Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I rise to speak on the second reading of the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill, a bill that seeks to modernise our jury service framework by raising the age at which individuals may automatically be excused from jury duty from 65 to 72. This is a modest but meaningful change. It reflects the evolving demographics of New Zealand, the practical realities of our justice system, and the enduring civic value of older New Zealanders.

As I’ve previously indicated to the House, the idea for this bill was first raised during a visit to the Auckland High Court with the Minister of Justice, the Hon Paul Goldsmith. Court staff highlighted the challenge of filling jury benches due to the high number of age-based excusals. The supporting data came later, confirming that 47 percent of excusals are granted solely on the basis of age. That is nearly half of all excusals, and it is not because people are unable to serve but because the law allows them to automatically opt out. This creates a significant administrative burden. More summonses must be sent out, more follow-ups are required, and more time is spent managing excusal requests. By raising the excusal age, we reduce that burden, making the system more efficient and more representative.

Let me clarify what this bill does and what it does not do. This bill does not introduce age into the jury system. That already exists. Under current law, anyone aged 65 or over may request automatic excusal from jury duty, either permanently or for that particular occasion, and that request is granted without question. This bill simply raises the threshold for that automatic excusal to 72. If someone has a genuine reason—health, caregiving, employment, or personal circumstances—they may still seek to be excused at any age. That does not change, but, if not, the expectation should be that one fulfils their civic duty like everyone else.

One of the key issues this bill addresses is the perception that civic duty ends at 65. As I said in my opening remarks to the Justice Committee, you can serve on a jury past the age of 65—in fact, many do—but the automatic opt-out creates confusion and, worse, creates an expectation that once you hit 65, you’ve done your bit and you do not need to serve. That is not a view I support. Civic duty, like voting, volunteering, and public service, does not expire at retirement.

Jury service is a cornerstone of our democracy. It is one of the few remaining civic obligations that applies broadly across society. To automatically excuse large numbers of healthy, capable people from participating undermines that duty and weakens the representative nature of our juries. This bill sends a clear message that we trust our seniors to participate in civic life, and we expect them to continue contributing, just as they do in churches, in sports clubs, in community organisations, and in workplaces across the country.

I want to thank the Justice Committee for their careful consideration of this bill. The committee received a range of submissions and, ultimately, recommended that the bill be passed, along with several amendments. One key amendment was the insertion of transitional provisions ensuring summonses issued before Royal assent remain subject to the current law. This avoids retrospective application and provides clarity for registrars and court staff.

I also want to acknowledge the committee’s role in examining the options in terms of age thresholds. I specifically asked the committee to consider whether 72 was the right reference point in terms of an age. In considering the new threshold, the committee examined several benchmarks. It considered the age of retirement of judges at 75 and the Ombudsman’s retirement age at 72, whereas international norms vary, with the excusal age of 70 in Australia, 76 in England and Wales, and even 80 in parts of the United States.

The age of 72 strikes the right balance. It reflects capability, it respects contribution, and it aligns with other civic roles.

This is not, though, a radical leap. The threshold was originally 60, and it was then raised to 65 back in 1945. Eighty years later, we must ask whether this still reflects our society. Life expectancy has jumped dramatically since then, and since 1982, when it was also reviewed, the life expectancy for men has increased from 70 to 76, and for women, from 80 to 83, respectively, today—I’ve mucked that up. It increased from 70 for men and 76 for women in 1981, to 80 and 83 for women today. Today, New Zealanders are healthier and more active, and are engaged longer in the community than ever before.

The submissions received by the committee offered a range of perspectives. Some supported the increase, others suggested alternative thresholds, and some raised broader questions about the role of having an age in jury service at all. Age Concern New Zealand supported the increase but recommended 70 as the more suitable threshold, aligning with the judicial retirement age. They noted the huge value and life experience the 65-plus cohort can continue to bring to jury service. The New Zealand Law Society supported the intent of the bill but emphasised the importance of maintaining trust by the public and confidence in our jury system.

The Wellington Community Justice Project, a group of law students here in Wellington, offered a particularly thoughtful submission. They wrote that raising the jury excusal age would reflect, rather than lead, existing social trends that support older adults’ continued participation in public life. They also highlighted the need for the ability for excusal processes to be accessible, noting that while most senior New Zealanders use the internet, digital exclusion remains a concern, and they had some suggestions in that regard.

