Collins Judith: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Collins Judith: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4117. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I will take just a short call on the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill to deal with some of the issues raised by the Hon Lianne Dalziel and I thank her for her contribution. One of the issues I think I heard her raise is that once someone is excused from jury service they can continue to be excused. She rightly also I think later on said that that is in relation to disability or health issues and that it does not relate to age. I will give the Committee a bit of an example of the number of people aged 65 and over who have asked to be excused based on their age since this provision was first brought in in 2000. So in the last 11 years there have been 4066053 total jury excusals and that includes those under 65 as well. Of those the total number of recorded excusals or reasons for people aged 65 and over is 615202 and the total number of recorded excusals where the sole reason given by the person who has been summoned to be a juror is that they are aged 65 years or over is 247371. I cannot tell the Committee how many of those are the same people having to ask to be excused time and time again. 
I just refer the Committee to the contribution from Miss Genter who referred to her own elderly grandparents who sounded from what she said like they are very able to do things but who would not feel able to sit through a jury trial. It is all very well for members to perhaps say that they should go and do their day’s jury service. Well actually these days sometimes jury trials can go on for weeks and weeks; it could be 3 or 4 weeks day in day out listening to matters and having to come to a decision. Many people over 65 will feel fine about doing that and welcome the opportunity to contribute but not everybody aged over 65 does feel able. In fact I can say that in the last decade and 1 year 247371 such requests for excusal were actually given for people on the sole basis that they said they were over 65 and they wanted to take a break or a rest from this. 
Quite frankly I have no idea why Labour and New Zealand First are arguing about this. We have a very good solution provided by Mr Clendon and the Greens which is if they decide they do not want to continue to be permanently excused then they can come back into the system. Well is that not marvellous? A bit of choice is being offered. 
The other point is that no one is discriminating. It is a privilege that they do not need to come back and say that they are disabled or there is a health issue; they can simply say they are over a certain age they have done their bit for the community and they would like to take a break. And why should they not be able to say that if that is what they want to do? Quite frankly it is appalling to think that Labour and New Zealand First think we should say to those 247371 people—the number of excusals in the last decade and 1 year or 11 years—that they have to go and do their jury service. Those members would be turning around I am sure should they get some of the complaints that we have had about having to constantly ask to be excused. They would then say that that was discriminatory and we were being mean to those people. Quite frankly this nonsense about discrimination is no more accurate than it is to say it is discriminatory to give people a SuperGold Card. That is not discrimination. This is a right that we are extending to those people aged over 65 if they want it and actually only for as long as they want it. How is that discriminatory? The Human Rights Commission may well have made a submission along the lines of what Ms Dalziel said but actually I do not agree with it. It is wrong. The answer is to give people a choice. They are 65. If they want to do it good on them; if they do not why should they?