Auchinvole Chris: Succession (Homicide) Bill — Third Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Succession (Homicide) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12197] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the third reading of the Succession (Homicide) Bill. As was mentioned in the first reading and I think in the second reading and Committee stage there has been a certain repugnance about this bill. Earlier speakers tonight have touched on that and on the fact that the bill covers situations that are repugnant to right-thinking people. 
The bill is designed to prevent a person from benefiting financially from criminal activities associated with homicide. That such situations are present in our society is an indictment on the moral standards of some members of the population. The fact that this seems to be an increasing trend is of great concern and anxiety to people throughout New Zealand. But the fact that we have a law to cope with the situation and to address and redress it is also a tribute to the fact that this Parliament does not walk away from its responsibility to citizens even after they have become victims of an untimely death. We have an obligation and we recognise that obligation to look after everybody and to ensure that the perpetrators of crime are pursued and dealt to. The long arm of the law is a credit to our law enforcement agencies and the systems of justice are I think special to New Zealand in terms of quality. 
This bill clearly defines when an unlawful killing will prevent a killer from benefiting from his or her actions. Essentially a person who acting intentionally or recklessly unlawfully kills another person or an unborn child will be prevented from benefiting economically from that person’s death. In the course of debate this evening there has been discussion on that very point. Examples have been given of perhaps a father driving a car who turns to correct children and crosses the centre line. His wife a passenger in the car is killed and he is charged with reckless driving. Does this bill kick in? These are things that obviously have been discussed and considered at the Justice and Electoral Committee. The bill will not answer every situation that occurs. 
But this of course has been a general rule within law for some considerable time. It was in 1997 that the Law Commission reviewed the operation of this precedent rule handed down from judgment as part of a wider review of succession law. The Law Commission recommended enacting legislation to codify and clarify the general rule. It needed codifying because the application of it as a precedent through individual cases can be uncertain. It can cause delays in the administration of estates and can be costly for modest estates. The fact is that these cases are more common than one would like to think. A significant proportion of homicides have been occurring in a domestic setting. I think figures were given by earlier speakers. I guess that one can reflect on the retrial that is occurring in the David Bain case. The property of his family was no doubt distributed elsewhere rather than David Bain being a beneficiary in the circumstances of his initial conviction. 
To give cohesion to the rule of succession the Succession (Homicide) Bill was introduced to the House at the same time as the Wills Bill and the Arbitration Amendment Bill. These three bills were designed by the Law Commission to give effect to reforms recommended by the commission. I would ask however why it has taken this Government quite so long to introduce them. It is 10 years since they were first raised. It is 10 years since the Law Commission reviewed the operation of this judge-made ruling. In other words Labour has been in office without raising a finger to bring in these laws before now. 
Throughout the passage of this bill the complexities have been highlighted by a number of speakers on both sides of the House and by submissions made to the select committee. That is understandable. The bill had to clearly define when a killer will be prevented from benefiting from his or her victim’s death and how properties should be disposed of in such cases. 
Another feature of this bill is that it had bipartisan support from the very beginning. I would just like to say that again for my colleagues across the other side of the House: this bill had bipartisan support from the very beginning. I guess this reflects back through to the significance of the point made by my friend and colleague Mr Chris Finlayson National’s shadow Attorney-General who said that law reform matters are often seen as lawyers’ law. They do not grab headlines. So it is good to see bipartisan support for this bill which is coming largely as a product of Law Commission recommendation. The Law Commission was consulted heavily on the provisions of the bill and provided very useful information during the select committee process. There was little in this bill that caused partisan approaches to be taken by any of the parties attending the select committee. 
Just reflecting back over the speakers in the first reading I noticed again that Mr Ron Mark when speaking on the bill explained that people in New Zealand First were tolerant and would be watching the select committee do its work. I hope that when they come to this third reading Mr Mark will be satisfied with the results of his vigilance. I noticed that the Greens too heralded this legislation as a good indication of the MMP environment working well for law reform. I think the quote from Nandor Tanczos was “Yay for the MMP environment!”. During the second reading the Hon Ruth Dyson took the opportunity to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its thorough and efficient consideration of the bill. I think that is very fair and very proper because there was very thorough and detailed consideration by the Justice and Electoral Committee. A number of sensible changes have been made such as those brought up by Simon Power and Kate Wilkinson whereby a killer and his or her victim own property as joint tenants—joint tenancy being a form of co-ownership of property. The amendment that came from the select committee was endorsed by speakers at the second reading as was clause 12. 
 Similarly the bill was amended to provide that a killer could claim under testamentary promises legislation for debts owed or promises made by the victim—something that was initially revoked by clause 7. 
Of particular interest was a point made by the Hon Mark Gosche who took great comfort from the fact that the bill would save people from going through agony twice. In the past these matters had to be dealt with on a case by case basis going through the courts and it would have been a very painful experience indeed for those involved. He stated that he thought it was good that we were passing legislation that would remove people from having to challenge these things on a case by case basis which as he said in his speech must have been a painful exercise—sometimes excruciatingly painful—for the people involved as well as being incredibly expensive. 
That brings me to the concluding point I would like to make. The Succession (Homicide) Bill was well prepared modifying earlier legislation and giving full consideration to the possible effects. It was a bill that was introduced in a bipartisan manner—a bill that was ultimately for the betterment of New Zealanders rather than a political party. Its passage from the first reading and select committee submissions to the second reading and Committee stage has been a tribute to all involved. It is a bill that has been spoken to by both sides of the House with I would like to say equal strength. It is a bill that should have no difficulty in terms of being understood and applied in the most even-handed way. The question that this bill asks out loud is why the present Government could not see the sense in applying itself with the same amount of rigour when it comes to the introduction of the Electoral Finance Bill which is already mired in controversy. Why cannot the Government get it right? Why cannot it think ahead? Why cannot it stop acting with self-interest as its prime mover? 
Finally why is the present Government behaving in an increasingly malevolent manner towards any who do not share its increasingly myopic view and practice of producing clumsy legislation to meet its own ends and purposes thereby reducing the reputation and regard that Parliament should have from the recipient public? If the Government kills the purpose of parliamentary procedure it will not inherit much from it. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.