Other submitters shared personal reflections. Sarah Brodrick wrote, “Our baby boomer generation has so much wealth of knowledge and life experience to offer in the courts … Lifting the age to 72 … will enable … seniors … to feel a sense pride and to feel needed by our society”. To feel a sense of pride and to feel needed by our society. Margaret Thompson, aged 80, simply said, “I would like to be able to sit on a jury”.

In going through the process in the Justice Committee, it was very clear that there was a broad range of support across the membership of the select committee. It was recognised that we should consider the various options for ages for the excusal age, with 72 being what they ultimately landed on as the most appropriate age to recommend back to the House, as originally intended in the first draft of the bill that I spoke on in this House in the first reading, and they came back with that simple amendment to ensure that there wasn’t a problem around retrospectivity of the legislation.

In conclusion, these voices that I’ve shared with you from the submitters remind us that senior New Zealanders are not just capable; they are willing, they are engaged, and they are eager to serve. This bill is not about compulsion; it’s about expectation. It is about recognising that civic duty continues beyond retirement and that our seniors have much to offer. As one constituent, Andrew, wrote to me: “Thank you so much, Carl, for getting on to this. It makes a lot of sense.” I commend the bill to the House.

The question is the motion be agreed to.

Tēnā rawa atu koe ki a koe, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. May I begin by thanking the hard-working Justice Committee and the member who has brought this through the process, Carl Bates. It is a difficult thing to work through a law like this where there is, essentially, a judgment to be made about a line for the appropriateness—in this case, for people to be the right age to make judgments in this way and perform a civic duty of sitting on juries. A number of opinions were heard from submitters, and this level which has been suggested here has ultimately met with the approval of the parties represented at the Justice Committee, and so I stand in support of it today.

I want to make the point that when we think about civic duty, jury service is incredibly important to that—that more and more cases are being heard by juries in a system for which it is difficult for people to seek timely justice. Our courts, at the moment, are very, very busy places and it is difficult for people to be able to access not only the system but also the precursors to that—the right kind of advice. It’s important that we all take the measures that we can in this House to enable people to seek that justice and to have their day and to be heard in the way that their rights enable them to be heard.

This is a bill where, when there is difficulty in fulfilling the numbers required for a jury duty trial, reducing the reasons that a person may be excused makes it easier for the Ministry of Justice to be able to fulfil those numbers in a jury and to be able to allow people to be heard in the way that they hope to be heard. This is a good measure to be able to do that.

It’s also important for people to be assured that the member says it’s not about compulsion but it’s about expectation. I see this as an enabling provision. It’s a provision that enables people between the ages of 65 and 72 to be able to sit and to have an automatic provision to be able to opt out. There is an expectation that they will be able to fulfil that function but, if they cannot fulfil that function, there are obviously ways for them to be able to remove themselves from that duty. This is also about making sure that we set a clear line in the sand around active participation in civic life for people up to the age of 76. I think most New Zealanders would be pretty surprised that it was set at 65. I think most New Zealanders have a reasonable expectation that older New Zealanders have all of the rights and access and expectations to be able to participate in civic life.

I think of my dad. He’s in his nineties. He is an incredible member of his community. He is an active member of his local democracy. If any of the Auckland councils are listening along, he likes to ring up and complain about his local issues—they will know. That is the reality for ageing New Zealanders: they’re very much a part of civic life and their communities around them. Being able to participate in jury duty in an unfettered way, where they are also expected to be able to sit at the table and that there is no presumption that they would not be able to do that, is important for them, and there is still a real contribution to make.

It’s also relevant to note—for anyone thinking about what the reasons for this bill are—that there is a very low payment for most people who sit on juries. It doesn’t necessarily reflect their lost wages. It doesn’t even reflect the minimum wage. It is a small payment in a gesture of thanks for them to be able to participate in that way. It is a burden that often falls to people who can either afford to be there or who are retired and can do that and there’s a lower opportunity cost to them. That is a feature of our justice system, which many, outside of the scope of the bill, would argue is a limitation on the rights of equal and fair justice. This is within the system at the moment, and to be able to address, in some small way, that limitation, having older New Zealanders who widen the pool of people who can possibly be called upon and can find themselves at the table and able to financially support themselves to be there, is a sensible move.

When I think of the Manukau court in my electorate, it’s one of the busiest courts in the country, and there is certainly a need there for more people who want to fulfil this duty, also a real need for more justices of the peace who can sit as magistrates in that court to be able to participate in that. Those older people who fulfil those roles are incredibly important to not only our justice system but the functioning of that community around Manukau and people’s access to rights and faith in the system.

