Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill. We start with clause 1, the debate on clause 1, “Title”. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

I seek leave for all provisions to be taken in as one question.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that clauses 1 to 6 and the Schedule stand part.

Madam Chair—fantastic. It’s a great way to start this evening. I just want to commend Carl Bates. This is going to be his first time in the chair. I’m not going to play nice, but I still want to wish him well from the start.

I want to start, firstly, at the first part, because, actually, I’m going to work my way through the legislation—even though we’re taking it as one part, I’m going to make sort of a systematic approach through the legislation. From a rugby referee and a hockey umpire, you’d expect nothing different but to follow the rules and follow them to the letter of the law.

The first one is on the title. At the moment, the legislation is called the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill. I wondered if the member had considered alternatives to the title, particularly related to the word “excusal”. Now, I think the word “excusal” has got a few points going with it at the moment. It can be a little bit on the nose, a little bit, if we think about the word “excusal”. I thought, had the member considered whether, actually, looking to include the age specifically in the legislation? If we think about it—

Hon Member: McCallum.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Well, I don’t want to talk ill of members not here. But had the member considered, because at the moment it’s 65, and, as we’re going to dive into further down the legislation—[Grant McCallum enters the Chamber] Oh, he is here. It’s 65, but it is moving to 72 under the legislation. I wondered whether the member had, firstly, considered actually removing the word “excusal” and looking to see whether including the words “72” or “the age of 72”—something like that. I think including the word “juries” in the title is really paramount, because that’s, ultimately, what we’re talking about here and what’s involved—but whether he’d considered actually including the word “72”, which, I think, is vitally important.

Steve Abel: Give us the full name.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Give us the full name—well, that’s the issue, Steve Abel, because I’ve actually been thinking about it quite long and hard, actually, particularly while I was just giving my previous contribution on the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill. I was actually thinking about “Juries (Age of Excusal/Maximum 72) Amendment Bill”, or whether you’d want to get rid of—would you think you’d get rid of “excusal” altogether and just have “Juries (Not Above 72 Years Old) Amendment Bill” or something along those lines? I would welcome Steve Abel to take his own call to make some contributions on the title, but I wanted to put that question first to the member in charge and would welcome his initial thoughts on it. Thank you.

I have a few clauses I’d like to ask the member in charge about, but I’d also like to start with the title. I do want to focus on the word “Excusal”, but I come from maybe a slightly different angle. I worry that this just reinforces—and I’d be interested in the member’s view—a culture that we see permeating throughout our country of a lack of service. It’s a frame of reference that this is “What is the age of excusal? How can I get out of this? How can I avoid it?”. Actually, this country is great because we were built up by people that contributed to their communities.

I think about, for example, in Paraparaumu, the Rotary Club and the Lions Club—people over the age of 65, and, indeed, over the age of 72—and they’ve just joined together to build a new mini-golf course. It’s called Golf for Good, and it is going to be giving back to the community. It’s not just providing something great for our community, but all the money raised goes back to the community, and on and on it goes. It’s fantastic—I can’t wait to join them for the launch.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): When you’re 72.

TIM COSTLEY: This is a group of people who are giving to their community—I didn’t hear that, Madam Chair, and I’m sure it was nothing to do with—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I said, “When you’re 72.” You said, “I can’t wait to join them.”

TIM COSTLEY: Well, you may not be 72 yet, but you may be captured by this Act, Madam Chair. I just wonder—here is a group of people that are giving to their community, yet where we see community breaking down in New Zealand is people who are not looking for a way to give but a way to avoid, a way to be excused, a way to not contribute. What message does it send if we’re passing legislation—albeit this is a change to actually bring more people in to the point at which they can serve, but the frame of reference when people look at this is all about excusal. It’s about “How I can get out of it?”.

Now, I accept that there may be, indeed, some legal references that the member is considering. There are the current provisions within the Act—in sections 15 and 15A—that use some of that language. Would we not be better to set the tone that we believe—and certainly, on this side of the House, we believe—in strong communities, in strong families and caring communities? Those are some of the values that the National Party is grounded in. Why would we not be setting something out that says this is about how we can include more people? How can we participate? How do we give back to our community? How do we value what it is that people over the age of 65 have to contribute?

I see, throughout my electorate, which is the electorate with the highest number of over-65s in the country, the value that it adds—organisations like Volunteer Kāpiti, that are saying, “This isn’t a burden on our community; this is an amazing asset, as they help others, as we leverage the skills and the experience they have to contribute to our community.” Is there not a way that we could highlight that, that we could celebrate that, that we could look at how we include more people? How do we value what it is that those that—yep, they may have a SuperGold card, but that hasn’t ruled them out from the sort of gold-medal service that we have seen from them in our community. It’s something that I worry about, and this is important.

I look around the community, and I look at service organisations—like Lions, like Rotary, like Altrusa, like even Probus and Rebus—and the numbers that are slowly being whittled away, the people that used to regularly contribute to the community, to sports clubs, to churches, to organisations, and even to political parties. The breakdown of community we see because people of younger generations don’t routinely want to give, and I worry that we breed a culture of people who are looking for “How do we get out of this? How do we avoid this?” rather than “What do we have to offer? How do we contribute?”.

