Sitting date: 9 Apr 2025

JURIES (AGE OF EXCUSAL) AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I move, That the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

It is a privilege to rise in support of this bill, the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill, which proposes a simple but meaningful change to increase the age at which New Zealanders may request automatic excusal from jury duty from 65, to 72. This is a targeted amendment to the Juries Act 1981, but one that carries wider implications for fairness, civic participation, and the evolving demographics of our country.

At present, any person aged 65 or over may ask to be excused from jury duty either for that specific summons or permanently, and that request is automatically granted. This may have been appropriate several decades ago, but it no longer reflects the reality of life today. Kiwis are living longer, staying healthier, and continuing to contribute meaningfully to society, well past the age of 65. In fact, I need look no further than my own mum. She's passed that age—though, I should add, she certainly doesn't look it—and she's still working, still active, still capable, and still eager to contribute.

The current law sends the wrong message that once you turn 65, your civic responsibility ends, that there is no longer an expectation that you contribute to the judicial system or share the burden of justice with your fellow citizens. That's not the message that we should be sending.

We also know that it has practical effects. With so many automatic excusals from age 65, courts must issue more summonses just to fill the jury pool. That is an inefficient use of our administrative resources. It is time that we updated the law.

The choice of 72 was not made lightly. A number of potential thresholds were considered. I expect and encourage the Justice Committee to consider this question in depth. The age of 72 reflects a considered and balanced approach. In New Zealand, judges must retire at 70 under the Senior Courts Act 2016 but may serve further on limited-term contracts up to the age of 75. That acknowledges their continued capacity while still maintaining boundaries. Most relevant to the proposal in this bill is the retirement age of the Ombudsman, which is set at 72. That informed the drafting of the bill. It is an example of a public-facing role that values and places value on experience, maturity, and sound judgment—qualities that are also vital in a jury.

Internationally, though, there is a spectrum of age exemptions. In England and Wales, 76 is the upper limit for jury service, with those over 70 being able to seek excusal. In Scotland, people over the age of 71 may be excused upon request. In Australia, five states [Music plays from Opposition member's phone] and territories allow those aged 70 or over to permit permanent excusal. I feel like I've got my nana or grandad opposite me at the moment trying to use their cellphone! Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory, and the Northern Territory all allow those over the age of 70 to seek excusal on a permanent basis. Western Australia takes a stricter approach: those over the age of 75 are simply ineligible. In the United States, some states such as Hawaii, South Dakota, and Maine allow excusal from jury duty at the age of 80.

So the age of 72 places us in the middle of a reasonable and global spectrum. It reinforces civic participation without placing undue expectation on our seniors, such as those who have just left the House! Let me be clear: this bill does not compel anyone over the age of 65 to serve; it simply lifts the age of automatic excusal, preserving the ability for any individual to still request an exemption if they have a valid reason.

The proposal did not originate from an academic paper; it came from the front lines of our justice system. In October 2024, I visited the Auckland High Court with the Minister of Justice, the Hon Paul Goldsmith. During that visit, Ministry of Justice staff raised the issue directly. The volume of excusals of those over the age of 65 was placing strain on registrars and making it harder to fill the jury benches. It is a practical, sensible suggestion that they made; one that stuck with me and led directly to this bill.

The bill makes a single, targeted change, amending sections 15 and 15A of the Juries Act 1981 to lift the age at which the registrar must excuse a person, on request, from 65, to 72. Anyone aged 72 or older will still be able to request an excusal, either for that particular summons or on a permanent basis.

The expected benefits are twofold. Firstly, it broadens the pool of jurors, including New Zealanders aged 65 to 72 and it adds valuable life experience, insight, and maturity to our jury benches. Second, it reduces the strain on court administration. Around 47 percent of excusals are currently granted purely based on the age of the applicant. Even a modest reduction in that number would represent a meaningful improvement in court operations. It is a small but practical change, part of a broader effort to restore confidence in law and order in this country.

