Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill

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

This bill has now completed its passage through the House, and I’m pleased to rise at the third reading to reflect on what it seeks to achieve, how it has been improved through parliamentary scrutiny, and why it deserves the support of this House.

This has always been a modest bill but also an important one. It proposes a straightforward update to the Juries Act 1981 by raising the age at which a person may automatically be excused from jury duty from 65 to 72. It does not compel service. It does not remove discretion. It does not diminish compassion or common sense. What it does is it brings our jury system into closer alignment with the realities of modern New Zealand. At first reading, I spoke about the changing nature of age, work, and the contribution people make in our society. At second reading, I addressed the practical pressures within our justice system and the unintended consequences of the current law. At this final stage, I want to focus on what this bill says about civic responsibility, fairness, and confidence in our system of justice.

Let me now begin by acknowledging the Hon Paul Goldsmith, whose engagement in this issue was critical from its origin. It was during a visit to the Auckland High Court—back when I was hopping around the House on crutches—with the Minister of Justice that the court staff raised with us, in very practical terms, a difficulty they were experiencing in assembling juries. They spoke about the volume of age-based excusals and the administrative burden that followed them. That conversation stayed with me, and it ultimately led to this bill being drafted and introduced. I thank him for his support and his willingness to listen to officials on the front line and his encouragement to bring a practical solution to this House.

This bill rests on a simple proposition that civic duty does not expire at 65. When the age-based excusal rule was first introduced, it reflected a different time: life expectancy was lower, workforce participation among older New Zealanders was markedly different, and expectations around retirement and public contribution were not what they are today. Put simply, the law has not kept up with those changes. Today, many New Zealanders in their late 60s and early 70s are working, volunteering, caring for family and whānau, running businesses, and contributing actively to their communities. Many hold positions of responsibility that require judgment, patience, and experience, yet under the current law, we tell that same group that they may automatically opt out of one of the most fundamental civic roles in our democracy, simply based on their age. We provide a legal cover that says it’s OK not to participate. That inconsistency matters. Jury service is not simply an administrative function; it is one of the ways in which the public participates directly in the administration of justice. It is how community values, common sense, and lived experience are brought into the courtroom. A jury system that unnecessarily excludes a large and growing cohort of capable citizens is weaker for it.

This bill does not, however, force anyone to serve where they cannot. Let me be absolutely clear about this: grounds for excusal based on health, caring responsibilities, employment pressures, or personal circumstances remain unchanged. They apply at every age. Compassion and direction remain central to the jury system—I should say discretion rather than direction. What changes is the automatic opt out, which currently applies, as I say, purely based on age—regardless of capability, capacity, or willingness. The automatic threshold is what this bill updates.

The select committee process has been an important part of the bill’s journey, and I want to acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee and thank my colleagues for their engagement. The committee considered submissions carefully, tested the assumptions in this bill, and ensured that it was drafted and implemented in a way that was fair, clear, and workable. Some submitters raised some thoughtful concerns. They asked whether efficiency alone was a sufficient justification for change, and they questioned whether public confidence in juries could be affected. Those concerns were listened to, and they deserved to be taken seriously. The committee’s response, which I support, was to ensure that this bill remains balanced and proportionate. The amendments recommended by the committee, practically, are focused on the transitional provisions to ensure clarity for those who receive jury summons and to avoid confusion during the implementation of the change. The committee, ultimately, recommended the bill unanimously, and I thank members across the parties in this House for the constructive way in which they approached that task.

One of the most encouraging aspects of this bill’s progress has been the support it has received from across the House. Let me acknowledge my colleagues on my own side who have supported the bill consistently. I also want to acknowledge members from other parties who engaged openly with the proposal, tested it through debate and committee scrutiny, and indicated their support as the process unfolded. In some cases, members and parties have been prepared to reconsider their initial position in light of the evidence and the submissions received. That is exactly how this House should work. We often say that Parliament is a place of debate, but it is also a place of learning. When members are willing to listen, reflect, and, where appropriate, change their views, the legislation we produce is stronger. This bill reflects that.