It may seem like a small point. It may seem, to some, like a pretty minor point or a naff point, but, actually, I think it speaks to the heart of the kind of community we want to have. We talk in New Zealand about superannuation and how we are going to afford it. I notice the discussion in countries like the United States is not “How do we afford it?” but “How do we find opportunities for people over that age to work?”, where they feel discriminated against. Again, it comes to that point that, actually, people over 65 have great value to contribute to our community, and I want to make sure that they are honoured, they are celebrated, they are valued, and they are able to contribute.

It might be small, but it might be that changing just one or two words from “Age of Excusal” to “Including More Seniors” or to “Appreciating Experience”—maybe that’s a way that we could just set the tone that we’re looking for. My question to the member is: has he considered the sort of negative or double negative perception that could be taken into that title, and would he consider one if we were to flip it on its head?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for giving me the opportunity this evening to bring this to the committee of the whole House. It has been a journey taking this bill through the process and having the opportunity—as my colleague and friend, the member for the Bay of Plenty, Tom Rutherford, mentioned, this is the first time I’m in the chair this evening to present this bill and answer questions, legitimate questions, that have been raised already about the title. We’re at the beginning of the process, and I intend on responding to each of those as we go through and exploring some of these ideas, because I am open to constructive contributions from members about the bill as we go through the process this evening—

Tom Rutherford: On both sides.

CARL BATES: —from both sides. I’m sure that my colleagues across the Chamber are taking the opportunity to consider, deeply, how they can contribute to the discussion this evening and ask some insightful and engaging questions.

The first part of the question this evening was around the name and whether the name “excusal” is an appropriate context, given, potentially, some of the challenges we’re experiencing in New Zealand at the moment, even—and I’m not sure if the member was directly referencing the context of excusal, like excusal from a political party or excusal from the House, and the implications and the intentions of that—maybe some of that.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): If he was, he would have been wide of the bill. I assume he wasn’t.

CARL BATES: Well, that assumption is probably fair, Madam Chair. I won’t assume that that was his sort of negative implication on the term “excusal” at the moment.

But I understand the intention or the question of adding a specific age into the bill. I think the challenge with adding a specific age—72 or 70, if there was to be amendment to the actual age during the committee of the whole House—to the title could be that in times in the future, we’re here in this Chamber again, having to go through this process again and not only update the age, because life expectancy is intended on continuing to grow, but we’d have to change the title, as well.

The first time that age was introduced into the excusal process of juries was in 1945. If you take the same time length to get to the point now where we’re moving to 72—the member from the Bay of Plenty will be sitting there in his 70s, and we will be updating the age of excusal to 75 or 80 or something like that in a few years’ time. I’m not sure if adding the specific age 72 into the title of the amendment bill would be appropriate. It could potentially include options, but, again, I think that would complicate and confuse the specific intention of the title.

I take, though, the member from Ōtaki, Tim Costley’s point regarding excusal and the idea of service and the lack of service and the lack of intention and engagement that’s permeating many organisations in New Zealand. If I think in my home electorate of Whanganui, which includes South Taranaki and Stratford, the Volunteer Whanganui Centre are very focused on the idea of service. I’ve had the opportunity to go out and serve with them as part of National Volunteer Week last year and again this year, and the opportunity to acknowledge all the great volunteers that provide service. I appreciate the concern the member has about the negative connotation of the idea of exclusion and how we could potentially turn that around.

I think one of the things that’s intended by this amendment, as I said in both my first reading and second reading speech, is the need for a reminder to our community that this is a civic duty, and that civic duty doesn’t end at 65. We’ll get to this, no doubt, when questions are asked on the age a little bit later this evening. But for now, when we’re talking about the context of the title, I think keeping the idea of excusal in there reflects the intent of the underlying legislation, which is that you have to go and be excused. If there is a member that wants to understand what some of the other reasons for excusal are, I’m happy to share that in a few minutes’ time.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’m looking forward to having a discussion with the member in charge, and I want to, again, thank him for getting the bill this far. One of the things I want to test with him—this really goes across all of the sections of the bill. I mean, we could talk about the title, but it really does get to the substance. See, in ACT, we don’t actually believe in discriminating people based on characteristics—whether that’s sex or gender, ethnicity, and, I dare say, age. One of the things I did explore in the select committee but I’m very keen to explore it tonight is: is it appropriate to even discriminate on age at all? In ACT, we actually believe an individual, regardless of their characteristics and personal attributes, can make a contribution to society. In this case, what we’re asking them to do, regardless of their age, this would be my view, is serve on a jury. I mean, we could, obviously, talk about the title, but, actually, this gets to the substance, where we’re just literally replacing 65 years with 72 years.

In fact, my suggestion would actually deal with some of the other questions that other members have already asked tonight. Let’s just get rid of the age altogether and actually have people judged on their ability to participate in the jury process. There are obviously—if we go to the Juries Act 1981 and look at sections 15 and 15A—other reasons people can be excused from jury duty, but would the member just actually consider getting rid of age? It does seem quite a discriminatory attribute. We have members in this House that are well over—or not well, but they are over—the age of 80, serving today. Some of them are Ministers and very competent. Again, I don’t think we should be using age as an arbitrary—look, I can understand it, potentially, in a bygone era when healthcare wasn’t as good. Obviously, we now have interventions where people can live healthier lives and can retain all their cognitive functions. I think really what we’re wanting is someone competent to serve on a jury. It does seem to me that having this age of 72 is a bit arbitrary.

