edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Burton Mark: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Burton Mark: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10531] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I want to pick up on a point in particular that Simon Power made and also comment briefly on Judith Collins’ comments. Mr Power raised— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Please speak up. I can’t hear you. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Is the member having trouble hearing? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I know you are a gentle man. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am a gentle man. Mr Power raised an important question around parole hearings the appearance of victims at parole hearings and their opportunity to be heard in support of any written submission they might make. I want to reassure Mr Power that the provision currently in effect is that the Parole Board determines whether a hearing will be an attended or an unattended hearing. In effect the Parole Board makes a structural decision upfront as to the nature of the parole hearing. If it is to be unattended hearing then under the current provision there is no opportunity for a submission to be made. 
Of course one of the fundamental changes that this legislation makes is to be very clear about the singular focus of the Parole Board in looking to the safety of the community in its deliberation and consideration of a parole application. In fact the range of issues that are likely to be before it are much more focused perhaps than has sometimes been the case in the past. 
A further point—and this touches in part on the first issue that Judith Collins raised—is the frequency with which some victims and families of victims whether or not they are attending none the less may have to consider and relive the issues. 
Of course one of the fundamental changes in this legislation is to require a minimum of two-thirds of a sentence to be served. Let us take a 9-year sentence. The first time that a convicted person could even apply for consideration is after 6 years. So that potentially will make a significant difference as well. The number of occasions almost inevitably will be reduced. I hope that gives both members some comfort as to the concerns they have raised.
Carter Chris: AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS — Question No. 7 to Minister 
Carter Chris: AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS — Question No. 7 to Minister 
[Volume:640;Page:10529] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I thought I had but I will repeat it. I regret my error.
AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS — Question No. 7 to Minister 
AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS — Question No. 7 to Minister 
[Volume:640;Page:10529] 
AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS 
Question No. 7 to Minister 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 This afternoon in response to a supplementary question from Phil Heatley MP I stated that Housing New Zealand Corporation had generated savings of $300 million by transferring tenants from larger properties to ones that better suited their needs. Our efforts to find 303 households more appropriate homes have in fact generated savings of $36 million in the last year; those efforts are part of the larger better utilisation project which also involves encouraging market rent tenants to move into the private rental market or homeownership. In fact this project has generated savings of $280 million—I was $20 million out. Thank you. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. There is no way that members of the Opposition would ever deny the Minister an opportunity to correct an answer given to the House but in the time that I have been here it has been customary for a Minister to conclude his statement by apologising for misleading the House. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask the Minister please to— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Madam Chairperson sorry. I regret my error. 
Simon Power 
: Point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No please be seated. Would the Minister please stand and withdraw and apologise. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I thought I had but I will repeat it. I regret my error.
Power Simon: AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS — Question No. 7 to Minister 
Power Simon: AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS — Question No. 7 to Minister 
[Volume:640;Page:10529] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. There is no way that members of the Opposition would ever deny the Minister an opportunity to correct an answer given to the House but in the time that I have been here it has been customary for a Minister to conclude his statement by apologising for misleading the House. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask the Minister please to— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Madam Chairperson sorry. I regret my error. 
Simon Power 
: Point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No please be seated. Would the Minister please stand and withdraw and apologise.
Carter Chris: AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS — Question No. 7 to Minister 
Carter Chris: AMENDED ANSWERS TO ORAL QUESTIONS — Question No. 7 to Minister 
[Volume:640;Page:10529] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 This afternoon in response to a supplementary question from Phil Heatley MP I stated that Housing New Zealand Corporation had generated savings of $300 million by transferring tenants from larger properties to ones that better suited their needs. Our efforts to find 303 households more appropriate homes have in fact generated savings of $36 million in the last year; those efforts are part of the larger better utilisation project which also involves encouraging market rent tenants to move into the private rental market or homeownership. In fact this project has generated savings of $280 million—I was $20 million out. Thank you.