As the member of Parliament for Whanganui—including Whanganui, South Taranaki, and Stratford—I regularly meet with constituents over the age of 65 who are still working, volunteering, running organisations, and making an impact. Their contributions are extraordinary. This bill says to them, "We see you, we value you, and we trust you to play your part in one of the most important civic duties there is.", and that is jury service.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge the hard-working Justice Committee, who, hopefully, following a vote in this House, will take this bill forward. I am confident that they will bring their usual rigour, insight, and care to examining this piece of legislation.

While other issues have also been raised with me regarding our jury system and jury duty—and there have been a number through this process that constituents, that people who have heard about this bill since it was pulled from the biscuit tin have raised with me—this bill itself has a very narrow scope, simply reviewing the age of automatic excusal. It is a focused reform, and the committee's work will be vital in refining it further, and, as I said, exploring that exact age that would be appropriate in a New Zealand context today.

This is a simple change; a change that reflects the evolving realities of New Zealand society. It updates our laws to match our demographics. It honours the role that mature Kiwis still play and it strengthens the fairness and representativeness of our jury system. I urge all members of this House to support the first reading of the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill. Let us recognise the changing face of our nation. Let us share the responsibility of justice and let us send a message that every generation, including those over the age of 65, has a role to play in upholding the law. I commend the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Well, may I just congratulate Carl Bates who is in charge of this bill for speaking for 10 minutes on a bill that does nothing more than raise the age of excusal from 65 to 72.

It's not a bad bill. I'll put you out of your misery; we're going to support it. But of all the ways in which we could make New Zealand better, this member has chosen to raise the age at which someone can tap out of jury service. That's it. Well, you know, you have another bill in the ballot. I hope you can do a little something a little more ambitious next time.

Juries are important because it's the idea that ultimately, if we're in trouble with the law, we're judged by our peers. One of the important things about juries is that they're representative. So I'm absolutely fine with people up to 72 being compelled to be summoned for jury service. But I tell you what, if we really want to have a representative jury, we probably should look at the $31 a half day that they're paid, because if you're going to take a day off work, $31 a half day doesn't cut it. Or you could look at the fact that childcare is capped at $80 a day. If you want mums and dads to come along and serve on juries, and we do, we want to have a look at that as well and ensure that actual costs of childcare are covered and not just a token amount, or even as much as providing lunch. So if you get to serve on a jury and it goes over lunch, you've got to bring your own lunch.

Now there are some pretty simple fixes, because the danger is—and we know this from juries, I've been in courts and seen juries selected—people who serve on juries are skewed towards people with spare time, people to whom it's interesting and they haven't got a job to hold down, or a child needs attention and can't be put in care. So we do actually already have a skew towards older people who've got time on their hands.

So, yeah, we're very happy for this bill to go through. I'm pretty sure it'll get through the House. It probably won't trouble the Justice Committee for too long either, but if we're going to have juries that are truly representative from all sections of the community—not just those that can take a few days off—we really need to address the wider questions in juries as well. That's a job that I'd encourage the Government to do. Kia ora.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I agree with some of the points that have been made by the mover of this bill, Carl Bates. I've served on juries a couple of times—it's quite a tough experience—and I've also been excused once or twice. I felt the role of being a mayor, leading the long-term plan, probably was a reasonable excuse and they agreed. I also appreciate the fact that experience, life experience, and age is no barrier—we already have no maximum age for serving on a jury and I think that's great.

It's quite interesting, if I heard the member opposite correctly, that you can't be on a US jury over 75. One could think they might be able to apply that a little bit more generally to important public roles, but I like the idea that there should be no upper limits—obviously, I like the idea that there should be no upper limits. But which generation is under-represented in juries? Is it the greyer generation that is under-represented in juries? I don't think so.

My colleague from Labour, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, made some excellent points about the fairly shabby remuneration for jury service and the difficulties of childcare, and, in fact, the sheer unpredictability of how long one's jury service might go on.