In relation to both the substance of the bill and also the title, would the Minister—member, sorry; not a Minister yet—consider just getting rid of the age altogether and then just fall back to the other provisions in sections 15 and 15A of the Juries Act where the registrar can decide to excuse someone? I know one of the provisions in there is that they may be ill and frail, so that would seem to cover if you’re of an advanced age and you can’t actually carry out your duties, rather than just having this blanket age.

The other thing I would note is that they must—again, with you, obviously, changing the age, but if we go back to the primary Act—excuse them. If someone, basically, says, “I’m of this age.”, the registrar doesn’t have any discretion. They actually do have discretions in some of the other reasons they might excuse someone. Again, they’re the things I’d like to have your response to, because we’re about getting rid of discrimination in ACT.

Just before I ask the member to speak—on a bill that’s been taken as one part, I’d like to congratulate that member on spotting the substance of the bill and getting to it.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the focus on the substance of the bill. I’m sure that there will be questions on why, ultimately, the age of 72 was chosen, given that I did reference, in both the first and second reading speeches, the range of options that were considered.

But to focus on your specific question, at this stage, as to why there should be any age at all, it’s interesting that this was something—and you’ll recall it was raised as part of the select committee process as one of the questions by, for example, the Christian Council of Social Services. They made the point specifically—they said, “We suggest assessing if there is a need for this age of excusal at all, or whether the normal process of application for excusal on existing grounds is sufficient. If an older person wishes to be excused on one of the other grounds, specifically the health and disability option or the ‘Other personal circumstances’ option, then this would be more than sufficient to support the needs of older people who do [not] need to be excused for these reasons, not automatically assuming that all older people should want to be excused from service.”

I think the member raises a very valid question. Certainly, when I engage with my grandparents—I’m very lucky to have three of my four grandparents still alive, and I’m sure they will be watching this evening at home; hi Nana and Granddad and Grandma—they are very competent at contributing to an engaged discussion. Of course they are; they have all their faculties about them. They voted for me, so that’s a good start; that’s a good indication that they’ve got their faculties about them. There is a question to be asked as to whether or not age should be included at all.

However, this evening I think it comes down to practical politics. I’ve had indication from across the committee that there will be support for this bill going through the committee. I wouldn’t want to change the dynamics. We’ve already had, through the select committee process, Te Pāti Tamihere—sorry, Te Pāti Māori—indicate that they were going to support—sorry, I’m losing myself; Freudian slip—the bill because it was a unanimous decision of the Justice Committee that this bill would be supported, and it was reported back to the House unanimously. I’ve already lost the six votes—or the three plus three or four plus two; whatever it is now—I no longer have that support—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You don’t know that, Mr Bates. We haven’t taken a vote.

CARL BATES: They have indicated that to me, Chair, so I’m of a reasonable understanding and confident that that is the case.

I don’t want to be in a position where I lose further votes by introducing a new framing of having no age. I’d invite the member to put in an amendment if his party is of that opinion and we could maybe debate that amendment. But I think, for the context of ensuring I retain the support of the committee this evening, I’m not sure that we’ll do that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m so grateful for getting this opportunity to ask a question to my colleague—my excellent colleague—the phenomenal Carl Bates, the MP for Whanganui. Mr Bates, thank you very much. Thank you for the work that you’ve done ever since your member’s bill was pulled out of that biscuit tin. I’ve seen the way that you vehemently fought for this. I’ve said this in a few of my speeches—that, yes, it may seem like a small change, but to a lot of people, in particular our elderly out there who are so filled with those pearls of wisdom, this means a lot to them that they can continue to contribute to the workings of the justice system with those pearls of wisdom that they are so enriched with. Thank you, Mr Bates. You really are a master in some situations like this.

What I’d like to bring the attention of the committee to, Madam Chair and Mr Carl Bates, is that one thing I want to ask you about is—because when I went through this process with my own member’s bill, which I was very blessed was pulled out of the ballot early last year, the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill, which is now an Act, we spoke, at the eleventh hour, about the commencement date. The commencement date was originally the day after Royal assent. If my colleagues across the Chamber do recall—as I said, at the eleventh hour at the committee of the whole House stage, I put an amendment forward to change that from the day after Royal assent to six months. That was because, upon reflection and conversing more with the advisers from the Department of Corrections, we came to the realisation that Corrections would need more time to implement the small change with a great ripple effect. In turn, I reflect on the commencement date of the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill and how it says it’s “the day after Royal assent”, and I was just wondering if there’s any whakaaro around whether that could be or you would want to change that to a longer period of time, given what may be involved for the court system to implement this change?

Now, we know—and I’m so grateful to have you on the Justice Committee with me, alongside a number of my colleagues—that there’s the project that’s going on right now, the Te Au Reka project, where the focus is on implementing a new digital case flow for filing and case management in our court systems. It’s on its way. It’s not quite there yet; there’s still quite a way to go. I know—as you would, because you’ve got a very astute mind—that when everything becomes more digitised and has more of a flow and connects to different organisations, as well, changes will be a lot easier to make. But in the meantime, the status quo is that it’s not fully implemented, so I was wondering if the member did give any thoughts to the commencement date. Is saying that it’s “the day after Royal assent”, in this situation, sufficient?

