Collins Judith: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Collins Judith: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4131. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I will just deal with a couple of the comments made this evening. In fact the best commentary that I have heard from Labour on this bill the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill has not actually been made tonight; it was made by the Hon Phil Goff in the second reading. Mr Goff dealt with the issue of those aged over 65 and those who may wish to be excused from jury service. Mr Goff said: “The bill also allows people to seek exclusion from jury service on the basis of their disability or their ill health or if they are over the age of 65. The important point here is that those who seek such an exclusion are excluded permanently from service.” He said that he felt it was an important point that this “does not introduce an age limit for jury service.” Mr Goff then goes on to say: “I think on that basis”—that is that people can choose to exclude themselves—“the permanent exclusion provision is acceptable.” That was the Hon Phil Goff during the second reading of this bill and what has changed since then? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: When was that? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: That was the second reading of this bill which was in fact on 22 May this year. Mr Goff said that. He was a Minister of Justice in the Labour Government and what we have heard tonight from the Labour Party is that this is a dreadful provision and that we were somehow penalising people aged over 65—or words to that effect—that we were patronising them and that we were discriminating against them. We have heard that comment from those members tonight. Just a few months ago the Hon Phil Goff had read the bill and had understood the bill. He was not taking a point just to be silly about it. The fact is that he did in fact look at it and he felt that actually it was a fair provision. 
Since then we have consulted with the Green Party which suggested we should look at a situation where some people who wanted to permanently excuse themselves from jury service on the basis that they were over the age 65 might want to come back into jury service. We allowed that. We said that that was a sensible amendment to make because somebody might feel at some stage that they just could not cope with doing a 3-week trial. They may be 75 80 or something like that and then they might get better or they might decide that actually they can do it. They can put themselves forward and then it is up to the people who choose the jury to decide whether or not they are selected. 
 Actually I thought that was a sensible contribution from the Hon Phil Goff. I am surprised that the Labour members did not read the words of their former leader and former Minister of Justice. Mind you they never listened much to him when he was the leader but I thought his contribution was good. I thought it was sensible. It was not particularly political. He was looking at it having looked at all of the ramifications. He was looking at how people can be fair in this and I actually think it was a jolly good contribution. Sadly it was not made tonight except through me repeating him. 
Mr Chauvel has commented about how—what was it he said that I had said? Oh—that we could not do anything about these nasty murderers. Well that is not actually what I said. I pointed out that it could be a very dangerous thing for a person who is a self-represented defendant in a criminal trail to get access to jurors’ particulars including addresses and that is the evil that we are trying to remedy. However even that person—the accused—has still got the right to a fair trial. 
So the provision in the bill is that in fact a lawyer will be appointed for the purpose of enabling that defendant to be able to know who is on the jury but the defendant is not to take that information away. If the lawyer Mr Chauvel—not the defendant; the lawyer—breaches the trust that the court has placed in them then that lawyer would be up for contempt of court. That is a serious offence for a lawyer as Mr Chauvel knows. However the defendant who is up on a charge of murder for instance is hardly going to be concerned about that. 
So I think it is important to understand that we need a provision in there to enable the defendant to get a fair trial and to know who is on that jury. It could be someone who has a longstanding angst against the defendant—a longstanding angst against them. But the defendant is enabled—there is a provision—to get the information they need but not information that they do not need. I think this is a very sensible provision. I am very pleased that the Committee has been supportive of it in general.