O'Rourke Denis: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Rourke Denis: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4103. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports both Part 1 and Part 2 of the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill with an exception that I will come to which we have been debating tonight. Part 1 of course with its reference to excusals and disqualifications I think and we think is pretty sensible. The new provisions about disqualification—new section 36A in clause 12 relating to people on home detention for over 3 months and new section 14D in clause 8 where there is a discretion for the judge to impose home detention of under 3 months—are very sensible. Secondly new section 15A(1) in clause 10 providing for excusal because of the state of a person’s health is also sensible and would be good law. Thirdly new section 16 giving a judge discretion where there is a conflict of interest or grounds of conscience is also good law. 
However it is new section 15A(2) that we think is not good law and should not proceed. That of course is the provision that provides for right of excusal on application for a person over 65 simply because of their age. I take notice of the fact that the Minister of Justice has Supplementary Order Paper 94 which would allow a person to go back on the jury list then go back off it and then go back on it again I do not know how many times. That does not seem to be very sensible to me. But fundamentally New Zealand First does oppose that part of the bill which provides for an application for excusal as of right for a person over 65 years of age. 
The first reason—and there are five—relates to ageism. The Minister says that it is not ageism. Well how on earth could a provision that is entirely based on age and on no other criteria whatsoever be anything other than ageism? It is based only on age. That is wrong in principle and for that reason alone it should not proceed. 
Secondly it is irrational to do that because people 65 years or over are actually better equipped than people younger than that to take on this role and they are better equipped because they have a lifetime of experience to rely upon. As Lianne Dalziel quoted from the report of the Law and Order Committee “we consider that the life experience of older people is of significant value to society and we would encourage those who are able to do so to continue to undertake jury service.” The select committee thinks that 65-year-olds and over should be encouraged. So where on earth could there be a reasonable rational reason for providing a right to exclusion for people simply because they are 65 years of age or over? 
Thirdly people may of course actually retire at any age. Some people retire as early as 50 55 or 60 and some like me—and I am 66—do not intend to retire for some time yet. So what on earth has the retirement age got to do with the ability of a person to do their duty to the community in respect of jury service? The reason just does not exist. 
Fourthly 65 years of age is the superannuation age currently but what on earth has that got to do with this issue? That is exclusively the age that so far this country has adopted as the retirement age. As I have said that is only a notional age of retirement and not for many people a real age at all. So if people are not in fact very commonly retiring at age 65 why on earth should they have a right to excuse themselves from jury service? 
In any event fifthly the issue that is really relevant here is the one that is already in the Act in relation to an exclusion for health purposes. That in fact is actually the reason that the Minister gave in respect of this provision. She did not really talk about age; she talked about somebody who for health reasons was not able to and did not want to contribute. Those are the real issues—the ones I read out at the beginning of my speech. It is not age itself that matters. 
People aged 65 or more like me do not like being told that because of their age there is something different about them that means they have to be treated differently in the law whether it be for this purpose or for any other purposes at all. Therefore I have moved on Supplementary Order Paper 33 an amendment to delete that provision in clause 10 which I think is appropriate. I do not accept either that section 15A(2) would be improved by the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 94 amendment allowing people to go on and come off and go on and come off this list. It just does not make sense. In fact the whole thing about age should be removed altogether to solve the problem. That Supplementary Order Paper would only make it worse I believe. It is misconceived and should not be inserted in the bill at all. 
Apart from that New Zealand First has the greatest pleasure in supporting this bill because it makes some very sensible provisions and some of those I have mentioned. In addition to that of course it does provide for privacy of information regarding jurors and that is something that has been needed for quite some time and is a very good move. I think one of the reasons why there has been a bit of a bad reputation about being on juries is that that privacy is not there currently. Some people resist jury service not for the reasons that the Minister gave relating to age or maybe that they are getting a bit past it—which I do not accept and neither do they by the way—but for other reasons altogether. The  
Baker  
case of course demonstrated what those reasons can be. In that case a person who represented themself obtained a jurors list and sent a letter to a woman juror making romantic overtures. I mean that should never have been possible. 
Records show that four out of five people called for jury service seek to avoid it. It has nothing to do with age—nothing whatsoever to do with age. In 2009 67938 people failed to attend for the purpose. So anyone who tells me that age has got anything to do with any of that I think is dreaming. The reasons are more about privacy and about the need to protect details of jurors than about anything else. Part 2 of the bill for those reasons is very very important and those are the main reasons why New Zealand First believes this bill should be enacted. If anything however we would prefer to see tougher measures and tougher penalties to ensure the protection of jurors from being contacted by an accused person and especially by a convicted person—and that happens as well. So I do not think the bill goes far enough in those respects— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Part 1. 
DENIS O’ROURKE 
: —but it goes too far in Part 1 in respect of the age issue. Thank you.