Worth Richard: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Criminal Justice Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10528] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 What a privilege it is to speak on Part 2 of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill about these important amendments. I would like to start in the short time that I have remaining by saying that it seems—and it always has seemed—to me that when one talks about reform there is an element of added value an element of goodness if one likes. The quintessence of the legislation should be captured in what is proposed. 
But that is not so in respect of Part 2 of this bill sadly because here we see a raft of amendments on a whole lot of really important issues which perhaps with the benefit of hindsight should never have been placed before this Parliament. The Sentencing Act was much vaunted. It was from the Government’s perspective as good as it got and probably as good as it would ever get. Certainly that was on offer as to what was involved. Yet I think we see through Part 2 nothing but unrelieved sadness—a failure of Government policy to come to grips with issues that are incredibly important.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10527] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the votes the preamble clauses 1 to 12 and schedules 1 to 7 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Votes preamble clauses 1 to 12 and schedules 1 to 7 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Duynhoven Harry: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Duynhoven Harry: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10527] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 In the spirit of cooperation I seek leave again also to table the document I tried to table before—the 15 pages of Government initiatives with climate change benefits. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
The question was put that Vote Energy Vote Lands Vote Customs Vote Youth Development Vote Statistics Vote Consumer Affairs Vote National Archives Vote National Library Vote Community and Voluntary Sector Vote Foreign Affairs and Trade Vote Official Development Assistance Vote Racing Vote Revenue the preamble clauses 1 to 12 and schedules 1 to 7 be agreed to.
Smith Nick: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10527] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I again seek leave to table the Government’s own electricity generation— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Hughes Darren: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10527] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 There was a very good way of knowing what it was about and that was to listen to his colleague. He stood up and said he was going to seek leave again—it is not technically possible but we have decided to agree—and he told us in his previous contribution what exactly it was that he was tabling. We agree with it and are very happy for it to be tabled.
Smith Lockwood: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10527] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sitting only less than 6 feet from the member who sought leave to table that document. It was not possible for me to determine what that document was about when you put that leave to the Committee. I know the Speaker has made it clear that she does not want members to go into long details about documents but if the process of tabling documents is to have any meaning at all members must know what the document is about. There was no way we could have known what that document was about when you cut off the member’s description of it.
Smith Nick: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10526] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I have a simple challenge for the Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven concerning his last speech. He told Parliament that there had been a reduction in the dependence on coal under his Government. He gave crocodile tears about the future of the country and the need for there to be progress on climate change. Well I ask him to deny these simple figures from the Ministry for Economic Development. The figures say that in 2000 1533 gigawatt hours of power were produced from coal. They say that for the latest year 5119 gigawatts were produced from coal. Well 1533 to 5119 does not sound like a decrease to me. It is actually a threefold increase. So how can the Minister in the chair credibly say to this Committee that the Government is focused on climate change and saving the future when there has been a threefold increase in the amount of electricity produced from coal? It sounds like a crock I say to the Minister. It sounds as if he is misleading the Committee. It sounds totally inconsistent. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I have every expectation this will be a robust debate but I am not going to sit here and take being told by that member that I have misled the Committee. That is not the case and I take exception to that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The point of order is I think that it is part of the debate and we will leave it at that. The time has come for this debate to be concluded.
Brownlee Gerry: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10526] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Do I take it then that Ministers have unlimited calls on any particular vote? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Brownlee please be seated. This is the estimates debate and on each vote members can have two speeches of 5 minutes each; the Minister in charge can have multiple speeches of 5 minutes each. 
Hon Member 
: How many? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The Minister can have unlimited calls.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10526] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Climate Change and Energy Efficiency be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Vote agreed to.
Hartley Ann: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10526] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Madam Chair— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Point of order? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: New call Madam Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No the member has had his calls. The question is that Vote Climate Change— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Madam Chair I seek leave for a further call on this important issue of climate change. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is seeking leave of the House for a further call. Members have two calls on this. He is seeking leave for a further call. Is there any objection? Yes there is.
