Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill aims to improve the administration and integrity of the jury system, and also contains provisions that improve jurors’ safety and security.

To improve the administration and integrity of the jury system, a number of miscellaneous provisions were proposed in the bill, including allowing for permanent excusals from jury service in certain circumstances, requiring those sentenced to less than 3 months’ home detention to be excused or deferred from serving on a jury while subject to their sentence, disqualifying those sentenced to home detention of 3 months or more within the previous 5 years from serving on a jury, and removing references to corrective training, as the sentence had been abolished.

I would like to take a moment to go through the criteria for permanent excusals from jury service, as the pivotal change has caused some comment. Clause 10 of the bill sets out when a permanent excusal from jury service is available. The registrar has discretion to grant permanent excusal from jury service if the person is so disabled or has such bad health that the person would never be able to discharge his or her duties as a juror. The registrar is obliged, however, to grant a permanent excusal if the person requesting it is aged 65 years or over. Much of the discussion on this bill has centred on the impact of permanent excusals for those aged 65 or over. In particular, it has been alleged that this has negative impacts on the rights of older people, or is ageism. Let me make this very clear: the Ministry of Justice receives thousands of requests a year from people aged 65 and over who want to be permanently excused from jury service. The bill explicitly responds to those requests and recognises that people aged 65 and over want the ability to be permanently excused. This is not something that happens unless they specifically ask for it. I do not accept that permanent excusal at the request of the person called for jury service is an erosion of their rights. It is quite the contrary. Just like the SuperGold card or universal superannuation, it is not ageist, it is not derogatory, and it is not against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

This bill has had a long process going through the House and through the Law and Order Committee. There are, in fact, many changes to the bill that have been undertaken. I would like to commend the bill to the House.

This bill, the Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill, was originally not accompanied by a regulatory impact statement or any regulatory impact analysis, on the basis that the proposals set out in it were not expected to have any major impacts on businesses, individuals, and not-for-profit entities. But the Cabinet papers do reveal the fact that “Last year there was”—and I am quoting from the papers—“an incident where a self-represented accused corresponded with persons whose names and addresses were on the jury panel for his trial. This raised concerns about the safety of jurors,”—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.