Ardern Jacinda: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Ardern Jacinda: Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17976] 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise and speak on the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill. I think my colleagues have made some really good general statements about the context in which we should look at this bill and the role of juries more broadly. Everyone in this House I know will acknowledge that jury service and the role of jurors are critical to our criminal justice system. Unless we have a robust system that allows our peers to stand in judgment of one another then everything falls down. But underpinning that system again is the need to ensure that we have a broad cross-section of jurors who are willing and able to serve on our juries and that we remove as many inhibitors to their serving as possible. Time is a massive issue as is the ability to travel to court; for a lot of people it is very costly. We should be mindful of these things in terms of ensuring that we always have a representative cross-section of people standing on our juries. 
I would be very interested in knowing whether the select committee is able to do a bit of analysis of those who are currently listed as having sought and received exemptions over and above those that are listed in this bill. Do we for instance see a particular profession very rarely represented at jury level because its members are consistently exempted from service? Do we see certain age groups cultural groups or ethnicities seeking exclusion from jury service and receiving it? Let us look at the reasons why that might be. Is it because of people’s occupation or family commitments or because of the cost? I would be really pleased if the select committee spent a bit of time looking at those issues. I do not feel we have a true sense of whether we currently have truly representative juries and I would like to see that addressed. 
The other general point I want to make before talking about some of the detail of this bill is that as a former member of the Justice and Electoral Committee I know that we have seen an extraordinary number of justice bills go before that committee. I have made a comparison having moved from that committee to the Social Services Committee which is an excellent committee and has a lot more time to consider the systemic issues in the area that we sit across because we are not constantly inundated with what I perceive to be generally reactionary bills. By that I mean for instance the bill we have just finished considering the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill which increases the specific penalties on those who assault police officers. Of course I want to see those who assault police officers be dealt with using the full force of the law but the idea that we need to have a specific provision setting that out in the Sentencing Act when we already see it taken into consideration in sentencing causes me to feel that there is a piecemeal approach to our criminal justice system particularly in sentencing. We have seen that approach on a number of occasions. 
Personally I would rather see us as a Parliament and as members of select committees consider the wider systemic issues in the criminal justice system. Why do we have the second-highest imprisonment rate in the world second only I believe to that of South Africa or the United States? Either way that is an indictment. Why are we not discussing that issue along with the fact that our rate of criminal offending is not really increasing yet our imprisonment rate is increasing dramatically? 
Moving on to the specifics of this particular bill we have already talked about the fact that some elements of the bill are simply common sense. I think it makes sense that there is no regulatory impact statement for this bill because it affects only a very narrow pool of people and they tend to be those who are eligible for jury service and those who might seek exemptions from it. 
I will just run through three specific areas of the bill. One is the issue of ensuring that jurors’ personal details are not revealed so as to keep them safe in the event that they serve on a jury and someone seeks them out. I would like to see the select committee consider that one in a little more detail because as we have already said there are opportunities in court for jurors’ personal matters to be raised. If we are to be comprehensive about the safety of jurors we would be wise to look at that perhaps in the same way that we do for witnesses and victims. 
On that particular issue I think now might be the time to raise the question of the role that court and victim advocates have been playing in our court system. I have heard recently that we have people of varying degrees of competency in those roles but they have the potential to play a really critical role for people who are navigating their way through our criminal justice system which can be daunting. A court for most people is a very alienating and intimidating thing and having someone who is able to talk them in layman’s terms through the process they will go through is an incredibly helpful thing particularly if someone is a witness or a victim. Again in the guise of looking at the role that jurors play and at their experience it might be interesting to talk about whether we have people who are performing that role adequately for jurors. 
The second issue I will touch on is the one of allowing for exemptions from jury duty. Currently if we are called up to be a juror we are able to seek an exemption on the grounds of occupation business state of health physical disability family commitments or other personal circumstances. I have used that provision of the law. I was called for jury service if my memory serves me correctly when I was working for the then Minister of Justice and it was not at all correct or proper in my view to serve on a jury whilst I had that role. I did that in the same way that I believe police officers and their families and specifically the spouses of police officers I think do not serve on juries. My mum for instance has not served on a jury. I believe that provision is contained in legislation somewhere. Those are all legitimate circumstances under which someone might seek an exemption as is I believe the idea of seeking an exemption for a long-term disability or health reason. 
I would like the select committee to consider whether when someone is seeking an exemption on health grounds which will be a permanent exemption under the provisions of this legislation a distinction will be made between those seeking exemptions because of a temporary health issue versus a longer-term health issue. Will we still be able to make that distinction in terms of applications sought on health grounds or will it be the case that generally if we seek an exemption for a health reason it will be a permanent one? I would not mind hearing a little more about that from the select committee after it considers the issue. 
I also note that new section 15A(2) inserted by clause 10 of the bill imposes a duty on the registrar to excuse a person permanently if the registrar is satisfied that the person is of or over the age of 65 years. I have to be honest and say I find it slightly archaic that we would suggest that simply because someone is of the age of 65 or more and writes a letter stating that to be the case suddenly they could be permanently exempt from serving on a jury. I think that is a bit ageist. I see members opposite who may be entering into those golden years themselves and who agree with me that this provision is ageist. If someone is 65 years of age in my mind that does not speak at all about whether they are competent to serve on a jury. In fact if nothing else at that time in people’s life often they have more time available to contribute to their community or community service so why have we set an age of 65? Surely if there are grounds and if a person who is a senior citizen does not believe that for physical or health reasons they have the capacity to serve on a jury they would be able to seek an exemption based on that criterion rather than just their age. 
I would not mind hearing the select committee’s view on that and I look forward to hearing members of the select committee such as Paul Quinn perhaps coming back to this House and telling us what the committee has decided on those issues. I know he was not listening to what I thought was the very good point I have just made. I would be very happy to repeat it later if he would like or he could read the  
Hansard 
 because I know he is a studious reader of 
 Hansard 
. 
Paul Quinn 
: What’s the clause? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: The question is why someone of 65 years or more should not serve on a jury. We will come back to that issue and I look forward to hearing more on that from the member. 
Generally the provisions about people on home detention not doing jury duty are simply a result of that matter not having been addressed in the original legislation. Otherwise I look forward to discussing this bill again with Mr Quinn at the second reading.