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:4102. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I understand that neither of the previous speakers sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee which actually heard this matter the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Law and Order Committee Judith. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The Law and Order Committee thank you. Thank you Mr Chauvel very good. However I do presume that they have read the Juries Act since they are commenting on it. The Juries Act currently allows people aged 65 years and over to be excused on written application each time they are summoned on the basis of their age. They are currently able to do that so it is difficult for me to comprehend why in fact we are saying to people: “If you feel that you don’t want to serve or don’t feel that you can then you have to write in every single time you are summonsed.” 
I can tell the House that I have had a family member now deceased who after the age of 65—I think it was probably about 68—started to be affected by a particular motor neurone disorder. In her case it did not stop her being able to think—she could think excellently she could do all sorts of things brilliantly—but she felt that every time she was summonsed and she was summonsed an awful lot she needed to get me to write in for her to advise why she could not come in. She was never going to get better from this motor neurone disorder; she was never going to be able to be any more able to cope with that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s health not age. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is a dreadful dreadful thing but then again she did not want to have to write in every single time and do it. No she wanted to be able to say— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Read the bill. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: She did not want to have to talk about—I am sorry that Mr Mallard thinks it is so disgusting for me to speak about a member of my family now deceased but actually that is the sort of behaviour that brings this Parliament into disrepute. It is absolutely disgraceful. That is absolutely disgraceful. 
This family member of mine did not want to have to tell people she did not know all about her medical situation. She wanted to be able to say: “I have done my service; I don’t want to have to keep going.” 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: So the same condition at 64 she has to? How ridiculous. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: So—Mr Mallard is just appalling is he not. But however I took note of David Clendon’s comments during the second reading when he commented that to have this permanent excusal in place all the time might be unfair to someone who felt that they could not contribute and then found that they could and they felt able to. So in my Supplementary Order Paper 94 which I presume that Labour Opposition members have read since they have been commenting so much on this issue they will note that I have taken up the Greens’ suggestion of actually enabling someone to say: “I don’t feel that I need to be in that situation now; I can now cope with this and I do want to be now back into the list.” 
The fact is that the Ministry of Justice receives thousands of applications every year from people aged 65 and over who do not want to be summonsed again to be a juror. It believes and I believe that it is right that people who are 65 years and over who have contributed to their community if they feel that they have done their time should be able to say so. But do they have to do it every single time they get summonsed? I think they should be able to say that actually it is not for them. At a later date if they change their mind I think they should be able to come in. I think the Greens made a very good point and I took it up and it is in the Supplementary Order Paper. I would like to thank David Clendon for his helpful suggestion. 
So there is no ageism about this; this is about people’s ability to feel that they can contribute but also giving them options around it. I think that is sensible and it actually means that people are not necessarily going to feel humiliated and that they can actually say that they do not have to keep writing in every single time they get summonsed. Because I can tell the House that there are some people who are summonsed a lot to go and do jury service. Many of those people because they are not actually listed as having occupations like member of Parliament police officer lawyer or dentist—all those many occupations that are currently excluded from having to do jury service—they get called all the time. I actually think that when you are over 65 if you think you have done your time you should be able to say so. But I do not think that is ageism. I think that is actually accepting that some people have already contributed an awful lot to society. 
I do not understand why it is that Labour Opposition members are so worried about this. They certainly were not worried about it in the select committee. I can only think that they have been influenced by some very malevolent forces.