There’s quite a lot to unpack there, Mr Bates. If we think about the court registrars, no doubt, they would know that this is in the parliamentary process; I’m sure that they’ve got their ears on the ground in regard to that. But I do wonder, does there also need to be some movement and some time given so that it could, as we say, have that go across all the different organisations that this change needs to go—I’m thinking about things like our Grey Power, our senior citizens clubs. I’d love the member to let me know if there’s been any thought about that—and the secondary thought: will he be putting an amendment down on the Table about changing the commencement date?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rima Nakhle, for your question and your focus on an important point, which is about implementation. I’m surprised—well, I’m not really surprised that it is the National Party member that has raised implementation and ensuring effective implementation, because we haven’t heard it from anywhere else in the committee. We’ve heard it from the Government bench, and I appreciate a question focused on effective implementation, because at the end of the day, if we create laws and they aren’t effective and they’re not able to be implemented, then that does create a problem.

I appreciate the question, and you’ve reminded me of the importance of acknowledging the staff at Auckland High Court, where I visited, along with Minister Goldsmith, where this idea first came up, because it is a good opportunity to remind the committee that this bill came out of a discussion with the front line. So often we are challenged as members of Parliament for having ideas that haven’t come from the front line, and this was literally from the front line. I happened to be on crutches at the time, so I was hopping along the front line and got this idea from them and really have taken it on board and shepherded it through. I appreciate the member’s recognition of the fight it takes to guide a bill through the House.

I specifically made a point of engaging with Rawiri Waititi regarding the support of Te Pāti Māori about this bill. I was given their support for it, and I’m really disappointed that while they unanimously supported this at the select committee, at second reading they voted against it. I was hoping, with some of their changes in membership, I might have been able to get some support from their ex-members, but, apparently, that’s not going to be the case. However, I will continue the fight, despite some of those challenges.

When it comes to the commencement date and your implementation question, I had the assurance of the Ministry of Justice that they have confirmed their readiness and that they are able to update their summons material and systems in order to implement this change quickly, effectively. Therefore, the commencement date of the bill is not going to be an issue.

I’ll leave my response at this point, because I’m sure the member will ask about the transition arrangements, which are slightly different to the date at which commencement occurs of the bill, which, as you’ve rightly pointed out, is the day after Royal assent. Quite looking forward to, actually, that day that it gets Royal assent, and looking forward to that notification.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, I want to commend the member Carl Bates for the hard work he’s done to bring the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill through the parliamentary process. Mr Bates, the bill appears to be well researched. It’s based on something that people have been asking: why can’t older people serve on juries? It represents a good example of members of the Government side of the committee identifying a problem and a policy solution, taking responsibility for delivering that policy solution, developing legislation, and here we are this evening. To all of those listening and watching at home, or in the cab of your truck, if you’re out there on the State highways, I just want to let you know that Carl Bates, today, is expressing the spirit of all Government parties, in that fixing what matters is what we are here to do.

Now, Mr Bates, I want to ask you a couple of questions, and some of them are based on my personal experience, having served on a jury. That was on a very complex, very difficult trial that involved a case where, it would be fair to say, some horrendous things happened to people in our society. The victims of certain crimes often feel it’s very challenging to come to court and to present their evidence. One of the things I’m concerned about—and I have a question for you—is about when people come to court and they have to give evidence, sometimes, the way they describe experiences, whether they’re a victim, whether they’re a witness, or whether they’re a defendant, they often use lingo, street jive, or slang—the kind of thing that comes up if you watch some kind of TV programmes, you know, NCIS or some of these other crime dramas—

Hon James Meager: It’s N-C-I-S.

SIMON COURT: NCIS. I’m an engineer; it’s got to be an acronym. To the honourable member Mr Bates, how do we expect older jurors to understand lingo, street jive, and slang without some kind of—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I was wondering where the point of this question was getting to—you got there.

SIMON COURT: Does he expect courts to support older jurors with some kind of dictionary or some kind of explainer or FAQ sheet about what all these terms mean when they come up? I mean, I won’t give away my age—some of you might assume I’m in my forties, and I’d accept that today—but even I struggle to understand some of the language used in my own home by my children in their teens and twenties. I can’t imagine what a struggle it would be by the time I get into my sixties, seventies—up to the age of 72—to deal with this. One question: how does he expect the courts to support older jurors with understanding the lingo?

Secondly, what about the tiring—emotionally and physically tiring—effort that jurors put in? What I remember is turning up to be selected at about 8.30 in the morning, eventually being selected and being briefed, and sometime later that afternoon, closer to 5 p.m., finally being released, with not a lot of an idea about whether I needed to bring a packed lunch or a water bottle or some other type of thing to keep me going throughout the day. That went on for weeks after the initial briefing and impoundment onto a jury—so I’m interested.

