Huo Raymond: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Huo Raymond: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17978] 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the first reading of the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill which is a very long title and a great headline. I should say that the Government’s intention is good too. The Government wants to make life easier for jurors by ensuring that defendants do not have access to jury members’ addresses and to exempt certain people from serving on juries due to their difficult personal circumstances. The Government also wants to ensure and preserve the integrity of the jury system. 
This bill is designed to improve the jury system’s administration and integrity to help maintain jurors’ privacy safety and security etc. Labour agrees that for defendants to have access to jury addresses is problematic. This bill is designed to prevent offenders sentenced to home detention from serving on a jury to protect the addresses of jurors and to excuse people over 65 and people with chronic ill health or permanent disability from jury service. But the problem is that the addresses could still be accessed through other means. We do not think this bill will make any difference as defendants who want to find the addresses will still be able to do so. 
There was a loophole in the Sentencing Amendment Act that created home detention as a sentence in its own right. It failed to amend the Juries Act. This meant that those who had served or were serving a sentence of home detention could sit on a jury panel. People convicted of a custodial sentence of more than 3 years are barred for life from sitting on a jury. This bill bars people from serving on a jury if in the previous 5 years they have been sentenced to home detention for 3 months or more. It puts them in the same category as those sentenced to a short term of imprisonment. On the other hand defendants need to have certain information available in order to challenge the persons selected as jurors. This bill ensures that a defendant has a right to a fair trial which is a fundamental right. 
Overall there are four issues I wish to deliberate on in the bill’s first reading. The first one is that there will be no regulatory impact analysis or regulatory impact statement on this bill because we were told the proposals as set out are expected to have no or minor impact on businesses individuals and not-for-profit entities. 
Secondly according to Cabinet papers last year there was an incident where a self-represented accused corresponded with persons on the jury panel for his trial for whom he had names and addresses. This raised concern about the safety of jurors and it was decided to amend the Juries Act to restrict access to jurors’ address details. So this bill is a great example—Mr Paul Quinn may wish to know this—of the Government’s “reactionary” approach to the justice system. 
Thirdly defence attorneys and advisers to defendants representing themselves will not be allowed to show addresses to defendants. But in reality defendants will still be able to see and hear the names in court so arguably they could still look up the addresses in the White Pages or more conveniently in the electoral rolls. 
Fourthly currently the Juries Act allows people to be exempt from jury duty on the grounds of occupation business state of health physical disability family commitments or other personal circumstances. They have to satisfy the registrar that they or some other people would be caused undue hardship or serious inconvenience if they were not excused. Further the registrar must excuse people if they are 65 or over if their religious beliefs are incompatible with jury service or if they have attended jury service or served as a juror in the last 2 years. This bill allows that exemption to be used—if it works—basically permanently. 
I had the great pleasure of listening to the Hon Rick Barker who made a great speech earlier on this bill and also last night on the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill. I totally agree that both bills offer great headlines but they will have little or no real impact on the real issues. 
Paul Quinn 
: What his speech? 
RAYMOND HUO 
: I say to Mr Paul Quinn that we are looking at two pictures. On one hand we are looking at headlines headlines headlines and on the other hand the real issues sustain and persist. I have a huge problem regarding this bill— 
Paul Quinn 
: Raymond you’ve lost me. 
RAYMOND HUO 
: I say to Mr Paul Quinn that it is an abuse of parliamentary processes to use urgency to introduce a bill that makes very little material difference. That is a question for Mr Paul Quinn to answer as well. I wish he would take a call. Thank you.