It doesn't seem to me to have strong evidence as to whether it should be 65, 72, 103; whether there should be automatic right of refusal, if you like, at any particular age. But given our retirement age is 65—unless the member was suggesting that also move to 72—then why not pick an age that we already have generally accepted by the general population? I personally think that the Ombudsman and District Court judge ages and so on—of 72—I think that's a bit young. I think there's plenty of people who are capable of contributing well past that—not that I'm there yet.

I note that, as far as I know, Grey Power doesn't have an official position on this issue but generally feel that retirees should be able to recuse themselves from jury duty.

It's not the worst bill in the universe, but is it really the best use of our time for governance? Should we be sending it to select committee without a really clear case for the time and energy to be engaged in this? At this stage, we say we will not be supporting it.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm taking this call on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill. I want to congratulate the member in charge, Carl Bates—great to see that your bill has been drawn and it's here for the first reading, and we really look forward to seeing the outcome of this bill going through the select committee process.

I've heard from members from the other side that this bill is a very simple bill, and sometimes those are the kind of things we need to do. It's the simple things that can add efficiency, and that is what this bill is about, adding that efficiency to our justice system. As we have heard that 40 percent—47 percent actually of excusals are granted because of a juror's age; juror being over 65, the person who is summoned to be juror is over 65. And that creates a lot of work for the registrar because when they deal with so many excusals, they have to then approach more people. And sometimes—I have heard this—that the numbers of people, those who approached, are multiple times more than the numbers of people who are needed. So imagine the kind of admin work that is needed to ensure that our justice system is able to work in a manner that it should. And having people, those who are over 65, coming and serving as jurors and basically lifting the automatic excusal age from 65 to 72 actually creates that window where more people of that age bracket between 65 and 72 can come and be jurors. And of course, excusal will be available as the member in charge has described in his opening speech. That for some reason, medical reason or any other reason, if that individual cannot be a juror, those kinds of things will be taken into consideration.

I have spoken to so many people who are summoned for jury service, and I have heard different kind of views. Views not about the actual experience of being a juror, but about them being summoned. So there is a lot of anxiety amongst people because all of a sudden when they see that they have to do jury duty—which is very important part for our justice system and it's our role as citizens, except some people, those who are exempted from that role—to serve as jurors when they are summoned. But then people have responsibilities: young families have children and then there are sometimes elderly people in the family to take care of, sometimes the job commitments are such that they find it really hard. So it's not excusals coming from only people who are over 65; there are a lot of other people applying for excusals as well on the basis of other grounds.

So we can imagine the workload for registrar to ensure that jury benches have enough people to conduct the trial. And the trial needs to happen in a fair manner. And jurors should reflect our community. And we know that we are living longer and there are a lot of people out there after retiring at the age of 65, they would still like to contribute in whichever way they can. And giving them the opportunity to contribute by being a juror, I'm sure our people, our senior citizens would be really proud of doing that.

It's really important to note that, yes, there are some examples from other countries, but our country, if you look at the population in that age group, the ageing population is increasing. So we need to take those factors into consideration as well. And there is a lot of desire amongst older people to do a bit of work, not full time maybe, but do a bit of work that they really like, and they really enjoy. And I'm sure that our seniors, they really want to be part of our justice system, make the contribution to make our communities safer. Because when people are on a jury, everything is based on facts. The evidence needs to be taken into consideration. There is no place for emotion in there. It all needs to be based on facts. So that experience of dealing with things, we know that sometimes it comes with age, and those are the kind of attributes that we can definitely utilise amongst our older people on jury service.

So this is actually a good bill. It is to improve the efficiency of our justice system. And I really want to congratulate, again, the member in charge, Carl Bates, for bringing this bill to the House. The ACT Party commends this bill. Thank you.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill. I congratulate the member Carl Bates on this bill and how it's been put together. It is in fact quite simple. It increases the age from 65 to the proposed 72, and I think that, as the member has said in his introduction today, this is something we'll discuss at the select committee. And as I'm a member of the hard-working Justice Committee, it will be another bill that we will put our minds to—whether that age should sit at 72. The member has given some reasons around that, but the select committee process will also give the submitters the opportunity to look at that age and give some feedback, and I think that will be quite valuable.

