Jury Amendment Bill 2010
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [3.34 p.m.]: On behalf of the Family First party I indicate our support for the Jury Amendment Bill 2010. The object of this bill is to act on recommendations of the Law Reform Commission’s report on jury selection by amending the Jury Act 1977. Those recommendations included introduction of criminal records checks and revision of the criteria for ineligibility on the basis of criminal history checks and the introduction of a modified good cause model for jury selection, which adopts many of the recommendations aimed at reducing the categories of people who are ineligible to serve or who may claim an exemption from jury service as of right. An application for exemption will still be possible in accordance with published guidelines and an application for permanent exemption may be made where the person has a physical or mental impairment that renders him or her permanently unable to perform jury service.
Various groups previously ineligible for jury service, such as some categories of lawyers, as well as clerical and support staff working for law enforcement agencies will now be eligible. Other groups such as medical practitioners, members of the clergy and emergency service workers will still be able to claim an exemption. The change of approach is to remove the automatic right to be exempt and replace it with the need to sufficiently justify the exemption by proving good cause in regards to criteria set out in published guidelines. Previously it was the case that pregnant women were automatically allowed exemption to preclude the possibility of their having to serve on the jury past the baby’s due date. I still think that women in their final months of pregnancy should be granted exemption but that all other pregnant women should be allowed to serve. After all, many contemporary women are working in all other business pursuits during their pregnancies, and it makes sense that legislation reflects changes in society.
The bill also offers increased protections for employees who undertake jury service, including clarification that the Act applies to part-time and full-time employees; increased penalties for breaches of existing protections; new offences for requiring employees to use their leave entitlements in order to serve on a jury and for requiring employees to work on days on which they actually attend for jury service or outside sitting times in order to make up for time lost through jury service; and the extension of certain offences to corporations. There will be changes to the daily allowances for both employed and unemployed jurors: they will be paid the same rate for the first 10 days of jury service but from day 11 employed jurors will be paid at a higher rate equivalent to average weekly earnings. There is also a provision allowing jurors who seek to be excused in court on personal grounds to reduce the reasons to writing that can be handed to the judge. Also, the sheriff may excuse a person from jury service at the notice of inclusion stage rather than when the person is summoned. These are all sensible provisions. On behalf of Family First I support the bill.