Borrows Chester: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Borrows Chester: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17970] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill and commend it to the House. I guess it is always to be expected that when an Opposition party votes with the Government there will always be a whole lot of sentences that start off with “We support this bill but” and ending with “it does not go far enough.” “it should not be done now.” “there are greater problems we should be dealing with.” or “we should not be dealing with this within urgency.”—but but but! The problem with that approach is that those members fail to recognise that there are times when changes need to be made to reflect changes in public sentiment and also to reflect changes in the public’s assumption of responsibility on behalf of the community. 
The last bill that we debated which I did not get the opportunity to speak to really recognised that in the past the community has taken a strong interest in the way their police for instance and their prison officers have been dealt with by criminal elements within the community and the community has taken a more interventionist and more active role in protecting those people. The fact is that these days the community does not do that. These days communities are far more open to putting up their hands and saying “We pay our taxes; we allow them to get on with their jobs; leave us alone.” and that is exactly what is reflected here in this bill. We need to accept that juries have actually been treated quite badly over the years in terms of what is expected of them in this modern age when taking part in jury trials and in terms of the information that they are given with which to do their jobs. 
The point raised by Carol Beaumont earlier was about remuneration. The fact is that within our justice system we expect the public to take part in jury service. We expect them to be available for that and we expect them to do that out of a sense of duty. What price do we put on community obligations in this day and age? What remuneration should jury members expect to be given for taking their role as society’s representatives in jury trials? Is it right for them to expect anything? I guess the converse question is whether it is right for society to expect somebody to do something free of charge when there is a real cost associated with the attendance of that jury member at the court. 
As somebody who has sat through many many jury trials over the years I can say it has been a farce to see the way in which our juries have been selected. People have been chosen or rejected on the basis of for instance their clothing. If people really do not want to be on a jury they should wear a three-piece suit and carry a briefcase. The reason given is that defence counsel’s arguments are so ludicrous that anyone who shows an ounce of intellect would see right through them. So someone who really wants to get on to a jury should wander along to the jury selection process wearing jeans and a T-shirt because in a very prejudiced and biased way solicitors expect that people who have the time to wander along to a jury trial and treat it as lightly as that may not give it the attention they should in terms of the way that they sit and deliberate on the issues before the court. 
I think it is right and proper that the Government moves at this time to protect juries even more as we are asking them to do significantly more for less. The fact that as a result of this bill we will be withholding the addresses and occupations of people on jury lists from the people who appear before the court is right and proper given the added advancements of technology and the ability of defendants to be able to locate and to take retribution either themselves directly or via their mates against people who they can easily identify as having been on the jury. I believe that it is time for this Parliament to look at what we require of juries at how we assist them in making their decisions and at the job that we ask them to do on our behalf in the same way that we are looking at the protections that we offer to juries and at the sanctions that we provide when defendants move against the people from across our society who act on behalf of our community as a whole. I commend this bill to the House and look forward to its passage through the select committee process but sadly I note it will not be put before the Justice and Electoral Committee.