For those reasons, I’m happy to support this bill and to be able to thank the Justice Committee once again for their work on it.

Madam Speaker, thank you. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to also support the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill. Now, just to kind of cast our minds back to when this bill was introduced and the first reading: in the first reading, we did oppose the bill, but then we were interested to hear, in the select committee process, exactly some of the potential fishhooks that this does create. It particularly gives us an opportunity to consider with various stakeholders within the seniors area whether this is actually a reasonable bill to expect for our senior population. Just in terms of the select committee process, we did have a few submissions—not all that many, but we did actually get some submissions from key stakeholders, who did provide some very, very helpful feedback.

I think, in terms of the bill itself—again, just a reminder that when we are looking at this bill, it provides that people over the age of 65, if summoned—well, actually, now 72—are no longer able to be automatically excused from jury service. However, it does mean that they’re still able to be excused from jury service if need be, for various grounds. Part of that, in terms of the age—we did have quite a big discussion during the select committee stage around whether the age of 72 is the most appropriate age. I think that was something that probably generated the most discussion within the Justice Committee. We did hear, helpfully, from the department in terms of some of the stats.

I think, overall, when it comes to this bill, the concerns that we have in terms of what it means in terms of the demographics, the make-up of our jury service, are still something that we are interested in and concerned about. One of the things that we wanted to check during the select committee was whether that would affect decisions within the judiciary system. Would that mean that, because every one of us carries a certain level of bias when we’re looking at jury service—what does that mean in terms of the natural justice process, when you’re looking at this? And also, again, what does it mean for people over the age of 65, who rightfully should have been entitled to an automatic excuse, to be actually now called back or no longer having that as an option and having that bumped up to 72?

Overall, the Green Party is happy with where this bill landed. We’re really happy with the advice that we received during the select committee process. We think there are other ways and, again, other things that could be introduced and could be considered, in terms of the remuneration aspect when it comes to jury service, that, again, allow more people to be able to partake in jury service, particularly people who are younger. We understand the need for juries in general, but I think there are other measures that also should be considered alongside this. But, overall, this bill is something where we are happy with how it’s landed and we’re happy to support it in the second reading.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s somewhat of a surprise to be standing and speaking on this bill. I wasn’t a member of the committee that examined it. Todd Stephenson had a great speech lined up for this, but the timing worked out that I got to stand up and deliver the speech, so it’s going to be quite an interesting moment for the House to hear me talk about the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill, considering I wasn’t on the committee.

Look, I think what we’ve heard so far talking about the civic duty that being part of a jury is a core part of—I think there has been a long and somewhat ivory tower discussion about whether juries are the best thing for our judicial system. Personally, I’m a big fan of juries. I think there’s a long history that’s proven that it is a core part of the demos having a say in the way justice and law is created and dished out in our society, our country, and through our history.

As Carl Bates has brought this bill to the House, being able to take advantage of the wisdom that age and experience has gifted to the members of our community who have made it past the age of 65—I think taking advantage of that for the good of our country, our demos, our institutions, our democracy is only a good thing. As has been described in the media over the last certain amount of time, there are elements in the Electoral Act about making sure, if you’re eligible to be on the electoral roll, it’s important to do. It’s not just because we need to know who and where people are for the important core function of voting in an election in this country but also so that we know who is on the electoral roll for the purposes of jury duty.

Now, I would have liked to have heard, and I’m sure I will hear in future stages of this bill as to how that interacts with the Electoral Act requirements once you’re over 65, if you choose to be permanently off the jury list or on—this is not a committee stage, but I look forward to hearing those from the member when he is in the hot seat.

There was another element, reading through this bill hastily as I have in the last little while, about raising the age from 65 to 72, and it’s great to see the whole House behind this—

Grant McCallum: You’ll be in your prime.

CAMERON LUXTON: Well, you are in your prime there, Grant McCallum, so it’s apropos to be speaking about that. The question that comes to mind is if the House—I think it was Disraeli who talked how about how a conservative in the British system does things which are based on precedent from the past. It doesn’t mean that you’re not open to changing things, but you do want to make sure there is something to base that on; it’s not just plucked out of thin air.

