Genter Julie Anne: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Genter Julie Anne: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4105. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Chairperson. Tena koutou e te Whare. I am very pleased to take a call to discuss the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill which the Green Party will be supporting. Like the Hon Lianne Dalziel Denis O’Rourke and other Labour colleagues of mine on the Justice and Electoral Committee I was not on the select committee when this legislation was first introduced. I believe this is my first opportunity to speak on this bill so if I could just make a broader statement then hone in on the provisions in Part 2 and in particular this interesting debate on Supplementary Order Paper 94 which relates to those who are 65 years of age and over. 
I think that jury service represents an essential element of participation in civil society. It is really important to have a cross-section of our community come together to ascertain matters of fact in a trial and really we are to aspire to the spirit of inclusiveness and diversity within democracy at every turn. The core provisions of this bill especially in Part 1 are predominantly positive and reasonable. They seek to enhance the jury system’s integrity to improve the administration of the jury system and to reduce stress on people with chronic ill health permanent disability and those who are over the age of 65. The first two elements regarding integrity and administration are dealt with in the first part of the bill. 
Clause 3 amends the principal Act and clause 4 includes the purpose of the disqualification from jury service for a person who at any time within the preceding 5 years had been sentenced to a period of home detention of 3 months or longer. Clause 8 follows this up by inserting new section 14D which grants the registrar discretion to defer the appearance of a juror who is serving a sentence of home detention of less than 3 months until after that person has ceased to be subject to that sentence. That seems like a sensible idea. Although it is really not conducive to democratic principles to exclude people from institutions arbitrarily when they can participate in society—such as the exclusion of prisoners from voting which we find very troubling—neither does it do us any good to ignore the fact that the appearance of people serving a sentence for criminal behaviour does not positively contribute to the integrity of the jury system. 
I will get to the subject of the debate which I listened to with quite a good deal of interest this afternoon. Although I have quite a bit of sympathy for Denis O’Rourke and indeed the members of the Law and Order Committee who submitted a minority report about any appearance of ageism or any appearance of the State to be saying to people over the age of 65 that they are not welcome to serve on juries I also have a great deal of sympathy for what the Minister of Justice has said here today. I think it makes a good deal of sense. 
It is really hard for me to understand how it is ageism to allow people over the age of 65 which is the age of national superannuation and as the Minister pointed out the SuperGold card the opportunity to decline just once as opposed to having to decline every time if they feel themselves not up to the task of attending—and probably not for mental health reasons. 
I guess I will bring in some personal experience. I have three living grandparents. Two of them are 88 years old and one is 90. They all live at home alone. They are all fully independent and they are all very bright people whom I love talking to and talking politics with. They are wonderful people and I have a great deal of respect for them. I have no doubt that at this point in their lives they would find it physically very onerous to have to serve on a jury. I do not think that they would want to take up that request if it was sent to them now. Given that it has now been let us see a good deal of time that they would have been receiving requests to serve on a jury I think it is perfectly sensible and reasonable to allow them that choice if they do not feel themselves physically up to it. 
I do not think it is ageist to recognise that there are different stages of life and although it is true that there might be somebody with ill health or a disability or other reasons who may not be physically up to serving on a jury at the age of 50 the chances that someone will not be up to it significantly increase as time goes by. We have to have an age at some point. 
The critical thing is that this bill particularly with the addition of Supplementary Order Paper 94 which was introduced by the Minister today will allow these people to have the choice. No one is saying if you are over 65 you should not take up jury service; it is just that if you feel that you are not up to it you have the option to decline. Thanks to Supplementary Order Paper 94 which the Green Party will be supporting—and I thank the Minister for her kind comments and for taking up the points made by my colleague David Clendon in the second reading of the bill—people will have the choice to revisit that decision that they made at some point to decline the invitation to serve on a jury. They could change their mind if they were finding themselves in different circumstances later. 
Although I completely hear the comments of the Hon Lianne Dalziel and Denis O’Rourke that we do not want to be ageist and we do not want to exclude people over the age of 65 from participating in this incredibly important democratic institution I just cannot see the harm in allowing people the choice to decline once as opposed to having to decline multiple times. Ultimately the cut-off is always going to be somewhat arbitrary and I think linking it to the age of—well if there is not this provision then that means that people in the state that my grandparents are in might not find it as easy as they would other wise to decline an invitation to serve on a jury. I just do not see what the big drama is to be honest. Giving people choice acknowledging there are different stages of life and respecting our elders—I think this is totally in line with all of those principles. I really do not see what the problem is. The Green Party is quite happy to support the Minister’s Supplementary Order Papers. Thank you.