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.