Brownlee Gerry: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10526] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document showing that when the wellhead price for gas was $1.80 Maui was empty but when it was at $6.50 it suddenly had another 10 years of life.
Soper Lesley: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Soper Lesley: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10514] 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 I stand to take a short call on corrections. We have just heard not a lot of time ago from a National speaker who basically managed to say nothing at all that was positive about our corrections system. All he could manage to do as a speaker—and as part of the National Party once again bouncing from cloud to cloud looking for substance—was to bash our corrections system. 
In fact the Department of Corrections is doing a very good job under a very good Minister. The people who work in corrections are doing a very good job. Let us not forget all those people; one of them is my relative in Invercargill. I pay tribute to those staff members in the prison in Invercargill in my electorate who are doing a fantastic job in a difficult area. They do not deserve to be knocked by those members opposite. They do not deserve to be knocked at all by those members opposite for nothing but a bit of cheap publicity. They are dedicated staff each and every one of them; they do a good job. They treat prisoners like people which seems to be something that is missing from the spirit of Mr Borrow’s speech—people who might actually have a future when they leave prison. 
It might be something new for Mr Borrows to reflect on that many of the prisoners he talked about in the speech he just gave are people who will leave prison and who deserve the ability and the guidance to rehabilitate themselves back into society and lead useful lives. That is what this very good Minister is helping to lead in our corrections system. He is helping to put in place the actual rehabilitation programmes that give some of those people a chance when they leave prison. 
It might come as news to the National Party that we do not help put people in prison then throw away the key and feed them on bread and water. Many of those people will come out of prison and we want them to come out and lead good lives. The fact is that most prisoners will come back into society. If those members opposite have not worked that out yet then it will be a very sad thing if they ever get their hands on the corrections system again. Those innovative programmes that the current Minister has helped put in place are making a difference and are giving prospects for the future. 
And what is the only thing that National has to offer as a solution for corrections? It is privatisation. Well National tried that when in office and it failed. If ever it got its hands on the corrections system and tried to privatise it again then it would fail again because the policy is without substance. It is another one of the ghostly raft of non-policies which are all that National is capable of delivering. 
Vote agreed to.
Guy Nathan: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10512] 
NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for Chester Borrows to have a call on Vote Corrections. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debate 
[Volume:640;Page:10478] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Part of the Government’s programme is to hold the Opposition to account. I have just spent 5 minutes discrediting the member. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No that is not a point of order. The member will be seated.
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debate 
[Volume:640;Page:10478] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I realise that you gave that member 10 minutes but not once during that time did he mention anything to do with the Government or the Government’s programme. Perhaps he could have another turn. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Brownlee; that was not a point of order.
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10470] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the biography of Mr Chris Clarke which he proudly displays on the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board website as he is very proud that he was executive assistant to the then Deputy Prime Minister Helen Clark. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10470] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 During question No. 3 there were quite a lot of theatrics from Mr Tony Ryall about cronyism so I seek leave to table a document showing that Chris Clarke worked as an executive assistant to Deputy Prime Minister Helen Clark on her health portfolio from 1989 to 1990 and prior to the appointment he was a Treasury official working in the housing portfolio during which time he shared an office with then Treasury officer Bill English. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10461] 
4.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What is the Government doing to support the development of the New Zealand film industry? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 We are boosting the film industry by improving the Large Budget Screen Production Grant and providing ongoing funding for Film New Zealand. We know that large-budget productions hold fantastic opportunities for our country and we want to take full advantage of these. In particular the post-production digital and visual effects incentive recognises New Zealand’s strengths in design. This boost to our film industry is important to New Zealand’s transformation into a high-wage innovative economy. I note that it is broadly supported by everyone other than Rodney Hide and the editor of the  
Dominion Post 
. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What other reports has he seen on action the Government is taking to support economic transformation? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The other main announcement was around the food and beverage sector. We know that farming has traditionally been the backbone of our economy but we do need to think differently to really drive future growth in the food and beverage sector so that innovative nutrition solutions can be the new backbone to this economy.
