Ross Jami-Lee: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Ross Jami-Lee: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4110. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 I am pleased to make a contribution on this part. I am sensing a bit of tension between the Greens and Labour—the potential coalition for the future there. Once again they are fighting each other. They are having difficulties and I do wonder whether they will be able to you know ever form a Government together. 
I think it is worthwhile having some further discussion around this whole age issue because it is very important to remember that this is not compulsory. The Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill is not reintroducing an age limit; it is completely voluntary. If a person over the age of 65—after the next election if Mr O’Rourke wishes to serve on a jury he will be able to. He will be able to if he chooses to and he can choose to because we are not reintroducing an age limit. 
Let us just look at a bit of history around the age 65 because I think it is important to have a look at the history around it. The age 65 in the juries legislation was actually reintroduced by a previous piece of legislation in the year 2000. In the year 2000 the Labour Party was in Government. In the year 2000 the Labour Government put in place legislation that specifically referred to the age of 65 whereby those over the age of 65 for the very reason that they were over the age of 65 could apply to the registrar asking to be excused. The only problem with that legislation is that every time they wish to be excused they have to keep going backwards and forwards asking to be re-excused. 
Essentially all that we are doing through this piece of legislation on this particular aspect is giving those people over the age of 65 the option to be permanently excused. We are even going further than that and giving them a further option. If they did decide that they wanted to be permanently excused but then changed their mind they can then come back and say: “No actually I would like to serve on a jury.” So I see this as actually giving those over the age of 65 greater flexibility greater freedom and a greater ability to determine what they wish to do for their own lives and that is a good thing. 
You have to say that if one is standing in this House arguing that having the age of 65 as the age at which people can make a choice for themselves is ageism then those same people must also believe that superannuation is ageism—the age around superannuation is ageism. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Ridiculous! 
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: No it is not. 
Hon Jo Goodhew 
: The school age. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: The Minister for Senior Citizens herself suggests that perhaps the school age is ageism because that is an age in a piece of legislation. Well it is not and it is quite a poor argument. 
But you also have to ask yourself whether this is such a big issue out there. Older people out there are outraged supposedly as we hear from the other side that an age flexibility is being reintroduced and applied in this way in this legislation. Perhaps older people are making submissions in huge numbers. Guess how many submissions there were on this bill. Three. Did Age Concern submit on this bill in the first instance? No it did not. It had to be asked to submit before it provided any information. Did Grey Power submit on this issue? Grey Power is very vocal whenever it comes to an issue around older people. Grey Power did not submit in the first instance. It did not submit when it was asked to provide some information as well. 
But when Age Concern came back after being asked to submit it gave some interesting perspectives because Age Concern actually asked older people what they thought. Here are some of the comments from older people. “Life is easy for some and not for others. Giving people a choice makes sense.” We believe in choice. “Since the proposal gives people a choice I think it a good idea” said another older person. “Good on those … who feel ready and able to appear for jury service but let’s show some respect for those who don’t.” I say to those people who are opposing having this particular aspect in the legislation show some respect for those who do not feel they are in a position to be able to serve on a jury and who wish to exercise the rights that we want to give them to permanently excuse themselves from a jury. 
It is very simple. It is not that controversial. It is easy to understand. I think it deserves the Committee’s support.