Chauvel Charles: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chauvel Charles: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 31 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:4108. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to start by thanking the member who has resumed her seat Jacqui Dean for that contribution. Having had a look at the list of members of the Law and Order Committee who actually heard submissions on this Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill I think she is the only member in the Chamber who was on the committee at the time and obviously it helps that she chaired it. I think what this shows us independently of expressing any view about the merits of what Jacqui Dean has just said or the argument she made is that it really does not do to leave these bills languishing on the Order Paper. 
The legislation was referred to the committee back on 12 April 2011. The closing date for submissions was 26 May. Looking at the membership list two of the committee are not even in the House any more. They did not survive the November election which intervened between the committee’s report and today and I do not think apart from Jacqui Dean there is any member of the committee otherwise who served at the time and who is still on that committee. So by way of general observation I am not going to speculate as to why this bill has taken so long to progress although if it were of such burning importance you might think the Minister of Justice would have given it higher priority. Perhaps the most charitable thing that can be said is that she is still cleaning up after her predecessor and that this bill— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no no she’s been diverted by other matters. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Well my colleague observes that maybe the truth is that she has been diverted by other matters. I am sure he will have more to say about that later in the debate. But whatever the case let us hope that the House has seen the back of this sort of bill which is only really arguably needed and is certainly not a burning priority—just like the next item of business that I apprehend we are going to get to. 
The other thing that is worth saying by way of a general observation also relates to priorities. We have had legislation relating to perhaps the major driver of crime in New Zealand—alcohol—on the Order Paper for some time and we still have not got to it. I do hope the Chair will indulge me because I have got the Minister of Justice in the chair here and I can express this view directly to her. I do hope we are going to see that bill progressed with priority and expedition rather than legislation like this which at least very arguably deals with matters that are adequately provided for in legislation already. 
On the question of Mr O’Rourke’s Supplementary Order Paper I accept what the Government has said to an extent. The Government has decided not to remove on an ongoing basis the exemption for persons over the age of 65 to serve on a jury and it is calling it a benefit. Well frankly I think that is patronising. The Juries Act dates back to 1981. It dates back to an era when we had compulsory retirement at the age of 65. People did not have the choice. That was when they were deemed by the law to be old deemed by the law to start becoming past it and required to retire. That has not been the case for many a year and it would have been open to the Government to have said: “Well we are updating the law here. We should actually dispense with the arbitrary requirement that somebody at the age of 65 can be excused from jury service simply by reason that they reach a certain age.” We just do not make those arbitrary assumptions in our law and practice in New Zealand any more. 
I am like the rest of the House sympathetic to the type of situation the Minister recounted. She talked about a family member who was infirm had motor neurone disease and did not want to go through the process of having to seek an exclusion every time she was called for jury service. People at any age can get motor neurone disease. People at any age can be afflicted by an infirmity that makes them either uncomfortable or right-out incapable of serving on a jury or performing some other sort of civic service. The way they ought to be dealt with is by a straight-out exemption on the basis of disability. It ought to be the case that if somebody cannot serve then clearly they should be able to be excused on the basis of that infirmity. It has nothing to do with age. People in New Zealand now who are over the age of 65—many people—will find this entire debate and this sort of arbitrary provision completely patronising. If we think about what was argued for by Julie Anne Genter there is actually no need for an arbitrary age in this area just as we do not have arbitrary ages across most other areas of our law. As I said earlier it simply is not the way we do things. So it is a little disappointing that we have heard the contributions that we have had on the age issue. Like my colleague Lianne Dalziel and like the other members of the Labour Opposition we will be—if we have the opportunity—voting in support of Denis O’Rourke’s amendment which would do away with this patronising anachronism around the age of 65 in respect of jury service.