Dean Jacqui: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dean Jacqui: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4107. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 In speaking to the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill I want to go to the purpose in talking about Part 1 of the bill which is to improve the administration of the jury system and to make life easier for those who are called to sit on a jury. As the chair of the Law and Order Committee we indeed heard a number of submissions on this provision. It seems to have caused some consternation amongst some members of this House but thankfully there has been some good thinking on behalf of the Green Party. I want to in particular congratulate David Clendon who has provided a thoughtful addition to the Law and Order Committee’s consideration. 
The provision that provides for excusals from jury service came about we were told and I believe from people over the age of 65 who as the Minister has reminded the House already have protection under the Juries Act. They can apply to the registrar for an excusal on a case by case basis. They already have that privilege. They already have that ability. But we were told that a number of complaints are made on a regular basis—and again the Minister told us it amounts to thousands in a year—to the Minister of Justice herself and also to the Ministry of Justice from members of the public who are periodically summonsed to undertake jury service. And that is despite previous excusals from jury service on one or maybe multiple occasions. That might be because they are over 65 but also and I think critically here in the Committee’s consideration of this part it might be because they have another reason. It might be because of a chronic health problem. That person might have mobility problems. They might find it extremely difficult to get to the court for perhaps a couple of days’ jury service or more. Indeed it might be a permanent disability. 
To me the consideration of this clause in the select committee process was about extending that privilege to those people. It might be because they were over 65 and they felt they had done their bit—well why not; maybe they had done their bit—or more important perhaps it might be because it was physically difficult for that person to attend jury service. Indeed they might be suffering from some other chronic illness. So I am a little mystified at the attitude of some members of this House who for some reason regard this as ageism. It is not ageism. What it does is extend that courtesy if you like and privilege as it has been referred to to those members of the public who have previously served and who have previously been excused from jury service the ability to have a permanent excusal. So what that means is that when they get a letter in the post that says they have been called to jury service they do not need to go down to the courthouse they do not need to write a letter in return or make the phone call yet again to the registrar of the court to explain their circumstances yet again and to ask for an excusal from jury service—yet again. 
So to me this is a clause in Part 1 of this bill that conforms to the purpose of the bill very neatly and that is to improve the jury system’s administration. The benefits of course are to those people who want to have permanent excusal and I have just gone over those but of course there are benefits to the court registrar as well. We are in the 21st century now. The courts are modernising. There are a number of pieces of legislation including this one that are enhancing the operation of our courts. To me this is quite apart from the human element where if somebody is over 65 and for whatever reason and it can be a very personal reason that person over 65 wishes to have an excusal. 
I would not want to be in that situation if I were over 65 and I had a medical condition. I do not want to have to tell a court registrar time and time and time again about my personal circumstances. I think it is a much more humane process and it is a privilege. The Minister has said that and I agree with her. It is a privilege that we can extend to people in those circumstances. If we can do that for people that is good. 
So that is just one part of Part 1 of this bill. It does not propose to reintroduce an age limit for jury service. We had some interesting submissions on that and quite frankly I think that the clause has been misunderstood. So with that thank you.