Older people are living older, longer, but better lives. But still, older bodies need more maintenance; they need asset renewal, pit stops, breaks done, filter changes. Will courts be ready to support older jurors, such as with more regular breaks, and actually provide more flexibility so that older jurors can participate in what are very long, very emotionally and physically stressful days, hearing what is often very disturbing testimony from victims and witnesses and family members? While my questions might appear to be a touch of brevity, these are serious matters, and I look forward to the member addressing them.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the questions. I appreciate even that one of the questions might have been asked in a way that actually enables me to highlight one of the key misunderstandings about the age of excusal when it comes to jury duties. Often, there is a perception across the country that when you hit 65, you are no longer required to serve, and that no one over the age of 65 serves on juries. That would lead to a number of the members’ questions being even more important, if we actually had no one over the age of 65 currently serving on juries.

I’m going to just quote from my opening remarks to the Justice Committee. I want to acknowledge the members of the Justice Committee who are here this evening, who went through this process and were really engaged in making sure we created a good piece of legislation that solved the problem. I want to acknowledge the honourable Simon Court for his contribution to helping create this clarity for all of those listening at home this evening. And it says—

Simon Court: Or in their truck.

CARL BATES: —“This is not about”—or in the truck. Or in the truck—or on “The Facebook”, as my nana calls it. You know, she is up with the slang. She calls it “The Facebook”, but it’s all the same.

“This is not about introducing age into the jury system. That already exists. Currently, anyone above the age of 65 can request automatic excusal from jury duty, either permanently or just for that particular case, and that request is granted without question. The bill simply raises the age of automatic excusal to 72. It doesn’t mean that you can’t serve if you’re older than 65 currently, and 72 once this bill has completed its shepherding through the House. What it does mean is that if you choose to ask for automatic excusal, either for that occasion or permanently, that will be granted without question. So what that means”—and it’s important to clarify this point—“is that you can serve on the jury, currently, past the age of 65. In fact, many do. But the automatic opt out creates confusion, and worse, a cultural expectation that once you hit 65, you’ve done your bit and you don’t need to serve. That is not a view that I support.”

When we have that understanding that we already have jurors who are over the age of 65, our courts are already managing some of those challenges that the member raises about potential fatigue, about ensuring appropriate breaks, and about the make-up of people in the jury itself—which I suppose is part of the answer to the question about slang.

One of the great things about jury duty is that a jury is a combination or a collection of our peers. It’s a cross-section of society. In the jury room, you may have a 72-year-old who’s worked in trucks all his or her life and got life experience on the road. You might have a lawyer from Kāpiti—from the mighty Tim Costley’s electorate—who’s only ever worked in an office or an office from home and doesn’t necessarily understand the concept of manual labour. Then, you might have someone from down South who is off farm and has got a different perspective on life and has a different vocabulary that comes with being a Southerner. I just want to acknowledge our Minister for the South Island, here, who I’m sure will appreciate the fact that there are differences in our islands and, therefore, vocabulary that people bring to the table. That collection of individuals in the jury room will help with that understanding and be able to teach each other.

You know, one of my favourite programmes on TV at the moment is a series: 12—or The Twelve, it might be called, but 12 all the same. It sort of follows those on the jury through the life that goes on around jury duty and jury service. I think that that is one of the ways that we can appreciate that as a jury, they will help each other understand the language in the particular case that is going through the court at that particular time.

Madam Chair, I have one final point I want to make, if you’ll give me a little longer to make it.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll give you seven seconds.

CARL BATES: Thank you. It’s related to understanding different vocabulary and being connected to your community. I just wanted to—Madam Chair, very quickly. I just wanted to—

Tim Costley: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No—the member’s still on his feet. His seven seconds are up, so be quick.

CARL BATES: For those of us on the Government side, many of us are electorate members of Parliament, which means we’re very engaged in our community and we meet people across our community—another way that helps us keep up to date with the different language. I’m sure many people on juries are engaged across the community in the same way.

Grant McCallum—I can see you’ve got a brand new question.

I’ve got a very brand new question, Madam Chair—thank you very much. It’s about time we brought some wisdom to this debate, because that has been distinctly lacking up till now. Some of my junior colleagues—in fact, I think that is everybody—

Arena Williams: All of us.

GRANT McCALLUM: —are coming at it from the wrong angle, I feel. The question I simply have is: when you were looking at the age you were picking here, you settled on 72, and I begin to wonder, why that? Why did you settle there? Why not go a lot higher? For example, I’ve been well and truly led to believe that there was a senator in America who was 100 years old. Why couldn’t you take it to that level of age? These people have wisdom—real wisdom.

There’s one area that you haven’t really addressed—you haven’t really, really addressed; that’s a challenge—which is, actually, did you consider at any stage a minimum age? Did you consider what the minimum age should be? I just do wonder whether it needs to be set a little bit higher. I just want to remind myself again how old the member for Bay of Plenty is—I would make it about five years older than that. That would be about right! That would make it about 40. If we made the minimum age 40, I just think we would get more wisdom on the jury, and we would actually get better decisions. I just wondered if you’d actually considered that, Mr Bates. I just think that’s really important to look at. I just think you should have a minimum age of around 40, maybe a bit higher, because then you’d get people with real life experiences. I just feel that has been lacking in this debate.

We really need to look at it, because I do worry about some of the rather interesting angles that have been taken by junior colleagues here, and I just think they’ve shown up their level of immaturity in this space. Particularly some of the members from—the member from Bay of Plenty, I suspect, might want to give consideration in that space. We have some very good members here who would actually do a good job, but I just wonder, then, if maybe we need to move that up a bit. At the upper end, I do worry. I just kind of feel—speaking as someone who’s sort of entering their 60s—

Tim Costley: Entering?

