Parker David: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Parker David: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4118. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 By 2027 1 million New Zealanders will be over the age of 65. 
Jacqui Dean 
: You’re not going to advance that argument. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I am. Actually just as Jacqui Dean and everyone else in the National Party seems to be in denial as to the need to be fiscally responsible in terms of the number of people who have to be paid superannuation that number of people is also relevant to this debate. The Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice has not addressed the issue as to what is the principle that lies under our jury laws. 
The principle of jury trials is that an accused has the right to be judged by a panel of their peers a representative group of society. The Crown when prosecuting someone in a jury trial has the right to have that trial determined by a jury made up of peers out of the community who are representative of members of the community. As the population ages a greater proportion of those people are aged over 65. Those people ought to be part of the pool of people who are conducting jury trials. 
The arguments in favour of giving people a one-off exemption are already well traversed and they are already covered in the law. If you have got a disability if you have got some work commitment—or it might be a childcare commitment such as looking after your grandchildren—if you are over the age of 65 you can already write in to the court and seek to delay your obligation to serve on a jury to be on a panel and be in the ballot until a later period. If that case is made out to the registrar or to the judge if the registrar does not agree then you will not be on the jury. 
Andrew Little 
: A pretty low threshold. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is a pretty good threshold already. But what this amendment does is say that someone from that age cohort can withdraw themselves from the pool for ever despite the fact that they may be very competent that they might have more spare time in their lives— 
Jacqui Dean 
: It’s their choice. It’s about choice. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Oh it is about choice Jacqui Dean says. It is choice for the person over 65 not choice for the Crown not choice for the accused and not the same level of service or obligation required of people who are under the age of 65 despite the fact that the only difference between a person under the age of 65 and one over the age of 65 in some cases will be not capability or time availability but age. 
 There is no logic that lies behind this. It is not only discriminatory from the point of view of the Human Rights Commission but also actually wrong in principle because the principle is that in respect of a jury a jury should be collected from the population from people who are representative of the community. As our population ages as people live longer a higher proportion of our population are aged over 65 and the effect of this amendment if it proceeds is that by 2027 1 million people will be able to permanently exclude themselves from being available for jury duty. And that to me is a very strong argument as to why this piece of legislation is flawed in that regard. 
I want juries in my country to be representative of New Zealand. If people have a disability or if they cannot attend because they have got some other obligation yes they should be allowed to be excused. If they have got a permanent disability or they are permanently incapable because they are aged or infirm they would have a level of disability that would entitle them to permanent excusal anyway. But if they are capable if they have got their full capacity still if they have the time to be on the jury and if they have not even got a work commitment that lets them off the person should be available for jury service. That is one of our duties as people in society. We might not like doing it we might have to confront some pretty unpleasant facts on juries at times but it is part of the civic duty that we all have and have all had for centuries in the English tradition of law which we should strive to uphold in New Zealand. 
I thank Denis O’Rourke for his amendment. I think he is right that there should be no automatic extension. Indeed I suggest that the existing right of repeatedly applying for an exemption without grounds is wrong and that that should in turn be tightened so that it is on similar grounds to those people who can be excused because they have got other commitments or suffer a disability. Not only is there something in the Human Rights Commission advice that this is discriminatory; it also strikes against the fundamental principle that underlies juries which is that they should be representative of the community. 
If I was an accused and I was charged with a particular crime I actually might want to have a jury that had a number of people who were over the age of 65. At the very least I would want a number of the people who were empanelled who came before the lawyer acting for me—and I have got a right to challenge a certain number—in some cases to be mature and to have seen life. They might have a slightly different viewpoint from a younger cohort of people that I think might be more relevant to the issues that were at large if I was being charged with a crime. I think my rights as a New Zealander to have a fair trial include the right to have a jury made up of people who are representative of the age cohort including people aged over 65. Similarly if I was the prosecution I can see cases where as a prosecutor I would have a similar view. 
My greatest concern about this bill is that it infringes the underlying basic principle of juries which is that everyone who is competent and available and does not have a good reason to be excused should be available for jury service and being over the age of 65 is not a sufficient reason for being excused of itself. If it is associated with a disability that is long term you can already get out of it. I think I have probably said enough.