Finlayson Christopher: Succession (Homicide) Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Succession (Homicide) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9792] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Succession (Homicide) Bill deals with the effect of homicide on rights of succession. The rules that are set out in the following clauses are all reasonably straight forward and when one analyses them quite obvious. For example clause 7 provides that a killer will be disentitled under a will or will not be permitted or able to claim under an intestacy. Clause 8 disentitles the killer to the victim’s non-probate assets and clause 9 disentitles the killer to apply under the Family Protection Act 1955. One could hardly have a situation where someone kills the testator and then alleges there was some kind of breach of the testator’s moral duty by the testator—it would be simply ridiculous. 
I want to focus on clause 10 for a minute because I still have some doubts as to whether we have this one entirely correct. Among other things clause 10 deals with the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act of 1949 and states that even if one is dealing with a situation of a killer if the killer has a valid claim against the estate of a victim then that person may be entitled to claim under that Act. But importantly it needs to be emphasised that the bill will not allow an application to be made where a testamentary promise is expressly provided for in a victim’s will so we have tried to make that crystal clear in the clause. The effect of what we have been seeking to do is that the killer will not be deprived of the benefits of a prior testamentary promise made by the victim for services that may have been provided regardless of the content of the will. I have been troubled about that clause because there is a good case to be made that in such a situation it should be impermissible for the killer to make a claim under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act as a matter of policy. But we have at least opened the door to some claims under that Act in the circumstances I have outlined. 
The only other thing I wish to say about Part 2 really focuses on the report of the Justice and Electoral Committee. I was not there when the bill was deliberated on and had I been I would have been a little concerned about the commentary to do with Te Ture Whenua Maori Act of 1993. The commentary states that the committee was “satisfied that Maori land succession under that Act would not be unduly affected by this bill.” I am not sure that that is necessarily correct. I think that that could be the use of a lazy adverb because I do not know that Maori land succession under that Act is affected at all. Perhaps Minister Clayton Cosgrove could take a call and tell us about that—whether the commentary should state “unduly affected” or “affected”—because I think it is the latter. 
Part 2 as I say sets out the various key rules relating to the effect of homicide on succession and also deals with some changes in a schedule to enactments that are amended as a result of the passage of the legislation: a change to the Administration Act 1969 to state that the killer is not competent to be granted administration—another obvious point—and a couple of other consequential amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act and the Sentencing Act. Perhaps were the Minister to take a call he could also try to deal with my question of what “immediately” means in the definition of assisted suicide.