Power Simon: Succession (Homicide) Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Succession (Homicide) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5569] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 This will be one of the rare occasions when Clayton Cosgrove and I agree. The National Party will be supporting the Succession (Homicide) Bill through its first reading and its referral to a select committee. But it would be wrong for the House to assume that this matter is straightforward or simple because actually it is not. 
The Minister raised in his speech a number of issues which I stand to be corrected on if I heard him incorrectly. It seems to me that a number of issues remain outstanding in respect of this bill. One relates to the situation the Minister described of the effect of somebody who acting in self-defence kills another human being and whether that individual would be considered to be a killer for the purposes of this legislation. Although members would agree that killers should not benefit from their actions in respect of any inheritance they may gain it is important that the rights of certain individuals—in terms of their classification as killers—are made clear during the select committee process. If a woman acting in self-defence in a very violent relationship killed another human being was considered to be a killer for the purposes of this legislation and then found herself without recourse to the deceased’s estate I would have difficulty with that. 
There is also a further interesting question—and I certainly look forward to taking part in the select committee process if I am able to do so—around the Minister’s comments regarding joint tenants. Unless I heard the Minister incorrectly which is always a possibility it seems to me that in the event of one joint tenant killing the other joint tenant and the killer joint tenant being considered to be deceased prior to the victim’s death under the law of joint tenancies he or she does not automatically inherit the victim’s property. The question for the Minister and for the select committee is whether the killer joint tenant’s heirs and successors have any ability to access the estate of the joint tenant who was killed during that particular exchange. 
Although at first glance the legislation seems to make sense and to be sensible having listened to the Minister I find there are a number of complex issues that indicate to me that this bill will require some work. For example I ask the Minister at what point the killer as defined in this legislation is disinherited as it were. Is it at the point when all appeals have been exhausted or is it at a defined point along the road of appeals? For example if the killer disputes the circumstances surrounding the death of another human being is it then that the decision is taken—at that time; at the point of first conviction—that that individual is no longer entitled to inherit? What if for example Arthur Allan Thomas had under legislation like this been considered to be disinherited but subsequent to a series of appeals having been exhausted a royal commission or the like found that that individual was in fact not the killer in question? You see that issue might be solved by way of compensation at that point but would that compensation have to take into account the lost opportunities that such an individual would otherwise have had if he or she had legitimately inherited the goods and property of the person who was then deceased? 
So although at first glance the bill makes some sense and National will support its referral to a select committee I say—through you Madam Assistant Speaker to the Minister—that these issues are complex. It seems to me that some other parties in this Parliament will need to give some pretty clear thought to some of the issues. We need to be sure at the point when guilt is aligned with an individual and the circumstances surrounding the crime are established that defences have been exhausted. For example if an individual kills another human being and is found guilty but insane is it then the case—in the case of joint tenants—that that individual’s heirs and successors have no claim at all on the other tenant’s property and other estate? 
I note that the bill addresses the issue of assisted suicide and knowing Peter Brown’s interest in matters relating to euthanasia I am sure he and his colleagues will need to be reassured in regard to that issue. 
I do not want to say much more than that. I thought at first glance that this bill was relatively straightforward. The more I think about it—and I do thank the Hon Clayton Cosgrove for his opening remarks because members often tend to listen to a Minister’s first reading speech and think that the officials did a good job of putting the speech together—the more I think that a number of issues arose in the Minister’s opening statements that National will need some clarification on. Firstly I think that the issue of the killer—the issue of someone who has acted like an automaton or in self-defence or who has been found guilty by reason of insanity—is one that needs to be addressed. Secondly I think that the appeal process and the point of defining guilt are important particularly if we use say the Arthur Allan Thomas case to highlight that issue. Thirdly I think that the issues around the joint tenancy problem—in particular the rights of the heirs and successors of the killer joint tenant for want of a less clumsy phrase—need to be clarified for the sake of certainty at the point of the select committee’s consideration of the bill. 
There is no doubt that New Zealanders and the National Party believe that those who break the law should not benefit from the breaking of that law—curious in the current political environment. But the point is that the law around homicide is complex. I look forward to seeking the permission of National’s whip to attend the Justice and Electoral Committee in order to debate these issues further and to listen to the submissions on the bill. We will support this bill at its first reading and the sending of the bill to the select committee.