The committee reaching out, trying to find an age, or the member finding an age of 72, relating that to the retirement age for the Ombudsman—Disraeli would say, “Well, great. Fantastic. You’ve found something in our history to attach something to, something to anchor it to, something to get a zip tie and link it together.” But I wonder why we needed an age in the first place. It does seem like perhaps we could have got away with using the wise heads of over-72-year-olds, some of whom are in this House—

Carl Bates: You can still use them.

CAMERON LUXTON: Yeah, and you could still use them, but having an ability to choose exemption and not doing that part of the civic duty—there are questions about that that I have.

Grant McCallum: Presidents and Prime Ministers.

CAMERON LUXTON: And Privy Councillors, right? Of course. It raises another question about the age. We have a system in New Zealand that goes back, and it is a generational inheritance—that is our superannuation scheme. If the House has been so open to raising this age, I wonder about how the House might look at raising the superannuation age gradually, carefully, over time. It would be an important thing to make sure that our country is financially stable into the future.

Francisco Hernandez: Not sure all the coalition partners would like that.

CAMERON LUXTON: Well, I’m glad to hear I’m getting support from the Greens over there on that proposal. It’s a good thing to make sure we’ve got some generational justice, as they would say.

I do wonder if this limit was really needed. There are wise heads that have sat around the Justice Committee, which I’m somewhat envious that I do not get to partake in, considering the lofty intellectual discussions that they have. I don’t get to be in the tower of the Justice Committee; I’m in the square, perhaps, with the plebians out there building houses in New Zealand. I’m very proud to be in that situation. The Transport and Infrastructure Committee is a great committee for that sort of discussion. I haven’t had a chance to partake in the discussions around this bill.

Rima Nakhle: You can be an honorary member.

CAMERON LUXTON: An honorary member, Rima Nakhle says. Look, I appreciate that, Rima Nakhle, but there’s a lot to be done in this House and select committee time is important time.

Look, I think that what we’re going to see—and New Zealanders over 65 are proud to be able to serve their community, proud to be able to stand and say, “Look, I have built a life. I have built experience. I have something to offer. I am going to be providing for people who”—you know, I think about mothers I know who have said, “Look, I don’t have time for this jury duty.” Perhaps there’s a legitimate reason with a sick child or some such—fathers who say, “Look, I’ve got my kids this week. I can’t get in to jury duty. I’ve got to provide that parenting this week.” And older New Zealanders like grandparents who take kids on in the weekend sometimes or during the week so parents can go to work—they might see this as another part of providing for their part as the elder leaders in our community to provide for the next generation.

Thinking about the way that we can use that knowledge, that we can make sure that New Zealanders are contributing right through is an incredibly important part of what this bill is trying to do. I would like to once again congratulate the member Carl Bates for bringing it.

Hon Member: Thank you to the member from Whanganui.

CAMERON LUXTON: I’m not going to get into that debate. The member has obviously shepherded it well through the Justice Committee, who have come to an agreement that this is the right thing to do, and I’m happy to support it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

It’s a pleasure to stand up on behalf of New Zealand First and take this call on this Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill. Madam Chair, can I say that it’s good to re-acquaint—we had a good day out in the King Country on Monday, didn’t we—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Absolutely. Thank you.

Hon MARK PATTERSON: —going around some of the—not so good for the province, heavily impacted by the flooding event last week. Our thoughts also are going out to those in Canterbury, parts of the South Island, and the lower North Island here that are going through similar inclement weather events at the moment.

In terms of this bill, I’d commend the member Carl Bates, and I know he has a legal background. I think it’s a solid bill to be bringing forward, one that, actually, I think, if you look at it—and I’m sure I’m not the only member in the House that thought, well, how is this still the case? It seems to make no sense at all why we would start excusing people over the age of 65. I’m taking far more interest these days in superannuation bills and the like, as you get a little bit older. I would take a little bit of issue with Cameron Luxton’s take on lifting the super age; I don’t think that’s going anywhere fast, but we’re here. There’s a good reason for that; people work pretty hard, especially those in manual labour. The challenge for us is to continue to grow our economy strongly so we can afford to have those that get to 65 retire with some dignity and some security in their earnings, particularly those that have gone through a life of manual labour, for which 65 is quite a threshold to get to.

Age cuts across a number of these bills when you get up to that 65. It is something that we do debate in this House across a range of pieces of legislation. This makes absolute sense, from New Zealand’s perspective, to lift the threshold to 72 in terms of where our expectations lie. We know that our seniors make an incredible contribution to this country. The volunteer sector in New Zealand would collapse without the contribution of our seniors.

Grant McCallum: So would New Zealand First!

