Dean Jacqui: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dean Jacqui: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4109. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I want to take another quick call on this provision—excusal from jury service—in Part 1 of the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill and I have to apologise to my colleagues who are also keen to take a call on this. I was just reflecting on the departmental report. The advice that we on the Law and Order Committee had after listening to submissions on this was that the amendment that provides for older people to apply for permanent excusal is not discriminatory and does not provide any disadvantage for them. If it did provide a disadvantage for people over the age of 65 due to their age or a medical condition or a permanent disability—if that were the purpose of it and they were disadvantaged—then that would be something completely different. 
The advice of the Attorney-General stated that the proposed amendment is not a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I think that is pretty germane and critical to this argument. There is no disadvantage to people over the age of 65 who for whatever reason wish to have a permanent excusal—far from it. It is the flip of that I would argue. It is not contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that is the advice the select committee received from the Attorney-General. In fact what it is is a—well I believe that it is a kindness. I believe that it is a kindness to somebody who has a medical condition or has a permanent disability so that they do not have to ring up the registrar time after time or go in or write a letter and explain their medical condition yet again. I do not know maybe they have got to get a medical certificate to verify their medical condition time after time. There is a cost associated with that. 
So far from this amendment being discriminatory against people over the age of 65 this is not ageism at all. What this is is providing for smoother administration of the court system. Surely that has got to underpin all our work here in this Parliament. The Attorney-General has given us the advice that this provision is not contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
I also want to reiterate because I think it is important to remember that far from being motivated by reasons that as was suggested by the Human Rights Commission in its submission older people are less capable and more subject to stress this amendment was actually prompted by members of the public—older people—who contact the Minister of Justice and the Ministry of Justice seeking a permanent excusal. So this is not an amendment that was dreamt up by advisers from the Ministry of Justice; this is an amendment that is in response to a demand and a wish from the community. I wanted to stand up and make another comment on that because I think it is very germane to this argument. Thank you.