Little Andrew: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Little Andrew: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4119. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 I begin my contribution to this important part of the Committee stage of the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill by declaring an interest that I may well be before a jury before too long. I will not be the only member of this House before a jury if that happens; my colleague Mr Mallard and of course the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice will be before the same jury. We forget that the Juries Act applies not just to criminal trials but also to the remaining civil trial that can include a jury—that is a trial for defamation. We should not make light of that. I declare that interest. 
It does raise the interesting issue of course that we have a Minister who has a personal stake now in the progress of this legislation and in the conduct of the subject matter to which this legislation applies. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Ms Barry would say you’ve got an additional interest; you’ll be 65 one day. 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: Well I meet the “Maggie Barry Standing Order” here that I am entitled to talk about this because of my interest in it having been drawn before the jurisdiction of this legislation thanks to the Minister in the chair. But I do say that there is an issue about a Minister who has a personal stake playing the role that the Minister in the chair has. I have made this comment before the House before—that I think that it is appropriate for a Minister of Justice who is taking legal action in the courts in the system for which she is responsible to step aside until such time as the proceedings are disposed of. But the comments I wanted to make relate to the excusal provision in relation to 65-year-olds. 
As my colleague Mr Parker has said the role of the jury in civilised society is not only historical but also fundamentally important—it is fundamentally important to our system of justice. When those who are facing the prosecutorial power of the State where the Crown brings an action against a citizen or where a powerful citizen brings a defamation proceeding against another citizen we have in our justice system the ability for the community to pass judgment to weigh the facts and to assess the conduct whether it is of the Crown or of police or of the powerful citizen taking the defamation proceedings. The community is represented in that system of justice to pass judgment to weigh the facts to weigh the respective power imbalance you might say and to be satisfied that those who have brought the allegation have made out their case and that it is not an abuse of that power and of that position. In performing that role it is important that we have access to those with maturity and those with a sense of judgment. 
I think it was the great US jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes who said “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience …”. Experience is absolutely crucial to the conduct of justice to the management of justice. So why would we have a piece of legislation that would allow those who have the most experience in life—those who have the ability to bring the greatest wisdom to bear on matters before our justice system—to exclude themselves as of right? It simply does not make sense. So we support Supplementary Order Paper 33 brought in by Denis O’Rourke because I think as a matter of community as a matter of civic duty and as a matter of citizens’ duties it is not right that one portion of the community should be able to exempt itself from this very important civic duty this very important civic role. We need those 65-year-olds. In fact it is somewhat patronising and condescending to those who are 65 years and older many of whom continue to work and many of whom continue to lead and conduct a full life to say that they should be given this provision to exclude themselves. 
There is no question that some people find jury service inconvenient. They would rather not do it. We have a pretty low threshold for excusal at the moment but that is no reason to extend that further and allow a whole chunk of our population to remove themselves from the ability to serve on a jury. In fact it is a community expectation that those people will be available and will conduct themselves and equip themselves for jury trials. That is very important. So this legislation goes to the heart of a very important principle of our form of public justice. For that reason we strongly urge the Committee to not support the bill as it is currently drafted but to instead support Mr O’Rourke’s provision which would make for a level playing field for the whole community—for everybody for anybody who may be called upon to perform the very serious very grave role of passing judgment on their peers. 
That is very important of course and not just in the criminal field. In the criminal jurisdiction it is about deciding whether the Crown with all its resources and the power that it has has done its job properly to prove serious allegations against another citizen. In civil proceedings it is about passing judgment on another citizen. In fact it is in those circumstances that it is even more important that we have access in our justice system in our jury system to the widest possible cohort of people who can participate in that. We should not have a situation where the very wealthy and the very powerful—those who sometimes occupy positions where they hold ministerial warrants—can use their economic power to drag other citizens—sometimes innocent; most times innocent—before the courts and require them to be subject to the judgment and the assessment of others in the community when they may not be as well resourced and as well equipped as the more powerful— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! I have been listening very carefully to the member. I think he has gone outside the scope of Part 1 and I ask him to return to that. 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: I am advised Mr Chairman. The point I am making is that the jury process having access to the maximum possible wisdom of people is very important— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Preparing for your case? 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: —which is why the bill as it is currently drafted should not be supported. It allows an entire chunk of the community those who may have more respect than others—for example our comrade Tau Henare across the way there—and who may be able to bring with them their life’s experiences and the wisdom that that gives to all manner of issues that go before juries in both the criminal and the civil jurisdictions to be excused. For that reason although we are supportive of the general thrust and tenor of the bill that provision does not make sense. It is not good. It is contrary to good civic responsibility and community duties. We are opposed to that aspect and we will be supporting Mr O’Rourke’s amendment.