Collins Judith: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Collins Judith: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2293. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill amends the Juries Act 1981. The bill ensures that people who have been sentenced to home detention for a period of 3 months or more within the previous 5 years cannot serve on a jury. It requires that a person serving a sentence of less than 3 months’ home detention be deferred or excused from jury service if they are summonsed while serving their sentence and it ensures that the registrar may permanently excuse people from jury service if they meet certain criteria. The bill also allows for the address details of jurors to be removed from the jury panel and put on to a separate document that can be viewed only by eligible people. This ensures privacy and security for potential jurors.  
I would like to commend the Law and Order Committee for its thorough consideration of the bill and for the sensible amendments it has proposed. The committee received three written submissions on the bill and heard two oral submissions. The committee also asked for additional advice from relevant parties in relation to the amendment allowing people aged 65 years and over to be granted a permanent excusal from jury service on written request. The committee considered this advice when deciding whether the bill should be amended. I note that some submitters particularly the Human Rights Commission were concerned about the clause allowing permanent excusals for those aged 65 years and over. The Human Rights Commission submitted that allowing people aged 65 years and over to apply for and be granted permanent excusal from jury service was against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and is ageist.  
The committee considered the Human Rights Commission’s concerns and the majority did not agree with them. The bill responds to the actual circumstances of those aged 65 years and over and is in answer to thousands of requests received by my office and the Ministry of Justice from members of the public in that age group requesting permanent excusals. It recognises that people aged 65 and over have contributed to society for many years and deserve to be recognised for this contribution. Currently people aged 65 years and over can apply for an excusal as of right each time they are summonsed for jury service. The bill simply extends this right and allows those who request a permanent excusal from jury service to be granted one. This is another benefit for people aged 65 years and over and can be likened to universal superannuation and the SuperGold card or the transport discounts available to this age group.  
I strongly believe that there should not be an upper age limit for jury service and that people aged 65 years and over are a valuable resource to this country and should have the ability to discharge their duties as a juror if they wish. All people eligible to serve on a jury are actively encouraged to participate through the courts’ advertising campaign.  
The bill also responds to concerns surrounding access to juror addresses and details and recognises that these details should be protected. The bill allows only certain eligible people to view the protected address details. As introduced the bill defined constables as eligible people who could view the protected particulars. The committee recommended an amendment to this clause after considering a recommendation in a submission. The amendment ensures that police employees who are personally connected to the facts of a case or to a party to or to a witness or a prospective witness in proceedings are not able to view the protected particulars. The bill also ensures that contempt of court penalties are available where eligible people allow the protected particulars to be viewed or copied by someone ineligible.  
The bill recognises that a fundamental concept of the law is the right to a fair trial. To ensure that people who represent themselves in court are able to exercise their right to challenge potential jurors the bill allows a barrister or solicitor to be appointed by the court to exercise this right on their behalf and allows the appointed barrister or solicitor to view the protected particulars. By talking with the self-represented litigant the barrister or solicitor will be able to determine geographical challenges without revealing the potential juror’s protected address information.  
The bill’s purpose is to protect the integrity of the jury system enhance the administration of the jury system and ensure jurors’ privacy and security are protected. I commend this bill to the House.