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:640;Page:10456] 
2.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: How is the Government’s research funding contributing to sustainability and economic transformation? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 This morning the Foundation for Research Science and Technology announced the results of its biggest research investment in 4 years involving $628 million in total contracts over the next 8 years. This will target key priorities with $150 million to investigate how to promote sustainability and to respond to climate change and $311 million to boost the primary sector. All this research is designed to transform the New Zealand economy. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Has he received any reports on the international competitiveness of the research and development credits announced in Budget 2007? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The research and development tax credit was a $630 million investment made in an effort to encourage the private sector itself to invest in research and the response from overseas has been very positive. I report for example that Deloitte’s Australian research and development tax expert SergDuchini said that all things being equal it definitely increases the attractiveness of undertaking research and development in New Zealand over Australia and David Gelb of KPMG in Australia has stated: “There are companies which in the past have relocated R and D facilities from New Zealand to Australia. This may well reverse that trend.” I think the research and development tax credit has been extremely well received. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister confirm that biotechnology upon which the Government is pinning some of its hopes for economic transformation has not shown returns on investment internationally at this point in time? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Not just this Government but many Governments have identified biotechnology as the future of science. Of course in a biologically based economy one would expect us to be investing in that area. Therefore for example the member might be encouraged by the fact that one of the contracts signed in the biotechnology sector in New Zealand last year was the sixth biggest contract around biotechnology in the world last year. So we are now beginning to see the chain of investment come to fruition. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question I asked was about whether biotechnology has shown returns on investment internationally. The Minister did not approach that question at all. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thought that the Minister had addressed it but if he wishes to address the international aspect of it he may. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: If I understand the question correctly the example I chose was an American co-investment with us that resulted in it being the sixth largest in the world last year. So internationally we are beginning to see our biotechnology begin to get investment of the kind that we are after.
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Niue—Speaker of the Legislative Assembly 
Wilson Margaret: Visitors — Niue—Speaker of the Legislative Assembly 
[Volume:640;Page:10453] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon. AtapanaSiakimotu Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Niue is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
The Hon. AtapanaSiakimotu accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Visitors — Niue—Speaker of the Legislative Assembly 
Visitors — Niue—Speaker of the Legislative Assembly 
[Volume:640;Page:10453] 
Wednesday 18 July 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Niue—Speaker of the Legislative Assembly 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon. AtapanaSiakimotu Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Niue is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
The Hon. AtapanaSiakimotu accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Chauvel Charles: Wills Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Wills Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9803] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the changes recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee to Part 2. I really want to address only three of them substantively but I will just run through all the changes recommended. 
It is recommended that clause 9 be omitted in favour of clause 10 and new clause 10A. There are some minor amendments to clause 15 which deals with changes to wills by the obliteration of words. Likewise in clause 16 there are some cross-references to clause 18 which contains the rules relating to wills where age capacity the making of a civil union or the entry into marriage are issues. Clause 19 provides that the dissolution of a civil union or a marriage is not to void the will if the clear intent of the will is that it ought to survive the dissolution of the civil union or marriage. Clause 25(3)(c) has a minor change in language from “doing the roles” to “doing the duties”. Clause 33 deals with the rules for the making of informal wills. Clause 40 concerns wills made before the commencement date of the legislation and the schedule contains some consequential changes to clauses 10 and 18 and deals with the insertion of clause 10A. So there are substantive changes in all those recommended amendments which in my view ought to be drawn to the attention of this Committee. 
