Auchinvole Chris: Succession (Homicide) Bill — In Committee 
Auchinvole Chris: Succession (Homicide) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9793] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak to Part 2— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: The pleasure is all yours. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well let us hope that it is shared. As I said earlier there is a certain repugnance in even discussing this sort of business so there is not a great deal of pleasure from that point of view. 
Part 2 details the effect of homicide on the rights of succession. I find that it is straightforward legislation; it is precise. I am speaking of course without the benefit of having been a practising legal person whereas I think all other speakers on both sides of the Chamber have been. I believe it is significant that a layperson is able to understand the legislation because this law applies to ordinary people. Clause 7 states that a killer is not entitled to any interest in property arising under a will of the killer’s victim and the killer is not entitled to any interest in property arising on the intestacy or partial intestacy of the killer’s victim. It makes the situation very clear: there stands to be no benefit to any person who thought that he or she could bump someone off to get hold of the property in the will or try to gain possessions after having bumped someone off. Wills are very important instruments and I understand we will be discussing them later this evening. 
There are lighter aspects of succeeding to property and they have been the subject of drama novels and all sorts of artistic works that would have been pleasant to dwell on tonight without the severity of this bill. I remember the film  
Kind Hearts and Coronets 
 starring Sir Alec Guinness whose character eagerly sought to inherit a title by dispensing with the present titleholders and their heirs until he became the sole beneficiary. Well he would not have had any luck under this bill. 
We had an interesting level of debate in the Justice and Electoral Committee particularly on Part 2. We had to look at the possibility of killers who do have a claim against the estate of the victim. That is covered under clause 10(2)(a) which previous speakers have discussed and which ensures that killers are not deprived of the benefit to which they are entitled for the services or other economic benefits that they provided to the victim. To take it to its simplest form as it was put to us in the select committee discussion if the killer prior to killing his or her victim had spent time working on the victim’s property on some sort of contractual basis—mowing lawns or whatever—as a pre-existing commitment to being paid he or she would still be entitled to that money. I find it difficult as a tartan-blooded Scot—and I find it galling and I am sure it is galling for the victim’s family—that such payment has to be made but I can certainly understand the legal reasoning behind it and why it is appropriate to have such a provision in the Act. So one finds it interesting in stepping back from one’s repugnance that the killer should get anything in order to make sure that the State through the law is not being malicious towards the perpetrator of a crime beyond the relevance of that crime. 
We also gave consideration to the interesting aspect of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. That discussion considered the effect of the bill on succession to Maori land under that Act. I well remember the representation discussion contributed by the member for the Maori Party Hone Harawira who was there to discuss it. I thought he discussed it well. I share the view of Charles Chauvel that the select committee was satisfied at the time and I would like to assure my colleague Chris Finlayson that Maori land succession under that Act would not be affected by this bill. I do not remember this issue being unduly discussed as a feature of the bill so I was a bit surprised to see it in the commentary. However it is an aspect of cultural significance to New Zealand and this probably would not occur in other legislatures to the same extent. It had particular significance and interest from that point of view. 
All in all it would be preferable as I said earlier not to have need for this legislation but we do have the need for it. This Parliament has faced it. In my view it is sensible legislation and I am happy to speak in support of it. Thank you Mr Chairperson.