Macindoe Tim: Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Macindoe Tim: Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3923. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
:  
Tena koe e te Mana Whakawa. Tena tatou e te Whare. Whakanuia Te Wiki o Te Reo Maori. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker and to us the House. Celebrate Maori Language Week. 
] 
I would like to congratulate my colleague Simon O’Connor the member for Tamaki on his achievement in bringing this measure the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill to the House. It is a significant matter for any MP to advance a member’s bill but to be doing so in his first year of office is particularly meritorious. Mr O’Connor has made an excellent start to his parliamentary career and if I may say so the people of Tamaki made an excellent choice in sending him here. Me whakanuia e tatou. [ 
We need to celebrate it. 
] 
I would also like to commend the Waikato Bay of Plenty Magic team for a stunning victory in last weekend’s ANZ netball championship over the Melbourne Vixens. In fact I would like to describe their superb fightback to clinch the title in the dying moments at some length but I suspect that some humourless representative of a less talented region would object on the grounds that the Magic’s brilliance may not be fundamental to the core provisions of this Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill. 
One might argue that Mr O’Connor has demonstrated the stunning leadership of Laura Langman in triumphing in the lottery that is a parliamentary member’s bill ballot or that he has reflected the coaching expertise of a Noeline Taurua in ensuring that all members of our caucus are well prepared and understand how we must contribute to the team effort in the course of this first reading debate—perhaps the never-say-die tenacity of a Casey Williams. Homai te pakipaki to them all. We are so proud of our girls and their achievements. But I do note that their performance was tinged with sadness as we all felt for Irene van Dyk who suffered the death of her mother just days before the final. Truly those last goals that secured the title were for Irene’s mother and we send our aroha and prayers to the family as they prepare for the funeral this week. 
But before I suffer the devastating interception of a Leana de Bruin seeking to bring this analogy to a close let me instead offer on behalf of this House my very best wishes to the home side which will surely prevail in its crusade against the hopes of the south at the Waikato Stadium this Friday night. Kia kaha. Go the Chiefs. I know the whole House will be willing them all on—or at least those of us with two eyes and a sense of destiny. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know this is a relatively wide-ranging speech and there was a point I think when we were playing the Australians where everyone was behind the member but I think now he is being absolutely controversial in his attacks on Canterbury. It should stop and he should get back to the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I thank the honourable member for his views and indicate to the member on my right that I had indicated several times that he should speak to the bill. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I appreciate your indulgence. I am sure the people of the Waikato will be reminded from that point of order about why they sent Mr Mallard slightly south but yes I appreciate that I must get to the point. 
As you may have gathered I was really hoping that I might have got to take a call in the general debate this afternoon. Had I done so I would also have referred to the Law Commission’s 2001 report  
The Future of the Joint Family Homes Act 
. In his introductory remarks the member for Tamaki acknowledged the commission’s report which observed that “The advantages flowing from registration as a joint family home were at the commencement of the scheme these: a substantial death duty saving; a degree of protection against unsecured creditors … the security for a spouse not already on the title (usually the wife) of being able on becoming a co-owner to thwart dispositions of the property of which she disapproved (as improvident for example); the convenience of being able as part of financial planning schemes (usually but not invariably tax driven) to vest their homes in both spouses without incurring stamp or gift duty; and the saving of legal costs in the case of very small estates …”. 
 The commission then concluded—and I remind the House that this was more than a decade ago: “In the half-century since the coming into force of the Joint Family Homes Act 1950 most of these advantages have evaporated.” Death duties estate duties stamp duty and gift duty are all now abolished. In relation to protection from creditors the Law Commission noted that registration as a joint family home did not often make a difference in the way the estates of bankrupts were disposed of. 
Jumping ahead to 2012 it is clear that this Act we are considering repealing is discriminatory as it excludes de facto partners civil union partners and those who live alone. So for many reasons most of which have already been outlined by the member in charge of the bill this Act is now redundant. I commend the member for Tamaki for acting on the Law Commission’s long-deferred recommendation and bringing it to the House. Kua mutu kai raro.