The first concerns clause 10A. This clause combines the original subclause (3) in clause 10 and subclause (4) in clause 18. Together those subclauses would have provided that a minor could make a will validly in contemplation of a marriage or a civil union but that the will would not be effective until the marriage or the civil union contemplated actually took place. It is more logical to combine those two subclauses. So clause 10A introduces a new provision to expressly state what evidence is required to demonstrate that a will was made in contemplation of marriage or a civil union. This reflects a change to clause 18. The Supplementary Order Paper which the Minister has tabled will also correct a typographical error in clause 10A. 
I move to the substantive amendments recommended to clause 18. Currently wills are revoked when the will-maker marries or enters a civil union. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Arbitration Amendment Bill without amendment the Succession (Homicide) Bill without amendment and progress on the Wills Bill. 
Report adopted.
Cosgrove Clayton: Wills Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Wills Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9803] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I rise to make just two points. First again in an attempt to assist Mr “Arkinvarl” in his misguided interpretation that somehow I was not supporting Mr Finlayson’s honourable and eminent suggestion— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is quite unacceptable for the Minister to deliberately mispronounce the name of the last speaker and I would ask him to desist from that. It is a form of pettiness that should not be encouraged in the Chamber at all. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes if the member is concerned about it that is fair enough but I thought how the Minister had pronounced the name was close enough. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: I did not take offence but it is a difficult name to pronounce. It is difficult to pronounce perhaps but easy to remember. It is a three-syllable Scottish name of Gaelic origin and for the Minister’s guidance I say that it is pronounced “Ok-in-vole” and members can rhyme that with whatever they choose. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sure the Minister will take note of that. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am indebted to the member for his Celtic history lesson. I want to correct any misconception he had that I was not supporting Mr Finlayson’s eminent suggestion that laypeople—that is non-lawyers—should actually look at this bill and give it a health check as it were for the simple nature of its language. So if he took that impression he is wrong. 
I would address one thing— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: I feel reassured. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Thank goodness! We are all happy for that. I would address Ms Wilkinson’s point in respect of clause 8(1). It describes the two basic requirements that make a will. I think the point was raised in respect of the disposal of ashes and other requirements the deceased may have. I am advised that a will of course can do other things. It is not necessary within the definition of a will in legislation that they be prescribed. Indeed if an executor is appointed in a will I understand that the executor is charged with the disposal of remains and can indeed I am advised dispose of them in any manner regardless of the requirements laid out in a will. But it is not necessary I am advised that every aspect of every wish of a deceased person be prescribed in the legislation. There is nothing in this legislation that stops that level of prescription being placed in there by deceased persons themselves. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Street Maryan: Wills Bill — In Committee 
Street Maryan: Wills Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9801] 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I am a testatrix and have definitely and deliberately created a testamentary document in order that I should not die intestate and be thereafter known as an intestacy. I have had cause in my life also to do a testamentary action in order to refine and improve my testamentary document so the Wills Bill is of some interest to me as well as to many other New Zealanders. In response to Mr Finlayson’s challenge earlier I do indeed as an intelligent layperson consider this bill to be quite accessible. Like Mr Finlayson I do lament the replacement of “which” with “that” but I recognise the limitations of legislators. As a former teacher of English I say there is much to lament about the movement and evolution of modern English but move and evolve it does. This Wills Bill will fit the bill for modern New Zealanders so I welcome it.
Cosgrove Clayton: Wills Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Wills Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9800] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I rise to put the previous speaker Richard Worth at his ease. It is— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: No! We like to see his soul tortured! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I think he is a tortured soul; I do not think he needs our help. Mr Worth purports— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: From the eminent lawyer Mr Cosgrove! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No I do not in any way purport to be a lawyer neither eminent nor otherwise; I leave it to the “member for Monaco” to take up that. 
Mr Worth in his words has identified a mistake. Sadly that is not true. A “will” as defined in clause 8(1) is a document “made by a natural person;”—correct. Because it is already defined as that it is unnecessary and clumsy to refer to natural persons elsewhere. So the reference to natural persons was deliberately retained. It is the reason why the phrase “natural person” is not needed elsewhere. So to simplify it for the simple mind of Mr Worth I say that it becomes the starting point for that definition and it is not required right through. 