It also speaks to fairness. At present, the effect of the law is that a relatively shrinking pool of younger New Zealanders carries a disproportionate share of jury service. They are, essentially, being asked to shoulder a responsibility that should be shared more evenly across society. By modestly widening the pool of New Zealanders who are expected to serve, we make the system fairer, not just more efficient.

There is also the issue of reflecting our society. Juries should reflect the communities they serve. That includes age diversity, and senior New Zealanders bring with them perspective, patience, and life experience that can be invaluable in complex or sensitive cases. Their presence strengthens deliberation and enhances the legitimacy of verdicts.

This bill does not diminish anyone’s contribution—it affirms it. It does not say that people over 65 have not done their share. It says that where they are able, they are still valued participants in our democratic institutions. That is a positive message, not a punitive one. As this House considers the final passage of this bill, I also note that it aligns sensibly with other age thresholds in public life. We already recognise that people can and do serve in demanding public roles well beyond the age of 65. This bill simply ensures that jury service is treated with the same respect and realism.

In closing, I want to thank the court staff who first raised this issue with me; the officials who provided advice and data; the submitters who engaged constructively; the Justice Committee for its careful scrutiny; the Hon Paul Goldsmith for his support and early engagement; and colleagues across the House who have supported the bill and strengthened it through debate. This is a careful, measured reform; it modernises the law, it improves fairness, it supports the effective functioning of our courts, and it reinforces the principle that civic duty is shared, ongoing, and valued. I commend the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Members’ bills are a real opportunity to change New Zealand for the better. It’s a privilege to get a member’s bill into the House, and that member over there has a member’s bill that will change New Zealand—it will transform New Zealand. It will, in fact, save lives. That’s Cameron Brewer’s member’s bill about lifejackets.

This bill, however, changes the age of excusal for jury service. If you scan the whole of New Zealand, and you think “How can I make New Zealand better? How can I transform New Zealanders’ lives?” Here it is: “replace ‘65 years’ with ‘72 years’.” That’s it. You know what—Hon Paul Goldsmith must be a bit lazy, because that’s the sort of thing you do in a revision bill any day of the week, but he’s like, “Oh, look, you do it for me. Put that in as a member’s bill. I can’t be bothered doing my own admin.” That’s what we’ve got.

It’s not a bad bill. It’s a little bit lowbrow. It’s like, is that really the best you can do? We’re going to vote for it, just like we would if it was part of a revision bill. Really, he had an opportunity to transform New Zealand, and that member chose to “replace ‘65 years’ with ‘72 years’.” We’ll support it—good on ya.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Green Party does support the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill. We would like to thank the member Carl Bates for the conversations that we’ve had in scrutinising this bill, both at the select committee stage and also in the committee of the whole House.

Like the previous speaker said, although this bill does change the age from 65 to 72, it fills a niche in terms of what we’re seeing in the judicial system, particularly when it comes to juries. It is important to note, however, the misunderstandings I think some of the submitters had around this bill: that when you are at 65, you are automatically not eligible to perform jury duty. That’s not the purpose of the age of excusal, nor the purpose of this bill. If you are 65—or, now, if you are 72—it simply means that if you would like to be excused from jury service, you could be, without having to give a specific reason or additional evidence for that. But if you would like to continue participating in jury service, you can continue to do so, even though you are 72-plus. I think that’s a really important clarification to be made about this bill.

It is also important to note that there are additional things juries are currently facing. I do agree, in some ways, with the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, in the sense that when it comes to juries, we do have a bill currently going through the House—the Regulatory Systems (Courts) Amendment Bill—which already touches on certain quality of life improvements to jury service. This is something that could have been a part of that, but we haven’t quite seen that bill yet. We’re also seeing system improvements such as the ability to have the initial selection process for juries being conducted electronically as opposed to everyone having to be physically in a court scenario or court precinct. It also allows those who are potential jurors to only be called when required, as opposed to all jurors being called at the same time. All of those are important.

