Dalziel Lianne: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4115. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am grateful to have another opportunity to contribute to the debate on Part 1 of the Jury (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill. The reason why is that I have listened to the discussion the debate go on beyond my original contribution which was one where I was totally upfront with the Committee. I said I was not on the Law and Order Committee which had considered this bill and I had not read the background material. Of course I have spent my dinner break going back and printing out all of the documents from the select committee from the departmental report and all the additional advice that was received on this particular matter because I think the issue is actually very important. 
When Denis O’Rourke put forward his amendment his Supplementary Order Paper 33 I do not know that he realised that he would spark off such a significant inquiry in the Committee but it is because so few members of that original select committee who heard all of the advice and heard all of the evidence are actually in this House. I think Jacqui Dean is the only member who has contributed to the entire debate who actually sat on that select committee and heard that advice firsthand. 
So I went away and as I say I have printed out the advice. It is very interesting to follow on from the member who has just resumed his seat Ian McKelvie because what Ian McKelvie just told this Committee was that the Human Rights Commission was kind of for it and against it. I think he said it was a little bit for and a little bit against. I cannot recall exactly how he described it. Let me quote what the Human Rights Commission actually said: “The Commission believes that permanent excusals will discriminate against older people. It also takes issue with the advice of the Attorney-General that this amendment is not a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (the Bill of Rights). The Commission considers the amendment to be discriminatory and not justifiable under the Bill of Rights.” I wonder whether the member has actually got the quote. I think he has got the quote with him and he is looking very embarrassed I think right at this moment that he said that the Human Rights Commission did not really give a strong view on this matter. I think that is a pretty strong view. 
The reason that the Human Rights Commission gave this view was that it had done a little bit of background homework into why we ended up in this situation in the first place. I think we have to go back in time to when we did not have a law that did not allow for discrimination based on age. When National was in Government back in 1993—perhaps my colleagues can assist in that regard; I was actually here at the time—the human rights amendment legislation went through and that provided for the removal of the discrimination of age being a ground for discrimination. So what happened was that there was an obligation set upon Governments thereafter to bring their laws up to date so that they in fact complied with the requirement not to discriminate on the variety of grounds that were passed in 1993. I see the Chairman is nodding because he like me was there at the time—I am not allowed to mention that! 
But the point I am making is that with the question of age having been put in place it was up to each subsequent Government to go back through the books and to look where there was discrimination based on age. And there was discrimination in the Juries Act. That discrimination was there in the legislation on the basis that at age 65 you were no longer competent to serve on a jury. So the law was changed. The law was changed to allow people to continue to serve on juries beyond the age of 65 which of course was the right and proper thing to do. Parliament at the time decided that since we were changing the law perhaps what we should do is allow people the ability to opt out of a particular trial simply on the ground of age. They have always had the right to opt out on the ground of age so let us just allow them to opt out on the ground of age of a particular trial. So that is what the law allowed. Instead of fixing the real problem in the law which is this ongoing discriminatory provision Parliament has decided on this occasion to actually entrench the provision that says that not only could they opt out of an individual case but they can actually opt out on a permanent basis simply for the sake of being 65 years of age. 
When I read the Ministry of Justice’s advice to the Law and Order Committee what I discovered was that the real reason that the select committee did not consider the underlying issue was that this was not an issue referred to it. It was never asked to look at the question of whether 65 was an appropriate age to be put in place as an essentially discriminatory basis for claiming the right never to serve on a jury. Even if people have never served on a jury in their entire life at the one age where perhaps people have the time to commit to a trial and of course the wisdom to apply their experience to a particular set of facts that they are given these people have a right to absent themselves from trials for ever after simply on the ground of age. There is no basis for that and in fact the select committee never really considered the real issue which was whether the underlying principle of the legislation is worthy of continuing in this day and age. 
The number of examples that we have had given to us in the House tonight actually refer to those cases where people have a reason other than age not to want to ever serve on a jury again and not to want to have to continue to reapply. In fact this legislation if it were to stand without subsection (2) of new section 15A in the offending clause 10 if it were to continue then most of the people who apply to have permanent exemptions would continue to have permanent exemptions under subsection (1) which reads: “The Registrar may excuse a person summoned to attend as a juror on an occasion from attending in any court on any occasion if satisfied on a written application for the purpose made by or on behalf of the person that because of the person’s disability or state of health the person would not if required to attend as a juror in any court on any occasion be able to perform a juror’s duties satisfactorily.” That is enough in itself to actually deal with the vast majority of those who apply for an exemption. 
If you look at subsection (2) it says: “The Registrar must excuse a person summoned to attend as a juror on an occasion from attending in any court on any occasion if satisfied … that the person is of or over the age of 65 years.” Why do they have to be satisfied? The truth is that all the Government has done is take the language of the first subsection which has “able to perform a juror’s duties satisfactorily” and apply the same language—if they are “satisfied” that they have turned the age of 65. Well what if you are not satisfied with being 65? I do not think I will ever be satisfied if I am 65. And I may not get there. If I continue giving addresses like this I may. But the point that I am making is that the language of subsection (2) is actually framed on subsection (1) which has as a basis the language to be “satisfied”. 
The question whether somebody is 65 years or over is a question of discrimination; it is simply that. That is what the Human Rights Commission said when it made its submission to the select committee. The select committee unfortunately did not take that into account and unfortunately the previous speaker for the Government did not actually read the Human Rights Commission’s submission to the select committee nor report it accurately from the report to the select committee from the Ministry of Justice—the departmental report. I think that is really the issue we have in front of us tonight. The select committee did not deal with the underlying issue. I believe that this Committee has an obligation to do so and that it should support the amendment moved by my colleague Denis O’Rourke.