Just reading the existing legislation at the moment, I found it really confusing. At the moment in section 15(2) of the principal Act, the Juries Act, there is the term "must excuse". To me, from my Resource Management Act background "must" would mean that you cannot sit if you're over 65. But then the existing legislation goes on to another section, section 15A(2), where it says that a written application will permanently excuse a person. So it seems that if you're already over the age of 65, you're excluded, but you can also write and be excluded, and I don't quite get the concept there, so it will be for officials to explain the current legislation and how that matches together and, if we use that same terminology in this bill, just how that actually works.

I did want to tell a story about being on a jury, because it's something that I've always wanted to be a part of, and in my life experience so far, every time I get the call to jury service, I've been Marlborough district councillor or for certain reasons haven't been able to serve. I had the unusual experience on becoming an MP of being asked to be on a jury—prior to becoming an MP and obviously then being here as an MP and then trying to explain through writing some letters that I was no longer eligible because, as the Speaker and other members would know, we can't sit as jurors. It ended up being quite an episode because, as you write letters and wait for responses, and with the post and the way that worked it was right on the narrow edge of possibly having to be there. But I was like, "I'm excluded. I'm excluded." I couldn't use the excuse of being over 65, so that was something, but that was the story there. Hopefully, increasing the age to 72 means that with a few more runs on my age, I might finally get to sit on a jury one day.

As the member in charge of the bill has said, there is a narrow scope to this and what it is actually asking, and I gather, after the story I just told, that there will be a number of people out there with similar jury stories and they may also possibly ask for the scope of this to be widened. But as we find through the Business Committee, the scope of what we'll be looking at will be the age increase.

The member in charge of the bill has also said that just finding the numbers of people to sit on juries is harder, and I know sometimes they have to go through a number of different applications or requested a lot of different people before they can actually fill a jury. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to be talking on this bill. The first thing I'd like to say is that I don't have a conflict of interest. I just want to be clear about that. But I would like to offer my congratulations to Carl Bates for getting his first bill drawn from the "biscuit tin", as he described it. It's always a momentous occasion, and it's wonderful that you've had that opportunity.

I think it's probably unfair to say it's a pretty simple bill. It is in a sense, because it does raise the age. But I think the significance of this is that juries, at the moment, have a lot of trouble getting sufficient people to actually turn up, and it is actually dealing with a very practical issue. So I congratulate the member for thinking about this and working his way through the deliberations around the actual age group. But I think it is an important issue, and I think he should be congratulated from that perspective.

The issue, of course, is whether 72 is right, or 70, or whatever it might be. I know that Mr Bates talked about the reference in New Zealand to judges at 70 but the ability to get a limited service contract up to 75, or Ombudsman, which you struck. There are other senior roles, but obviously the 72 is where you've landed, and that's what the Justice Committee will be thinking. And you've noted what's happened in Australia and America; we're obviously somewhere in between. Which are good references points to what I think the Justice Committee's going to have to deliberate on. I think where he struck the balance probably sounds right.

I think the important thing that the member did highlight is, at the moment, by having an arbitrary 65 age limit at which you could automatically be excluded, actually does rob older people of the right to participate in our judicial system. I think it's a pretty important principle. What people probably don't appreciate is that the average life expectancy of New Zealanders has increased by broadly one year for every decade over the last 40 years; or in other terms, a month for every year that we've lived for the last 40-odd years. So bringing this into that scope recognises that people are living longer in New Zealand, as they are around the world. I think it is viable, and a good proposition, and I think, ultimately, I think we're going to get a better outcome. Because as the member expressed, what we draw on by inviting and allowing older people—not old, older—people to participate is they bring experience, they bring maturity, and, as he said, "sound judgment". So on that basis, I support the bill, and look forward to seeing it being debated in the Justice Committee.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Mr Speaker, thank you. I rise today to speak in support of the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill. It's a modest yet meaningful change to our justice system. This bill seeks to increase the age at which a person may be automatically excused from jury service from 65 to 72. Sounds like a practical change to me, grounded in demographic realities and social expectations, and so we're OK with it.