Fundamentally, what we’re not seeing in this bill—and I really hope that there is additional room or scope for improvements when it comes to jury service—is the kind of diversity that we are seeing within the court body. Understandably, when it comes to jury service, we want to see a broader representation of our communities, particularly in a trial scenario. While we are able to have maybe a bigger pool of jurors to pull from when it comes to a bill like this, it doesn’t necessarily correct the fact that younger people, people of colour, Māori, and Pasifika are less likely to perform or participate in jury service because of additional barriers such as a lack of remuneration if you are on a jury and an inability to take time off work, etc. I think there is more scope for us to look at a really equitable situation and scenarios when it comes to the way that our jury service—which is an incredibly important and a core part of our judiciary and democracy as well—is made up. That is something, I think, I’m hoping for future members or Ministers to consider as part of the broader update in terms of our juries.

Overall, this is a bill that the Greens support, and, again, there is really not much more that we can say about this bill, other than the fact that we want to thank, once again, the member for proposing it.

Madam Speaker, thank you very much. It’s a privilege to rise and speak on behalf of the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill in the name of my friend and colleague Carl Bates.

I want to actually protect the name of Carl Bates after some of the shade that was thrown on him from the Hon Dr Webb over there on the far side, down the back. He said that this wasn’t an important piece of legislation, or that this change that Carl Bates was bringing to the House wasn’t imperative. Actually, this is exactly what members’ bills are intended to do. They aren’t to be the biggest grandeur or to change the world in this Parliament; they are to sort out things on the edges, make pragmatic, reasonable changes to make New Zealand a better place to live, to work, and to play. That’s what this piece of legislation does. It says: no longer at the age of 65 can you be excused from a jury; it increases that to 72.

Now, members opposite might say, “Where are your priorities?” or “There are much bigger things to focus on.” Well, actually, I think this is a really good change, and it is a really good priority, and I credit Carl Bates for doing that. We have people living longer in this country, and serving on a jury is one of your fundamental rights and responsibilities—a jury of your peers.

If you were to ever find yourself in the court, and you want to look across at that jury—hypothetically, if you were 68 years old, for example, and then you didn’t see any other 68-year-olds on that jury, you might go, well, that’s not necessarily a jury of my peers, per se. That’s why this change by Carl Bates is a very, very pragmatic change. I know my colleague Grant McCallum is going to have a lot to say about this with a bit of lived experience. He’s going to have a lot to say on this, because it’s something really close to home for him. But I just credit Carl Bates for listening to the feedback he had received on it, for listening to concerned members of the community who had raised this with him, and for him not dismissing it, but saying, “Hey, we need to do something about it. We need to change it, and I’m going to introduce a member’s bill.” I credit him for doing that, and for getting it drawn out of the ballot.

On the Justice Committee, we had a number of submissions on the legislation, with almost all of them in favour of the change. Some people were questioning the rationale around moving the age from 65 to 72, and asking why 72 was set as the number. Some people were saying, “Do we need to have a figure altogether?”, and others were asking whether it could have been 67, could it have been 70, or could it have been 75—and there were a range of views shared on the committee to us, as members of the Justice Committee. Ultimately, 72 was considered because that’s the—and I’m going to check with my colleague here, but I believe it’s because it’s the Ombudsman’s retirement age, right?

Stuart Smith: And judges.

TOM RUTHERFORD: And for judges, as well.

Stuart Smith: Yeah, the judges should be judged and—

TOM RUTHERFORD: Well, Stuart Smith is going to take a call if he’s going to keep interrupting, because it sounds like he’s got a lot to contribute in the debate, as well. I might yield my call to him, if he’s interested.

Cameron Brewer: Oh, that’s the leave gone—that’s the leave gone.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Yeah, no more leave—no more leave. But you are correct that 72 was decided on because it’s the Ombudsman’s age of retirement, but it is also for judges, as well, and Stuart Smith is quite correct in that space. That’s why it was really important to listen to the feedback that we’d received on the Justice Committee from the people who had taken the time to write the submissions and then present orally in front of the committee as well, in order to hear what they thought about this change and how it would impact them.

Some of the feedback we received was also around what it would mean for those people who get their call-up to come on to juries, for example. I think that Lawrence Xu-Nan was referring to it a little bit in his contribution, but at present, you don’t automatically get excluded now if you are 65 or 66 years old, for example. You don’t automatically get excluded, but as soon as you receive that letter in the post, if you say, “Actually, no, I’m not really that interested in doing it.”, you can go back and say straight away, “I’m 66 years old and I’d like to be excused.”, with no other reason needing to be given—and you’re excused, full stop.

