section 15 as opposed to section 15A and section 16(4) and whether that is well enough drafted. 
I think there is a question about whether people should be allowed to have a conscientious objection—whether or not based on religious grounds—to serving on a jury. We have got to work out whether there is a civil duty and a civil responsibility to serve on a jury and whether that duty should be exempt because of some view that someone has a conscience that says they should not serve. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: They’ll be queuing up for your trial. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I tell you what. We are looking forward to calling the jury in this trial. In fact we have just been working our way through the list of witnesses who are going to come to the trial. The only question is whether the High Court in Auckland is going to be big enough for that particular trial. We are going to work our way through the jury and on that particular area I understand that there is a very silly litigant who would prefer to have the trial in front of a judge alone. Well tell her she has not got a chance. She has not got a chance. Under New Zealand law litigants have the right to have a jury and why whether for this jury or any other jury do the particular individuals want to exclude old people or in her case why does she want to exclude all New Zealanders from a particular jury trial? I tell her that she has not got a chance of doing that. [ 
Interruption 
] Sorry—Louise Upston your comment? Oh no she is too scared to say it again. That is right. All the courage in Taupo but she is a lamb when she comes down here. She is a lamb— 
Louise Upston 
: Not at all. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That member is a shocker on occasions. Let us go now to the question of—[ 
Interruption 
] Banks? I think we will get back to Mr Banks and I want to thank those people in the National Government for their comments after question time today and their encouragement to the Labour Party not to ask questions of Mr Banks but to ask questions of the Prime Minister. 
Jacqui Dean 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member seems to have strayed quite a way outside Part 1 of this very important bill and I would ask you to call him to order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am listening very carefully. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.