Borrows Chester: Succession (Homicide) Bill — First Reading 
Borrows Chester: Succession (Homicide) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5578] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 With the expected caveat of the comments made by the previous speaker Hone Harawira in relation to our colonial history it has long been a tenet of criminal law in New Zealand that an offender does not benefit from his or her crime. I am pleased that he spent some time talking about the murder statistics within this country. As this country unfortunately has a well-deserved reputation and an abysmal record in relation to murder I do not think we should consider legislation that contains in its title the word “homicide” without stopping to think about our statistics in relation to that. 
To our shame the New Zealanders killed by homicide—that being the killing of one person by another—whether through murder manslaughter infanticide or some other culpable killing number about 100 people a year. If we killed at the same rate as that of the United Kingdom it would be only 25 people a year. I say “only” advisedly because even 25 is too many. The fact is that I do not believe for a moment that enough consideration is given to why that actually happens. Any one of us probably stops and thinks for a few moments about why that may be happening but it does not seem that a heck of a lot of people think seriously about why it is the case and what we can do to change that. As has already been alluded to we know a lot of the demographics of the people who are involved either as victims or offenders. We do know that it happens principally within our families and we do know that it is a disgraceful record. 
So the challenge is a real one. We in this House need to grab hold of the challenge and do something with it rather than refer to it from time to time just as I am doing now and just as I did in my maiden speech—as I am sure all members will remember. This tenet is applied to the lesser crimes of theft robbery or burglary: a person does not profit from his or her own crime. A convicted accused who does not cough up as to where the stolen items or money are will receive a more serious sentence than people who do. In order to take account of the fact that the accused knows where the profits of his or her crime are but has not disclosed that the accused will receive a stiffer penalty than if he or she had led the police to the stash and made it available for return. National will support this bill because it is fair and just that a murderer who has killed—one way or another—a person from whom he or she would inherit is prevented from inheriting even if the profit was to come by way of a non-testamentary bequest like an insurance policy or payout or of an appropriation of property jointly owned and tenanted. 
The question was raised by my colleague Simon Power as to just when the offender is deemed to be guilty: is it after the defended hearing is it on conviction is it after a subsequent appeal or some supplementary appeal on top of that—say the Supreme Court—or is it at the end of some sort of commission of inquiry? That is unclear and needs to be made clear. 
I have some objection too to the circumstances of assisted suicide. Why should one sibling be able to profit from the assisted suicide of for example a sick parent when that action may be a decision taken by the sibling of the now deceased parent? For instance a parent who is very sick may be incapable of making a reasonable rational decision or may not be soberly situated so as to be able to make such a decision. One member of a family could have a discussion and maybe arrange for an assisted suicide—maybe as a result of a long discussion or as a result of manipulation. That would be a situation of an assisted suicide occurring without any prior knowledge by the other siblings. The other siblings could have some real concerns about the brother or sister who aided the suicide benefiting from the homicidal act. We have seen that situation arise significantly in our media—and in that situation of course the person was convicted of manslaughter. 
In a slightly lesser category of assisted suicide—and that was more or less the defence run in the case I mentioned—we are left with the circumstance of a homicide by way of an assisted suicide however that may have been accomplished whereby the other beneficiaries of the estate the siblings the grandchildren or maybe the partner may have had no input into the decision of the deceased to take his or her life. Maybe it has been done in secret maybe the deceased was not capable of conveying the decision or maybe the other beneficiaries did not even know that such a discussion was being held. At the end of it the person who assisted in the suicide may be a beneficiary of the will or at least of part of the estate. I think the courts should not assist a person like that to profit from that situation. It does not appear that that concern has been relatively well canvassed or considered by those who have prepared this legislation. 
Another concern I have is about who will monitor the applications. Who will watch just who is making applications for probate? If we take a situation like the scenario outlined by my colleague Kate Wilkinson—the situation of the reckless-driving husband—we can imagine a scenario whereby mum and dad have their wills with a local law firm each is named as an executor of the other’s will and their common solicitor is part of that as well. If mum is killed in the crash caused by the reckless-driving husband who is left? The bill quite clearly says that the husband cannot be an executor or have rights of administration over the will but it is the duty of the solicitor to act in the best interests of his client—and the surviving client of course is the husband. I have some concerns around that issue. 
The bill also amends the Sentencing Act 2002 by inserting section 146A which states that a certificate of conviction can be issued by the court on application by an informant. I wonder who is expected to be the informant in that situation. Maybe we are making the assumption that members of the public or other beneficiaries will be watching on. In the scenario Kate Wilkinson laid before the House the only other beneficiaries may be the couple’s children. Who will intervene on behalf of them? Surely there should be some sort of Government agency to look after that. It could not be expected that the police should follow that issue through after for instance the court case around the car crash and the subsequent coroner’s hearing. There is no obligation on the police at the moment to follow through and to monitor subsequent civil actions in respect of an estate. 
So those are a couple of issues that I have highlighted. I hope that they will be covered during the course of select committee debate and that those concerns will be laid to rest. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.referred to Justice and Electoral Committee