We on this side think that people who are 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, and 72, and even people who are beyond that age as well, are actually cognitively in a really good position and can be engaged and involved. Many people over the age of 65 have retired and, in many cases, have more free time on their hands to, potentially, be involved in the judicial process and be able to serve on our juries. I think that that’s a really good point. I can understand the rationale that Mr Xu-Nan was trying to make with his contribution, but what we’re trying to say is that we’re now lifting it to 72, and so if you get a letter and you’re 68 years old, you won’t have any reason to be able to decline it.

Obviously, we’ve got considerations in our system around people who have work and other personal commitments. If they’ve got health issues or health challenges, then of course they can apply to be excused, but we’ve also got to remember that we want to ensure that our juries are a jury of our peers and that they are wide-ranging, they are diverse, and they represent the New Zealand population. So it is really important that when people receive their jury summons, they consider it and, if they can, they make it possible to serve on a jury.

I want to speak about my firsthand experience, because, at 21 years old, I got a jury summons—would you believe it? I was 21 years old and I had been in the system for only three years, and I got a jury summons. I went down to the Wellington District Court on the day I had my summons and I thought, “Well, there’s no way they’re going to pick a 21-year-old.”, and then my name got drawn. I moved from the back of the courtroom and walked my way up to the jury box, and I didn’t get challenged.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: What?

TOM RUTHERFORD: I didn’t get challenged, Mr Webb. I saw you in the dock, but I didn’t get challenged! I didn’t get challenged.

I sat on that jury for a week. I sat on that jury for a week, and what I have to say is that that was one of the most fascinating and enlightening experiences I’ve had to date. I sat around that table. I had formed my views of what I thought, based on what was presented to us by the lawyers and in the court—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Tell us about the bill.

TOM RUTHERFORD: —and it was interesting to listen to the contributions of the 11 other people who were on that jury with me. We reached a unanimous verdict in that situation, but I think it’s really important for New Zealanders to be a part of being a part of that process.

Now, Ricardo Menéndez March says to talk about the bill. Well, this is literally what the legislation is about. It’s about serving on juries in New Zealand and the experience for people, because it’s really important that when New Zealanders get their summons in the post, they actually take that responsibility seriously. Take that responsibility seriously because this is your responsibility as a good New Zealander in this country. That’s why I think it’s really important that we move the age of excusal—as we’re doing with this legislation—from 65 to 72. I think it’s really important that when New Zealanders are out there, day to day, they know that if they are to find themselves in the court and in the dock, they will look across to the jury and see a jury of their peers based not on an excusal that is solely based on the age of 65 any more.

Now, it is important to know that if you are, let’s say, 73 or 74 and you get your jury summons in the post, you will have a right under this change to apply for the excusal, but there’s no obligation. If you’re 73 or 74 years old and you receive your jury summons, you can still perform your duty on the jury, and I say to those people that it’s really important that you do so. It’s really important, if you are available and you want to be involved in the process, that you take it and you turn up to court on that day.

We’ve got lots of challenges in the courts space that we are working through, as a Government, around ensuring that victims can get access to justice as quickly as possible. It’s a really big priority for us. One of those things we can do is to speed up the process and make accessibility to justice quicker and fairer for New Zealanders, and that’s what this piece of legislation does. It says that no longer will we exclude people who are 65 years old. No longer will we give them an easy out to say, “I do not want to serve on a jury of peers across New Zealand.” We will now say that if you are 72 or older, you will have the ability to apply for excusal, but what we’re saying is that it’s really important for New Zealanders to take their jury service duty seriously. If you’re 65, 66, or a few years older and you get your summons, then we say to you: please do turn up to court, please play your part in the judicial process, and please be a contributing member to the New Zealand society.

I credit Carl Bates and I thank him for his work in this space. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill, and this is the third time I’ve had the opportunity to speak to this bill. Firstly, I’d like to congratulate Carl Bates for seeing this through the process of the House and through the select committee process with the Justice Committee. The way you’ve proceeded with this bill was something spectacular, really. It was well presented to the committee, and when we did receive those 31 submissions, the committee was able to analyse those and go through, and, as we’ve heard already from some other speakers, the majority of those submissions were in favour of the bill.

