Quinn Paul: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Quinn Paul: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17980] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I rise to the invitation that has been extended to me from the Opposition by numerous speakers. We just heard Raymond challenging me and Jacinda of course is looking forward to my contribution on a couple of specific issues that she brought to the table. I am pleased that she has shown the courtesy to stay and listen to my responses. But I thought I might start with Carol Beaumont who seemed to complain and Raymond did sort of pick up on the theory about this whole urgency thing. Carol young Carol— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member must use the full name. 
PAUL QUINN 
: I am sorry. So is it young middle or old Carol Beaumont? I am not quite sure. 
Grant Robertson 
: It’s none of those actually. It’s Carol Beaumont to you. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Oh Carol Beaumont; OK. But Carol Beaumont sort of attacked the bill. Notwithstanding that she said the Opposition would support the bill she did attack it because she said it was a small bill and by inference it was an unimportant bill. I really need to take this down to the rugby field and start teaching her some of the simple things in life like the “kiss” principle—keep it simple—[ 
Interruption 
] Opposition members have great difficulty with that issue. They seem to think that the bigger the more voluminous the more airy something is the greater the content. 
I agree that this bill is a small bill. Let me just check; it has 12 pages. But it is a very important bill and as the saying goes we should not judge a book by its cover. The same applies to this bill. This is a very important bill and although small it is another step forward in the commitment that this Government has made to improve law and order and justice in this society. 
I want to canvass a couple of things in the bill. The first part of the bill is around the jury lists. With this bill the Government intends to ensure that incidents like the George Baker incident can never happen again. That convict had in excess of 70 police convictions—[ 
Interruption 
] Ms Chadwick may well laugh but I think it is a serious issue. George Baker while in the back of a prison van was able to attack Liam Ashley. That is the case we are talking about here. George Baker defended himself and therefore was entitled to look at the jury list. He then went about ringing up one of the jurors and threatened that person. [ 
Interruption 
] The sad reality of life and Kelvin Davis will know this is that most of the people who do that sort of thing have gang affiliations. They get all their mates in Black Power the Mongrel Mob or whoever to go out and threaten jurors. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Are those your mates? 
Grant Robertson 
: Other branches of the National Party? 
PAUL QUINN 
: For Grant’s information I do have relations in Black Power. In fact I have a brother-in-law in Black Power and he is a nice chap. So I do not shy away from that. But the fact of the matter is that these are the sorts of people who use those intimidating tactics. This bill is aimed at ensuring that this never happens again. 
As an additional protection under this bill the only people who will be allowed to sight the jury list will be the prosecutor the defence lawyer or the court-appointed adviser to the accused but not the accused. If any of those people who have access to that jury list pass on information that will lead to someone contacting a juror then that person commits the serious offence of contempt of court. I know that Raymond is finally on the same wavelength. We are talking the same language and this is great. 
I now turn to the issue of age that Jacinda Ardern—Miss Jacinda Ardern the list member for Hamilton I think—challenged me on. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Keep it stupid simple! 
PAUL QUINN 
: I did not actually want to call Carol stupid so I am glad the member has. Thank you for that. In new section 15A(2) set out in clause 10 the operative words are “if that person chooses”. The actual prerogative is on the person. It provides an out. 
Let me tell members that I have twice had the privilege of being summoned to do jury service. It has been a great sadness to me that unfortunately on both occasions I was not able to do my civic duty. I had to opt out because I think on both occasions I was travelling overseas so I had to get a dispensation. In the same way if a person of 65 years or more wishes to opt out then I believe that is a very good clause. With those few comments I look forward to the Law and Order Committee considering this bill and reporting it back to the House. 
Bill read a first time.