I mean, at its heart the bill recognises that society is changing. People are living longer, working longer, and also engaging in public life for more years than ever before. So the idea that 65 suddenly looks a lot closer now to me, and should the cut-off point of that be participation in in civic life, then that doesn't seem quite right. So something as fundamental as jury service; this seems to be outdated, so it's a good amendment.

I'm interested to know or iron it out through the submissions process that the Justice Committee hear from many 73-, 74-, and 75-year-olds who might also want to participate. An interesting fact I've got here is that in the 2023 census there are actually 466,000 New Zealanders aged between 65 and 74, and that's a 35 percent increase on 2013 stats. So there's a whole lot more people who will be able to partake in jury service.

There have been some reservations. We know that if we have more people from an older demographic, what impact that will have on juries. I'm sure there'll be lots of good submissions from places like the legal fraternities that come together to put their heads together on what the impacts will be on the justice system. We look forward to hearing those submissions and understanding what other impacts it might have.

From a practical standpoint it also potentially has some fiscal benefits, fewer automatic excusals, and less delays potentially if there are issues around getting people for a jury. So this seems to be a good place to be. In terms of what it does for our justice system, it's not a radical overhaul in any way, but it does modernise the current system in a smart and thoughtful way, and it reflects today that people do stay engaged for a long time in their later years.

We support this bill because we believe in participation, we believe in inclusion, and we also believe in a justice system that evolves alongside of the society it serves. I commend the bill to the House.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and contribute to this first reading of the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill, a member's bill in the name of my good friend Carl Bates—the MP for Whanganui—who's sitting to my right. I'll tell you what: he's a right-hand man because he's a man of action. If I may, Mr Speaker, earlier across the House we heard someone struggle with their phone and the song "This Is How We Do It" by Montell Jordan played over and over on their phone. And "This Is How We Do It" in Carl Bates' style: when he sees a problem, it's a call to action to him to find a solution.

My friend Mr Bates spoke about how when he was visiting a courthouse with the Hon Paul Goldsmith last year, there was kōrero from the staff there about one of the shortfalls is if only they could have more people that are more ready to participate in jury duty. Carl Bates saw that, heard that, and "This Is How We Do It". He wrote a member's bill straight away, and I'm so glad that this member's bill was drawn out of that biscuit tin that we refer to a lot in this House.

Now, essentially, the principal Act with which this bill is seeking to amend is the Juries Act 1981—I was one year old when that was passed. What we've heard so far is what we're trying to do, and what Mr Bates is trying to push forward with, is that anyone; a person—we're lifting the age with respect to jury duty from when they can be automatically exempt from the age of 65 to the age of 72.

I'm sure that my colleagues across the House, like myself, have been in a situation where people have shared their jury duty war stories, how much they've enjoyed participating in that civil duty where they've had a direct contribution to the determination as to whether someone was guilty of an act or not. It really is—for a lot of people that I've heard from—somewhat of a thrill in their lives. It saddens me to hear that our member across the House from the Green Party, Celia Wade-Brown, is not supporting this bill, which brings so many of our elderly and our wise people enjoyment as they are in their twilight years.

I really appreciate how my colleague Carl Bates reflected on why the age of 72; what's brought him to this decision to push for taking up the age from 65 to 72. As he said, it's not arbitrary; it was quite a considered choice. In part of this consideration, he compared benchmarks here in New Zealand and he looked at the international examples. Thank you, Carl Bates, for reflecting on that and for sharing with us how you came to that Goldilocks sweet number of 72. I concur and I tautoko your conclusion with respect to that age.