Hon MARK PATTERSON: Ha, ha! I’ve heard members of the National Party, in particular, talk about the wisdom and the experience of people over 65, so if they are members of New Zealand First, then you know that that’s certainly playing out. But it’s not just our members; we’re thinking of everyone across the political spectrum. We think there is a contribution to make—you know, those are the people at the prime of their lives in terms of their experience, their wisdom. If I was in that situation—in the unfortunate situation of having to face a jury—I think I would want a jury of experienced senior peers to bring their vast experience.

The other thing: it could also, on the periphery, be a boost for the wool industry. The seniors are very big knitters, and I think a bit of time in the jury box could grow some demand for wool, as well. And of course, because they’ll have a SuperGold card—as long as we can get the timings of the hearings so that they can get there on their SuperGold card, their off-peak SuperGold card, I think that would be something that we should look into, too.

In terms of the select committee, the Justice Committee, it has been a busy committee over this course of Parliament. I think, without wanting to undermine the good work, this would have to be one of the simpler bills they would have seen—one of the most common-sense bills they would have seen. It was interesting, though, when we get to the committee of the whole House, because Carl Bates, in his first speech in this second reading, did raise a number of issues that came through in the select committee, and particularly around those that want to serve into an older age and whether they’re fit and competent, and maybe that’s something that we can prosecute through that committee of the whole House stage as we go through this bill. So sometimes these simpler—you can get a bit complacent about them, and then actually someone does come along and ask some really good questions. It’s something that, if there is something there that you would like to bring to the House, Carl, I know New Zealand First would certainly look at that, because we’re a party that absolutely has respect for our seniors for their contribution. And obviously, I mean, our leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters is certainly well past this threshold and still running rings around most, if not all, politicians in this Parliament.

So, without further ado, we do support this bill. We’ll continue to support it through to the committee of the whole House. We wish it well in that process. We will participate, and we commend it further to the House. Thank you.

The next call is a split call. Oriini Kaipari—is someone going to take a call? Francisco Hernandez.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill. This is a bill that, as my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan has said, we are now supporting. I won’t elaborate that strongly on my speech.

Before I turn to the reasons why we do support this bill, I just wanted to wish the members a happy Filipino Restaurant Week. We went pretty wide in the previous speaker’s contribution, going to the issue, and there will be some Filipinos that will be affected by this Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill, particularly to the ones who eat at the Wellington-based eateries of Little Manila, Lazy Juan, and Faithful Flavours.

Old people bring a lot of really valuable experience, so I think it’s good that this will enable a wider range of participation. In our own local branch, we have a lot of members who are, you know, 72 and still very capable. I won’t name them, because I might have misjudged their age; they might be younger than that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Very wise!

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Look, congratulations to the member Carl Bates on getting your bill drawn, and it looks like it will have unanimous support from the House. Well done. I won’t labour this speech any further. Congratulations.

Tom Rutherford: Madam Speaker?

Oriini Kaipara has decided to take a call.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Te Pāti Māori stands by its decision to oppose this bill. In listening to the kōrero to my left and to my right, from experience having parents who are in the category—the demographic group that is being spoken of, mid-60s—in Māori communities, it’s very, very rare nowadays to see many 70-year-olds turning up to the marae, coming to hui, actually out and about in the community. Many of them are very frail. The health system has failed a lot of our people, and especially the demographic group that has been referred to.

There are many reasons as to why Te Pāti Māori opposes this bill. Consultation with those that are being questioned, the 72-year-olds, where are they in the mix of consultation? I find it quite interesting to hear this bill being proposed by someone not in that demographic group but speaking for them. We’re talking to excusals for 65-year-olds—not everybody actually has equal health to be able to actually responsibly do the role justice. So on behalf of the Māori population who do suffer disparities in every shape and form actually being—

Carl Bates: Don’t speak for all Māori!

ORIINI KAIPARA: I don’t speak for all, I speak for Tāmaki Makaurau.

As the MP for Tāmaki Makaurau, I do know my people within the electorates, and there are many, many who would oppose this based on discrimination against everybody. This is a generalisation of everybody within the 65- to 72-year-old age group. It is putting a blanket response on everyone within the demographic without giving weight to the individual circumstances of these people. I speak for the people of Tāmaki Makaurau and those, particularly, amongst Māori communities. Te Pāti Māori is here to represent and speak for the voices of those who are marginalised, and this further marginalises many Māori people. That is the start, and that’s where I’ll end it.

