McKelvie Ian: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
McKelvie Ian: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4114. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I have listened to the last hour of this extraordinary debate on this bill the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill with interest and I note with some pleasure that we have got a new member of this side of the Chamber whom I had never heard of before. But not only that I was really interested in the I guess vehement defence of the over-65-year-olds that we have heard from the other side of the Chamber tonight. I am intrigued by that but at the same time I think that when you get to 65 you have got a certain right to be exempted from some things and I frankly think that we should be exempt from all sorts of things when we get to 65. Particularly I think there is a very good reason to— 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Politics. 
IAN McKELVIE 
: Certainly from politics Denis O’Rourke—certainly from politics. I think that there is a very good reason for our over 65s to be exempt from jury duty and I do not think there is any reason to think that that is a criticism of the over 65s. 
I note that even the Human Rights Commission which is usually pretty vehement in its defence of what it thinks is right is pretty mild in its wording about the approach to the over 65s in this bill. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What did they say? 
IAN McKELVIE 
: They say that they are uncomfortable with it but they are comfortable with it if you know I mean and that is typical of the Human Rights Commission. 
Chris Hipkins 
: You’ve just made that up! 
IAN McKELVIE 
: Well I had to make something up! I really have got to go back to the Supplementary Order Paper introduced by Denis O’Rourke. I think that whilst I can understand his concern about the over 65s I think it is an ideal situation for us to be in—for us to allow someone who is 65 to opt in or out of something like jury service. 
I interestingly am one of those people whom Lianne Dalziel was talking about before the dinner break who have never served on a jury. The reason I have never served on a jury is not because I am over 65; I am far from it. The reason I have never served on a jury is that I live outside or did live outside—before this amendment bill—the distance required to serve on a jury. I think we have also heard a lot tonight about the number of people who get excused from jury service and frankly it is very difficult for somebody who lives out of town to take time off work to serve on juries. I think we will see a lot of those sorts of people who have difficulty getting to jury service who have difficulty taking time off work making those excuses. That is the reason for the large number of people who are exempted from jury service. 
I think it is a bit of a privilege to get to 65 and I think it is a privilege for those people to be then given the opportunity to opt either in or out of jury service. I have not noticed tonight during all the criticism or the apparent attack on the 65-year-olds anyone wanting to exempt the 65-year-olds from being able to apply for superannuation or frankly the SuperGold card. I think it is a very similar situation. So I think that we are in a very good place on this bill. I think that it should sit where it is and I think that the Supplementary Order Paper introduced by Denis O’Rourke is unnecessary. Thank you; that is my lot.