Also, I really appreciate how Mr Bates spoke about how this change will bring about efficiency with the administration of our court operation. It's quite an alarming figure that 47 percent of excusals currently are based on age. So being the man of action, showing that "This Is How We Do It"—to quote Montell Jordan—he saw that problem, he researched it, and then he said, "Let's make a change". You put your heart out there when you put a member's bill in the members' tin. I'm very glad and privileged that my one was drawn out a few days after my maiden speech last year, and I know the feeling that there's something you're passionate about and seeing it progress across the House.

I'm grateful that, so far, we've had support across the House—except for the Greens that, for some reason, feel that people don't want to contribute to society after the age of 65. My mother's in her early 70s and she says to me she'll retire when she dies. I don't like hearing it, but that's essentially what she says to me and that's the way that she's raised me.

Finally, I'd love to quote the Lebanese poet Gibran Khalil Gibran: "Seek ye counsel of the aged, for their eyes have looked on the faces of the years and their ears have hardened to the voices of life. Even if their counsel is displeasing to you, pay heed to them." I commend this bill to the House.

GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I'd just like to say that I'm standing here speaking as the Labour Party spokesperson on courts, not as someone directly affected by this bill. I'd just like to make that quite clear right from the start. Also, I'm someone that is probably very unlikely to end up on a jury where I could be called, being an ex - police officer and an ex-MP. It would be the equivalent of me turning up with an RSA badge on my jacket. Any lawyer with challenges would very quickly isolate me out from the herd. So I say that to make sure there is no vested interest, no conflict of interest in speaking about this, a very sensible little change. Congratulations to the member Carl Bates for having this drawn.

Of course, having sat through a few jury trials as the officer in charge of the case, some interesting things happen to jury trials as the trials go on, particularly if you get a homicide trial, a long robbery trial, or a sex trial that might go on for several weeks. The jury becomes a very important part of this—well, obviously, the most important part of it because they're going to make the final decision. But when you're sitting in a courtroom—and, actually, there's a lot of comings and goings but there are certain people that remain the same for all those weeks that a court case can go on. The officer in charge of the case will be one, the judge will be one, the defence will be one, and some of the court staff will be one; those people will be there and consistent. But that jury is sitting there, and everyone in the room, as others come and go, witnesses come and go, various other combatants—participants—in the trial, there develops a certain affinity between everyone in the room. And that's where maturity on a jury actually really does become quite important. And you'll see people look—they'll start looking at different people in the room.

Good lawyers will know how to work jurors. Good prosecutors aren't allowed to, they have to be much more, shall we say, within the rules. They've got to make sure that they don't get involved in any of that. But a good lawyer you'll see will very quickly work out who's the juror that they need to work on. Often it'll be one of the younger ones and they will know full well and by two or three days into the trial everyone will have worked it out just by where the jury is sitting. Often, those first two or three days, they might even take different seats in the jury room. But after about two or three days, you'll find they're all sitting in the same place and that's when the games really do start in that courtroom. We shouldn't probably really be talking about games because we're talking about very real decisions that people are going to be making in response. But it is really a contest of wills, and the jurors are very important part of it.

That's why it's so important to get people that are happy to be there. The last thing anyone wants on the jury, whether they're the defendant, whether they're the prosecutor, whether they're the defence, is someone who really does not want to be on that jury, who had hoped—they'd come along, they'd worn the right clothes, they thought that they would get challenged and they didn't. They've probably got places they need to be. And they are the people that most people don't want to have on that jury because they are more likely to influence the jury. They're more likely to make decisions that go against justice.

The other thing around juries I'd like to say, too, is that I had a very good lesson: I used to be a detective in the Wairarapa—my very good friend Kieran McAnulty's territory, although I don't believe that we ever did meet professionally over there, Mr McAnulty. But one thing I learnt: we had great difficulty in getting jury decisions, and there was one particular lawyer who was very successful at getting them off. At one stage, we in the Wairarapa had 80 percent of the jury trials in the Wellington High Court were from the Wairarapa, that's how busy we were. And when this lawyer finally headed off to London on some junket that he never returned from, he said, "Your problem over there, the reason why the juries will not convict is because every time during the trial it becomes quite clear that you as the detective know or have had previous dealings with the defendant. And as soon as you do that, a Wellington jury will instantly degrade the case down to something between the cop and the detective and it will diminish it in their brain." He said, "You guys should be taking your jury trials to Palmerston North, where the provincial people understand much more about the way things happen."