GRANT McCALLUM: That is correct—entering their 60s. I just feel I’m reaching my peak of life and my peak of knowledge and contribution, and I could really actually demonstrate real, considerable contribution to a jury. You’ve got to have that jury of your peers, as they say it, and have the ability to sit there and concentrate. Some of us did not grow up with screens, so we can actually sit and concentrate without having a screen. We don’t need bans—we don’t need bans for under-16s and that sort of stuff to worry about—we can actually just go in there and concentrate and go through the evidence and bring that level of wisdom and experience that I feel some younger people would struggle with. We could really add value in the jury space.

I’m really interested to hear why you didn’t consider a much higher upper age and actually bringing in a lower age. I just think that would add real value to this whole debate, and I do reserve the right of reply if more flak comes in this direction.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to respond, quickly, and then, I understand, there’s going to be some more questions. I’m already seeing some interest there. I just want to acknowledge and respect—I was always taught to respect my elders, so thank you, the MP for Northland, Grant McCallum, for your question. I’m not sure that we considered 100. We did consider 75, which would be the age of 70, the retirement of judges, plus five, because they can have their term extended for five years. That would have been one option. Seventy-two is the age of retirement of the Ombudsman, which is why we, ultimately, I think, went with the age of 72. In England and Wales, they have an upper limit of 76 in jury duty; Scotland has the age of 71. My son Angus would appreciate it if we went with the Scottish 71, given his ancestral links back to Scotland. I regularly meet with constituents over the age of 65 who are in the workforce, and so that was why 65 was, clearly, not appropriate.

On the question whether there was a minimum age, I would imagine there would be questions from the other side of the Chamber if we were to touch on ages at a minimum age. I think the contributions made by the youngsters like the likes of the member from the Bay of Plenty, Tom Rutherford, was really valuable in terms of supporting and asking some questions around the title and the context of excusal.

There were some questions from Te Pāti Māori in the second reading, actually, when it comes to who should and shouldn’t be involved in jury duty about whether or not that this was anti particular demographics in New Zealand. I haven’t had a question from them this evening to explore those ideas. It would have been a good opportunity for them to ask those questions, had they genuinely believed that this wasn’t fair and reasonable across the board.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The member should not be using his time in the chair to be having comments about other parties in the Parliament. Just answer the questions. Thank you.

CARL BATES: Fair enough, Chair. I was just keen to explore that question, because I thought it was an important one to debunk, if you like, had I had the opportunity. But, that said, I will leave that contribution there. An age of 100 would not be appropriate, and I think a minimum age was outside the scope of this legislation.

I’m going to take a call from Cameron Luxton. So far the questions have largely been different. There’s not much left to ask. Also, the committee stage is designed to ask questions, not take five-minute speeches. This is not directed at this member, just at the general context of the conversation, because I think there’ll be a lot of 65-year-olds out there wondering if this little bill will be passed by the time they’re 72.

Madam Chair, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to have a contribution, because I have got a substantive and new question I hope to explore with the member in charge. Mr Bates has done a great job, as has been pointed out and elucidated, of finding an issue and bringing it to this House.

I don’t want to retread old ground that other members have made contributions on, and it has to be said that the member in the chair does deserve to be complimented on his ability to engage with every contribution. It’s been quite an impressive thing to watch and an example to others in this Chamber to emulate.

I have a few questions that have popped up, but the one that I wanted to ask that I don’t think has been touched on prior to this is did the member explore or did the committee explore having incremental age increases for the age of excusal? I mean, if you would have increased the age by, say, three months a year, how would that work? I mean, just quickly on the back of the envelope, I think if we started now with, say, three months a year, the age of excusal would increase—by 2054, it would be a full 72-year-old.

If he’s explored that route, did he try other incremental expansions such as maybe four months? That would lead to 2047. If 2054 was too early to get to that limit, did he look at maybe not setting an upper limit by default by making it 72 and perhaps having an incremental two months, three months, four months a year increase beyond 72 so that Parliament doesn’t have to come back and deeply explore these issues again? I’m glad that they’re being traversed in the committee tonight, but, say, in a few years’ time, when New Zealanders’ age demographics balloon at the upper end of life and we enjoy the company and the contribution of more over-65s and, indeed, over - 72-year-olds—when that day comes, will we be able to properly get use of that knowledge, that skill, that contribution to society and life experience and common sense and experience, as the member for Northland put into the Chamber in his contribution? Would it be prudent, do you think, Mr Bates, to put in an incremental increase past the age of 72?

Then, while I have this call, because I understand you do want us to be moving along—that’s one question. The second question that I had was in your explorations, Mr Bates, and mastery of this issue from issues around the world, you’ve mentioned Scotland and a few other countries—you said there was an upper limit on age. I want to just understand, because is that an upper limit on jury duty service and did that influence your thinking, or was that an upper limit on the age of excusal? It is a vastly different thing that people need to understand—that you can have the automatic excusal over 65 and use that up to 72 if your bill was to pass tonight, which all indications say it will. But if we were going to follow the best practice around the world and what’s been tried overseas, are those hard limits on jury service or are they hard limits on the age of excusal?