I can’t quite believe what I’ve just listened to for the last 2½ minutes.

Oriini Kaipara: Because you’re not in the Māori community.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Oh, OK. The member has just yelled out, “Because I’m not in the Māori community”, I’m incapable of potentially understanding any part of the argument that she just presented in her short contribution. I would say she talked about the potential impacts on Māori people who are aged between 65 to 72.

If she’d actually read the legislation, she would know that, for example, if they had healthcare issues or issues of a similar nature, they still have the ability to apply to withdraw from being part of the jury process. It’s in the legislation. It is literally in the legislation. You cannot say that because you’re 66 years old and you’re Māori, you shouldn’t necessarily have to turn up and do your civic duty on a jury, which is a jury of your peers—your peers of 11 other people on a jury of 12 from across New Zealand, Māori, non-Māori, Pākehā, European, Asian, Indian, Chinese, whatever it might be who make up that mix of people who serve on a jury. Yet that member has just stood up and said, “No, no, it doesn’t work for 66-year-old Māori to serve on a jury.” Had she actually read the legislation my colleague has put up here, she would know that if they were 66 or 67 years old, they would have the ability, if they have health issues or other issues that are in a similar vein, to say, “I am unable to be a member on the jury.” But had she read the legislation? Not a chance, not a chance at all, and it showed in that shameful two-minute contribution.

I didn’t plan to talk for 10 minutes on that member’s contribution. I plan to actually talk about the good components that make up this legislation. This is really—and I cannot believe a political party is opposed to it—a really straightforward, sensible reform that reflects modern New Zealand. We are living longer in this country. People are living longer—Māori are living longer—and as such it is only right to adjust the age of responsibility for people to serve their civic duty on juries amongst their peers. By changing it from 65 to 72, it reduces bureaucracy and it improves jury diversity. Would you believe it? It improves jury diversity. And do you know what? I trust seniors to participate in their civic duty. If Grant McCallum can be an MP, I trust seniors to participate in their civic duty! Whether they’re Māori or non-Māori, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, or 72, I trust that they can participate in their civic duty.

The Justice Committee considered the legislation. We received 31 submissions on the bill and unanimously—unanimously; Oriini Kaipara’s own colleague from Te Pāti Māori—recommended that this bill pass. Your own colleague recommended that this bill pass. You should have a chat with your parliamentary colleague. Would you believe it? Now, Grant McCullum says, “Who is this colleague?” Who is this colleague? Oh, well, Tākuta Ferris, admittedly. Now, admittedly, it’s Tākuta Ferris. But the Justice Committee examined the bill and unanimously recommends passing it, with practical transition provisions—unanimously recommends that it pass.

The current law is simple. Anyone aged over 65 or over who receives a jury summons can choose to serve or apply to be excused. If they apply to be excused solely on the basis of age, the registrar must grant—

Arena Williams: Who’s watching you, liking this? Does this do us any favours?

TOM RUTHERFORD: See, this is the thing. This is the thing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One never knows who might be watching.

TOM RUTHERFORD: This is the thing, we get elected to Parliament to be legislators, right? To bring in legislation, to scrutinise it, to improve it. And then a member of the Labour Party, Arena Williams, says, “What are you doing? What’s the point? Why are you speaking? Why are you debating legislation?” Oh, shock horror! Rule number one says that that is my job. That is my job. That is, literally, why we were elected to this place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. Order! Someone will be watching.

TOM RUTHERFORD: That’s right.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All of you.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

At the moment, if you are aged over 65 or over, you will be granted excusable by the registrar based on the fact that you are over 65, no questions asked, no assessment of circumstances. Age alone is sufficient grounds. This can either be for a particular occasion, under section 15(2)(aa) of the Juries Act 1981, or permanently, under section 15A(2). Many people over 65 receive a summons, tick the box saying, “I’m over 65, please excuse me,” and that’s the end of it.

This bill, in the name of Carl Bates—and he’s done fantastic work leading it—proposes two simple amendments. It changes 65 years to 72 years, in both of those provisions. That’s it. That is it. Clean, simple, and straightforward—

Carl Bates: And unanimously supported.

TOM RUTHERFORD: And unanimously supported by all members of every political party represented in this House on the Justice Committee, so I cannot believe that Te Pāti Māori would stand up and oppose a really simple, clean, and straightforward piece of legislation. I therefore commend it to the House.

This debate is interrupted. The House is suspended until 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Debate interrupted.