Also, as we went through the committee of the whole House process, I think that that night of the committee of the whole House process was one of the more enlightening debates that we do see in this House. There was, obviously, that debate around the reasoning for landing on the age of 72, and I remember that Tom Rutherford, I believe, fiercely debated the different ages, whether it was 66, 67, or 68, and so on. But in some ways, whether through the submission process or through the committee of the whole House process, where we’ve landed and where the sponsor of this bill started, with the age of 72, is where we’ve landed. There was discussion around the age of 70 and, as I say, those other ages that it could have been, but 72 did tie in to the retirement age for the appointment of the previous Ombudsman, and that has survived that contest of discussion through the select committee and the committee of the whole House.

The Justice Committee—as I said, we took the time to analyse those submissions. One change that the committee did make, and it also survived through the committee of the whole House process, is that this only applies after the date the bill commences. So people watching at home that have already been summonsed, they will still go through the process that they’ve received. It won’t be until this gets through Royal assent that the new excusal date of 72 will actually apply.

Through the reasons for excusal, there is that thing of being 72 now, where you won’t be able to excuse automatically if your age is under that. But it is heartening that there are plenty of other reasons. There are the reasons around medical or health issues and personal circumstances. Just recently, my son actually received his first summons to be on a jury. Unfortunately, where he is in his life at the moment, he is moving—he’s moving from where he’s been living in Nelson to Christchurch. Unfortunately, because of that move, that was actually a reason to be excused from the process. That just shows that there are reasons—and for people that are in between the age of 65 and now 72, where you will be asked to sit on the jury, if you have medical conditions that is still a reason to be excused from the summons. So as I’m trying to explain, there is still a mechanism there for people.

I’ve also, as I brought up in the first reading, had the experience of being summonsed—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, I have been trying hard not to interrupt the member, but there is a lot of noise going on downstairs in this House on both sides, and lots of chatter. I know there’s a special occasion coming up, but I’d just like to have the speaker being able to be heard in terms of the speech that we currently have.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I realise this speech is probably one of my magical moments, and most people have tuned in so much—but, yes, we do have probably a more magical moment happening at 5.45 p.m. today. But my experience with the times I’ve been called to be on a jury service, as well, is, unfortunately, being either a Marlborough District Councillor and having to be excused on those grounds; or, in my last experience, is actually now standing here as an MP and actually realising for that, too, you would be excused from being on the service.

I did have some concerns I raised in the first reading around the section 15(2)(aa), amended by clause 4, around the particular occasion where you can be excused from jury summons; then section 15A(2), amended by clause 5, where you’re permanently excused. I think, through the first reading, it was a little bit unclear how those sections actually worked. Again, through the clarity through the Justice Committee, being able to understand that someone can, on a particular occasion, for a health condition—if we go back to those situations: being excused or permanently being excused. So in the situation now, someone, once they reach the age of 72 and beyond, they could actually—let’s say a 74-year-old—on a particular occasion, they could ask, under amended section 15(2)(aa), and on that particular occasion be excused, but you could also be permanently excused if you go through the other amended section 15A(2).

A lot of the discussion I’ve heard—and it’s great that, on both sides of the House, there is support for the bill. It does give some trust and confidence. We have heard around giving juries a balance. There is, I believe, good sense in having people from all age groups on a jury service—so of your peers, and when you’re on a jury and you’ve been summonsed, actually having a range of age groups. We’ve heard in Tom Rutherford’s case there, being 21, or in my son’s case—you would have been a very similar age—to being someone who is more experienced in life experience. That, in a jury service, can be really a great element, for that panel to actually have some older, experienced people on there.

The bill, as I say, it has gone through the process. New Zealand First does support it through the readings. There has only been minor changes, as I say, through the select committee process. I think, on that, I will commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill third reading. I see the House is getting nice and full, ready for Georgie’s speech. Some of them are probably wondering why Government members are filibustering 10 minutes out of a member’s bill speech. So what is happening? We all know, but for those up in the gallery, it’s quite common on members’ day for the Government to attempt to slow down business and for the Opposition to speed it up. But I’m about to throw a spanner in the works, because I have a member’s bill that I’d really like to get read for its first reading that’s been drawn from the tin. So I’m going to be relatively brief in this.