It was interesting to hear about the cultural expectations of our older citizens. Mr Bates, have you had a chance to explore the impacts of having that sort of experience, that age on juries? I know we’re speculating on what will happen, but has there ever been any reports that you might have seen come out of our university institutions, our law societies, legal fraternity talking about what sort of contributions different age demographics actually give to society?

There are a few things. There’s the incremental increase in age, talking about overseas experience, upper limits versus limits on excusal, and the cultural input that different demographics have.

Finally, since I think this might be my last call, I would just like to say hello—sorry for taking the committee’s time—to my grandfather, who I don’t think has got many days left, Stanley Gib Luxton. Love you, man.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to acknowledge what you’ve shared with the committee there, Cameron. My thoughts are with you guys through that process. I know what it’s like in those final days and just heart and prayers with you guys.

When it comes to your three questions, thank you for the intellectually stimulating questions you’ve brought to the Chamber this evening around the bill. I think this idea that you’ve raised for the first time through this process that I’ve shepherded this bill through the Justice Committee and through this House—this idea of incremental age expansion or increase over time. There are other things in the House that this House sets policy for that I would be very keen to see regularly adjusted—inflation adjusted, even.

But when it comes to the point you make, over the next 25 years, essentially, it would take it three months to get to 2050, to get to 72. The challenge would be, over that period of time, if you take the last 25 years—so if you take the period 2000 to 2025, being the last 25-year block. Then you’re referring to the next 25-year block. To the last 25-year block—2000 to 2025—there has been an increase in the average age of 3.5 years. If we were to simulate your example forward to 2050, we would need to, essentially—if you assume that average age increases correlate with an increase in cognitive ability, age for age likeness, etc.—get the age of excusal in 2050 to 75.5 years.

If we were to take your suggestion and have an automatic increase now, as is proposed by the bill, to 72, that would provide an opportunity maybe for you to come in with a member’s bill that introduced the idea of beginning that incremental increase now so that when we hit 2050, we are at that 75.5 point. I think it creates a mechanism that might be more complicated to manage and for organisations to understand where it’s at, but it might be that it’s pretty simple for the Ministry of Justice to administer. Essentially, if you get the summons, you get the summons, and if you don’t, you don’t. It could work pretty easily, but I think that there’s an opportunity for us to today reset the age, given it hasn’t been changed since 1983—was the last time we looked at this—to 72 and then introduce that incremental opportunity, as you’ve raised.

The second question that you’ve brought to the table is around the expectation. Now, Lawrence Xu-Nan explored this on behalf of the Green Party, who had a concern around this question and how a potential change in the average age of juries could change the role of juries in trial and how they might come to decisions based on having a different demographic or more prevalent demographic being present in those jury trials. Through that select committee process—and he just reminded me, I’m sure he won’t mind me sharing it with the committee, before the committee of the whole House began this evening, that those concerns were completely alleviated through the select committee process.

Indeed, what the submissions and the questions and the feedback from the departmental report did was remind us that it’s not our place to judge juries’ determination of how they come to their answer. It’s not our job to say if there are more women on a jury, is that going to sway the way the jury votes? If there are more men on the jury, is that going to change the way they determine if someone is guilty or not guilty? That is not the question before us and in front of the House this evening. The question simply is: is it appropriate for someone at the age of 65 to say, “Because I’m 65, I don’t need to do or deliver my civic duty of serving on a jury”?

I think we traversed that question through the select committee process. We got to a point where unanimously—and I remind the committee again this evening that, unanimously, the Justice Committee returned this to the House, and then, obviously, there has been a series of changes in the membership of the House since then that have changed that outcome. But we did address this question and, I think, came to a good conclusion.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I was looking for someone who hadn’t taken a call yet.

MILES ANDERSON: Yes. I’d like to thank the member for getting this bill so far—congratulations. I’ve just got one basic question: what happens to a juror who at the start of the jury proceedings is 71 but turns 72 during the trial? Has the committee considered what that means and what that means in this bill? Thank you.

What I was going to commend that member on is just simply getting up and asking a question and not making a five-minute speech!

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I won’t give a fiveminute answer to this question, because I know that there are other questions that want to be asked. It’s actually a really important question, and it was considered as part of the select committee process around the transitional arrangements. I want to acknowledge the select committee for actually improving the bill through the select committee process by addressing this point. The age you are at the point the summons is issued is the age that is relevant here. If, during jury duty, you turn 72—and I’m sure you’re not asking about this in your case, but if your constituent or the person you were thinking of was 71 turning 72—

Miles Anderson: Asking for a friend.

CARL BATES: —asking for a friend—during jury duty, that would not mean that they could say, “Hey, I’m 72 now. Can I be excused?” and get automatic excusal. No, it’s at the point that the summons is issued that the age is important. I think that that’s a clear answer, and we addressed it as part of the select committee process.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Tim Costley: He always goes first.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You went first last time.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Age before beauty, Madam Chair! But it’s both in this case. My question relates to clauses 4 and 5, and it’s around the grounds for excusal. I don’t feel like we have traversed this part around the grounds that people actually use for excusal at all. We’ve talked about the age component of it, but we actually haven’t talked about the rationale that people use when they write back to their summons to say they are looking for excusal.

