Clark David: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clark David: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4098. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 The Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill is an interesting bill. Labour will support it. We have an interesting situation where there is no regulatory impact statement that has been prepared because it is expected that there will be no impacts on businesses individuals or not-for-profit entities—or at least if not no impact then only very minor impacts. This is an unusual situation because it is usually the case that we have to consider those matters in great detail. 
According to Cabinet papers last year there was an incident where a self-represented accused corresponded with persons whose names and addresses were on the jury panel for his trial. This raised concerns about the safety of jurors and it was decided to amend the Juries Act to restrict access to jurors’ address details. This bill is an example in that sense of the Government’s reactionary approach to justice issues. It would have been nice to see a proactive step taken to ensure this matter did not occur in the first place. I am sure the Government will in response suggest that perhaps previous Governments could also have acted on this matter. It is something that could always be claimed but it certainly currently falls in the lap of the current Government to make amendments in this fashion. We will support it because as I say it is not particularly controversial that we should be amending this matter but it would have been good to see a more proactive approach taken in the first place. 
 The bill in effect means that defence attorneys and advisers to defendants representing themselves will not be allowed to show addresses to defendants. They will still be able to see and hear the name in court so arguably they could still look up the address in the White pages perhaps or on electoral rolls. This is a matter that will no doubt tax minds in terms of how we adapt to that situation. But in the very least we have an approach that seeks in principle to restrict access to that information in a way that we would agree with. We agree that defendants having access to jury addresses is problematic. However we do not think that this bill will make any difference because of the example I have just cited. The defendants who want to find addresses will still be able to do so. 
Currently the Juries Act already allows people to be exempt from jury duty on the grounds of occupation or business state of health physical disability family commitments or other personal circumstances. They have to satisfy the registrar that they or some other person would be caused undue hardship or serious inconvenience if they were not excused. The registrar must excuse people if they are over 65 years of age or if they have a religious view that is incompatible with jury service. This bill will allow for that exemption to be excused permanently and that is another matter that is addressed by the bill. 
There are other smaller matters that are picked up which I have no doubt that other colleagues more learned in this area will wish to comment on. But defendants needing to be able to have certain information available to challenge the people selected as jurors is something that we know and this will ensure that the defendant has a right to a fair trial which is a fundamental right. So the steps taken in this bill will make sure that some of the loopholes in the Sentencing Amendment Act 2007 are tidied up. 
There have been a number of wider concerns with the justice portfolio and that is why we are concerned that this particular matter is being given attention when other bigger matters arguably are not being addressed. Although this incident has brought the matter of people corresponding with jurors to light and a reaction has been sparked it is difficult to argue that that is perhaps the most immediate thing or the only thing that needs to be addressed in respect of the justice portfolio. This Government has had a reactionary approach and examples of that are the Search and Surveillance Bill the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill and matters around provocation. It is an inappropriate use of parliamentary time the select committee process and urgency to pass significant justice bills that have not been sent to appropriate select committees. So when we see this bill coming we see another example of tinkering around the edges and we think the legislative agenda should have bills that will have an actual effect on the justice system rather than peripheral changes that will make very little change to the overall nature and problems in our justice system. 
We have in New Zealand a real problem with a growing prison population which we all end up paying for. A lot of these people in prison are there as a consequence of poor choices they have made but there is no doubt that other factors such as poverty contribute or are correlative factors in offending. We would like to see from our side those other factors also addressed. We are not happy with the growing gap between rich and poor in New Zealand and we would like to see the big issues in the justice sector addressed as those wider societal issues should also be addressed. 
I thank you for hearing my thoughts on this matter and wish that this bill does go through because the little changes it makes are hard to argue against. But I wish to lay on record my concern that we are not really addressing the bigger issues in this sector and as I say I am sure some of my more learned colleagues will go into greater details on those matters. Thank you.