Look, I support this bill. Listening to all the contributions, I’ve thought about my parents. My mum’s 65, and dad’s 72. I think about the time that they have—other than taking care of my kids—and what kind of contribution they could make to being on a jury. They’re at that time in their life when they do have a little bit more time and their contribution is really valuable.

This bill doesn’t say that you have to 100 percent do it after 72. You can still excuse it. But basically, after 65—well, up to 72—you can’t just say, “Oh, because I am actually now 65, I don’t want to be considered for jury duty.” So there may be things like physical ailments. You may have an awful lot going on. You still, actually, could be employed. So there may be reasons in which you might actually think, “This is a good idea.”

I want to say that I think—while this bill may seem a little bit inconsequential to some people across the House, it is really important, because our ageing population is changing. Yeah, I’m not looking at you, Duncan Webb; just thinking about some people that are heading to retirement in this House that might find themselves on a jury at some point. But actually, look, this is an important thing, because the boomers are coming through, you know. They’ve got more time. People are living longer. People are more able. I think it’s really just fit for purpose. I commend this bill to the House, and I wish the member well in her maiden speech that is coming right up.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s quite different to be hearing the members from the Government side do anything other than just saying, “I commend this bill to the House.” It’s interesting to have just heard the ACT Party member admit that, perhaps, they were doing a bit of filibustering, which is interesting, because we just heard the National Party MP talk about how important this member’s bill is. You would think, therefore, they would want, in their interests—if they thought this bill was really important—to make it an expedient process, so that it can actually become law.

The Green Party is supporting this bill. Our colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan already explained our rationale. I do agree, though, with the comments from the Hon Duncan Webb around the realities that, actually, if you’re a Government MP and you’re thinking about a member’s bill to put in the biscuit tin, and you know that this is something that the Government could do really easily—and I’m assuming, based on the contributions from the three coalition party members, that the numbers are there—perhaps you would think of something a bit more substantive.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan already covered the fact that, at the end of the day, this isn’t about automatically excluding people, but just simply giving people that option based on age and extending that to 72 above and beyond what already exists. For that reason, we think that this bill is non-controversial and we’re quite happy to continue supporting it.

But I do note that members’ bills can be used to do far more than minor tweaks, compared to what others may have mentioned. We have had significant reforms that have been brought by members’ bills—including legalising same-sex marriage, for example; that was a member’s bill. I think I do encourage members from the Government to be a little bit more ambitious when it comes to the members’ bills that they’re proposing. But I agree with the contributions from my colleague from the Green Party. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have the pleasure of—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would just like the member to know that the debate will be interrupted. When it is, the member is entitled to complete her speech at the next—

INGRID LEARY: I’m sure I don’t have that much to say on this very, very important bill, but there is, as you have rightly said, a bit of excitement in the House. For people who are picking up on that at home, it is because we have the presence of a large number of people—particularly union friends—in the House to support Georgie Dansey. But I do not want to take away from the man of the hour, Carl Bates, who has this terribly important bill! There are only so many times we can talk about changing the age of 65 to 72, or 72 minus 65 and the threshold. We’ve had that well traversed.

I just want to pick up on a quick point that was made—quite a serious point, actually—by the Hon Duncan Webb. When I think about the number of hours that we have spent as parliamentarians, and the taxpayer money, for something that really could have been tidied up in an omnibus bill, it is great to see the level of process that has occurred with this bill and I wish that would happen with all bills.

But when we look at the urgency that’s been afforded to things like the Employment Relations Amendment Bill or other pieces of legislation that are hurtling through the House under urgency, and then we see the disproportionate amount of time spent on a member’s bill, I do question whether we have that balance right.

Having said that, I do congratulate the member for getting the bill drawn and for convincing the Minister that it wasn’t his job to tidy this up and to let him do this bill. It has been very thorough and it does serve an important purpose. So no disrespect to that member, but I think that it behoves the House to think a little bit more carefully about what we spend time on and what we don’t spend time on. With that, I will leave my comments and commend this bill, congratulate Carl Bates, and also wait with bated breath and congratulations for our newest Labour member, Georgie Dansey.

Debate interrupted.