What are the grounds for excusal from jury service, and how frequently do we know that they are used, compared to, say, the age-based excusal? In Mr Bates’ member’s bill, we’ve got the age-based excusal moving from 65 to 72, but what actually are other grounds for excusal from jury service, and how frequently are they used compared to age-based excusal? Does the member think there is public awareness around those options as well? How many people know about the age of excusal component to begin with but also the other excusal options they have for not accepting the summons and not turning up to do their jury duty?

My other question is: how does the bill ensure that older people who wish to be excused, whether it’s for health or for personal reasons, can still do so with this change? Are there things like permanent excusal provisions? For example, if I get a summons after this law change comes in and I’m 68 years old and I apply and I get an excusal or whatever, or if I’m 74 or 75 and I put the excusal in, whatever the situation may be, is that permanent or is that just based on that one summons, and is it likely that I may, in a year’s time or in a couple of years’ time, get another summons?

Is the excusal that the member of the public uses permanent? Does it last? If it does last, how long does it last for? If it doesn’t, then is it expected that those people might receive another summons at another near point in time? Is that for the registrar to consider when sending out the summons? I’d just like some clarity around that and also around the grounds for excusal and how frequently they are used compared to age-based excusal.

The member made a comment on whether the changes in the bill might result in more applications for excusal on other grounds and how that might affect court administration. We talked slightly in the commencement process around the administrative changes and whether the courts and the Ministry of Justice were prepared for this legislation and what the implementation would look like. But we haven’t talked about what may be the effects on court administration more generally.

Will the removal of, say, automatic excusal at 65 shift burden to other categories? Did the member get the opportunity to talk with the ministry about modelling to get an understanding from them around what implications this change may well have on them and whether they would be in favour of it, and whether they might think that this would likely result in more applications for excusal on other grounds? I’m keen to understand. There are quite a few questions there relating to sections 15 and 15A, in clauses 4 and 5 respectively. I’d welcome the member’s thoughts, please.

Thank you very much to the member for the questions, and I just actually want to go back first to Cameron Luxton’s question. There was part of it that I didn’t answer about the upper limit. The upper limits I was referring to in Scotland and Wales were for permanent excusal, in that people are not allowed to serve on a jury above those ages in those jurisdictions. It’s not excusal in the context here in New Zealand where you can choose not to and get excused; it’s that you’re not allowed to serve on jury duty.

I did hear from Arena Williams before a question of whether or not she could be excused. I think she was referring to her duty in the House. I’m not sure the answer to that question. That’s a question for the whips in the Labour Party. But I am going to help answer what you can be excused for in terms of a jury duty because of the question from Tom Rutherford. Happy to come and do a workshop in anyone’s electorate so that constituents, like your constituents, understand the answer to this question. But there are a variety of reasons—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We need to pass the bill first.

CARL BATES: There are a variety of reasons for why someone can be excused from a jury duty. They include family commitments—something that the member from the Bay of Plenty, Tom Rutherford, is going to learn in the journey that he’s going on; health; occupation or business; personal circumstances; physical disability—if you’ve got a physical disability that prohibits your ability to effectively engage in your duty as a juror, then you can be excused; previous excusal. Religious belief is a reason that jurors can get excused from jury duty and service in the last two years. Now, agebased excusals made up 39 to 42 percent, depending on the month, of all excusals. A large portion, 39 to 42 percent of excusals were age-based excusals. I think that that’s important to recognise.

The supplementary question that the member asked was around whether or not those other reasons for excusal—health, personal circumstances, disability—can lead to permanent excusal. Now, the answer to that question is yes. If you have a particular health condition, a disability—say, for example, maybe someone like my dad, who is, following a major stroke, unable to engage in asking questions and would find that difficult, then he could get permanent excusal from jury duty under the current scenario.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s great to be able to take a two- or three-minute contribution to bring us home tonight. I just wanted to make a brief contribution around this last point around excusals and the types of individuals who can both apply for excusals and deferrals. I think it raises an important point about the purpose of juries. Fundamentally, from a philosophical perspective, it’s supposed to be a jury of your peers—that’s pee-r-s, Catherine Wedd, not the fruit bowl kind. It’s raising the point that if it is truly supposed to be a jury of your peers. We have a range of excusals that are able to be given. That is age. You can be excused for illness, hardship, and disability. You can be excused for your religious belief, public duty, or if you can’t even access the courtroom because the courtroom’s not set up for wheelchair access, you can be excused from jury duty. You can be temporarily relieved from serving and put off for another time if you are in the middle of harvest or if you undertake caregiving duties or if you are facing exams.

Now, all of those things limit the jury-of-your-peers concept, because, all of a sudden, you have a range of people with a range of characteristics that are more commonly excused or not part of juries to the point where you have to question whether or not juries truly remain a group of your peers. It raises a point that I wanted to just very quickly raise: if it no longer is a jury of your peers, at what point do we look at a system where we change it slightly to, perhaps, a sort of semi-professional jury selection pool? I know there are huge amounts of time and resource costs that go into selecting juries that go into serving on a jury, and I think that could be a solution that’s in place.

Just before I take my seat, I’d just like to pass on all my best to Ivan from the Chamber staff, who today is celebrating five years of service here. Congratulations, Ivan.

Thank you. Well done, Ivan.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. Madam Speaker, I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.