Lees-Galloway Iain: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2297. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 The Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill is I guess one of those bills that does so little it would be very very difficult to find a reason to oppose it. It is one of those bills that will certainly do absolutely no harm but I think we can all agree it will probably do very very little that is particularly positive either. That is reflected in the fact it was determined that no regulatory impact analysis was required given that the proposals set out in this legislation are expected to have no or if any minor impact on businesses individuals or not-for-profit entities—in fact anybody in the judicial system in general really.  
If I were to find a reason that I may have some reservations about it it would be the fact that predominantly it seems to focus on who cannot or may not serve on a jury when really what we should be doing as a nation is trying to encourage people to participate in the judicial process to take up their democratic responsibilities I guess and to participate in the judicial process by being a member of a jury. I personally have been called for jury service on four occasions and have yet to make it anywhere near the courthouse all for quite— 
Hon Member 
: Slacker. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I accept that. I would really have liked to be able to participate. The first two times that I was called up I was actually studying and somehow or other the jury service that I was called for coincided with exams. The third time I thought I was going to make it. We got to the day before and we had a spate of illness at my workplace and my boss came to me and said: “I’m sorry. I really don’t think we can release you for jury service.” We had this flurry of activity where we contacted the local court and managed to get me excused. The fourth occasion was immediately after the 2008 election and my very recent election as a member of Parliament precluded me from being able to take up jury service. So as an individual who would like to participate I think we should find more opportunities to encourage people to participate in the judicial process.  
But of course in respect of two out of the three main provisions of this legislation one is to preclude those people who have been sentenced to home detention for more than 3 months from jury service and Labour supports that provision in the bill. It is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. But it is removing the opportunity for some of our citizens to be able to participate in jury service. The bill also offers the opportunity—and it is just an opportunity—for those aged over 65 to excuse themselves from jury service. There would be perfectly legitimate reasons why someone who is over 65 would like to take up that opportunity and we support it. But I do make note of the fact that these are two provisions that potentially reduce the pool of people who are available for jury service in New Zealand when we already know that really not enough people are taking up the opportunity to participate in jury service in the way that they should.  
The third item in this legislation which I am sure the whole House will support is the protection of jurors’ information. We have had examples of why this is important—of recent occurrence in fact—in New Zealand and I think that that is something that potentially could encourage people to take up jury service: knowing that there will be greater protection of their information. Of course there will not be absolute or guaranteed protection of their information; there are other ways that people could find out jurors’ personal details. But in this case Parliament is doing what it can I think to provide and afford the protection that is possible to people who are serving on juries. Of course that will be important in encouraging people to participate in trials that may be of a particular nature where people involved may have very strong feelings. There may be malicious intent towards jurors and it is important to give ordinary citizens who take up that role as much protection as we are able to.  
As I said this is really a fairly minor bill. One suspects that it is just something the Government is pushing through the House to say that it is acting in the area of law and order that it is tough on crime or whatever other sound bites that it would like to use. It is not a bill that will do an awful lot but it certainly will do nothing that will be detrimental and for that reason alone the Labour Opposition is prepared to support it.