So I'll hand back over to—speaking of the provinces—the member from Whanganui, who will no doubt sum up this trial. But yes, a good little piece of legislation, and congratulations.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for that commendation. Thank you to all the parties across the House that are supporting this Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill. There were some interesting contributions made, however, during that discussion, particularly from some members of the Opposition. I found the very first contribution from the Labour Party particularly interesting, because while noting that it was a narrow bill, while suggesting potentially that it was a little simple, while maybe suggesting that I didn't need to take 10 minutes to explain it, the member spoke for approximately seven minutes and didn't even address the one question that I asked in relation to the bill.

So hopefully, during the select committee process, that member will be more focused on the question at heart, which is what the exact age should be: whether it should be 72 or if there is a more appropriate age. To that end, there's also sort of a suggestion that maybe it's not quite as meaningful as requiring the House's attention. And I want to thank my colleagues on this side of the House for acknowledging the meaningful role this bill will have; I want to acknowledge my colleague on the Justice Committee, the Hon Ginny Andersen, for also acknowledging that this is modest but meaningful.

However, what is interesting is the number of speakers who sort of suggested that once you're over the age of 65 or 72, when it gets changed, no longer you have to turn up. Well, that's actually not what the law says, and that's exactly why we need to lift the expectation from 65 to 72, because people expect at the age of 65 that they no longer need to show up. That is actually not what the law says. The law says you have the right to request excusal. And that has resulted in far too many people thinking that they no longer have a requirement to deliver their civic duty of turning up and being on a jury. That is exactly why we need to address this small, narrow problem as part of our focus on restoring law and order in this country.

What I found particularly interesting, was the Greens view which seemed to wander between "We don't need age limits because that's ageist." through to "We should have jury duty at the age of 65 being allowed to say I don't want to show up because I'm 65 and I'm retired now." I'd be interested in the Greens view on whether voters should retire at 65, because that's a civic duty. I'd be interested in the view as to whether or not the Greens think that criminals retire at 65, you know, or maybe some of their members, whether they should retire at 65 because it's a civic duty. I'm sure that's not their opinion, and so I am somewhat puzzled by the position they have taken on this bill, which is that 65 is OK and we should leave it at that and move on. But we might see how it goes at select committee. Hopefully common sense will prevail, and we will see that opinion change when this bill returns to the House later in the legislative process.

I was, however, somewhat disappointed not to have a call taken by to Te Pāti Māori and be able to hear their perspective on the bill because I think that there is an important demographic that they often claim they represent as though none of us do. But, you know, clearly I'm here as the member of Parliament for Whanganui because there is a demographic that voted for me, including a demographic that they claim stake on. But it was unfortunate that we didn't have the opportunity to hear their position on this bill this evening.

I want to just acknowledge my wonderful colleague Rima Nakhle, who referred to the detailed comparison and benchmarking I've done on this bill in proposing the age of 72 to the House. Maybe it is the accountant in me that did that work and looked at the numbers. The numbers that also reflect, as I said earlier, that 47 percent of excusals right now are simply on the basis of age. It is something that we will have the opportunity to address in this House.

I want to thank those that are supporting this bill to select committee. Thank you for your contributions. I look forward to working with the Justice Committee as we delve into that age question in a little bit more detail. And, of course, I commend this again to the House.

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

Debate interrupted.

FIRE DRILL

SPEAKER: The House is suspended until the bells ring again. We must evacuate the building. Everyone in the gallery must follow the instructions of the gallery and security staff.

Sitting suspended at 5.32 p.m.

JURIES (AGE OF EXCUSAL) AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading

Debate resumed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, when the House suspended for the fire alarm at 5.30, we had not concluded the vote on the first reading of the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill, so I will put that question again.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 21

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is, That the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

© Scoop Media