I suggest that the test Mr Finlayson suggested which was a very good suggestion is that laypeople—and I assume that by “laypeople” he meant non-lawyers—actually apprise themselves of the simple language in this bill. I suggest to other people that to do so might be helpful. Mr Worth might like to take some legal lessons from the learned Mr Finlayson in respect of definitions in legislation. 
 I also suggest a person who would be very apt—primevally—to test whether the language is appropriate in this legislation would of course be Bob Clarkson. If Bob understands it I think anyone will understand it. That is the acid test and I invite Mr Clarkson to stand up and advise us—in big print small words or pictures—whether he understands this legislation. If it works for him I think it will work for us all.
Auchinvole Chris: Succession (Homicide) Bill — In Committee 
Auchinvole Chris: Succession (Homicide) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9796] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the title of the Succession (Homicide) Bill . This is a sad title and it is a sad bill in many ways. Again I say it is a repugnant term and it is a repugnant situation that the bill has to deal with. It is based on the principle that no one should profit from committing a wrongful act. This is a significant principle in common law and it is a matter that certainly does need the consideration of Parliament. Parliament produces laws and laws although they do not necessarily prevent anybody from taking particular actions can in a civilised society attach consequences to those actions that break the law. The principle that no one should gain from an act of wrongdoing on his or her part is one of the principles that lifts society into a civilised state. 
This particular bill deals with the extreme end of wrongdoing. It seeks to codify the law that precludes a person who unlawfully kills another person from benefiting as a result of the victim’s death whether the benefit is from the victim’s estate or from other property arrangements. 
This bill follows the Law Commission’s report in 1997 on succession. Again I call on the Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to explain why this Government has not attended to this issue before now since it came to office. It seems a matter of course that there is little sense of urgency on the part of this Government to give effect to the recommendations and reports of the Law Commission. It would be nice to think that these sorts of things are taken as givens but they appear not to be. 
On a purely domestic front we still have far too many people losing their lives at the hands of others. This bill is in part a recognition of that. Also hopefully it will play its part in dissuading schemers who should be so evil as to want to take someone’s life to gain from that person’s death. It is an aptly entitled bill. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently.
Finlayson Christopher: Succession (Homicide) Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Succession (Homicide) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9795] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I will be fairly brief because in my analysis of Parts 1 and 2 I have dealt with the key points I wanted to make. In general I think that this is not a bad piece of legislation. It codifies the law that as I say prevents people who kill people from benefiting as a result of their crime. 
The only point I would make concerns clause 5—and perhaps again the Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove may like to take a call just to clarify one little matter for me—which deals with the effect and application of the legislation. Subclause (1) of clause 5 states that this legislation replaces the “rules of law equity and public policy” that prevent a killer from obtaining a benefit as a result of his or her nefarious act. When one looks at the schedule one sees that a number of enactments have been amended but that nothing has been repealed. So in a sense this is the first endeavour by the New Zealand Parliament to deal with this issue. I am not sure and never have been as we have dealt with it what exactly the rules of common law equity or public policy are that actually govern this situation at the moment. It is an interesting historical question that is shortly to be only of academic moment because the Act as I said will codify the law according to the terms of the legislation. It is new legislation for the New Zealand Parliament. It does not seek to repeal or update the law but I am not sure what the exact rules of common law are at the moment. 
With that brief comment I indicate that National will support the legislation. Notwithstanding that we are dealing with very unsavoury matters they are matters that do have to be dealt with—for example claims under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act which I have dealt with or claims under the Family Protection Act. In these kinds of circumstances clear rules are needed and that is why the National Party will support this legislation.
Cosgrove Clayton: Succession (Homicide) Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Succession (Homicide) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9794] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Mr Chairman with your leave and the leave of Mr Finlayson I will lapse momentarily to clause 4 in Part 1 to answer his question in respect of the term “immediately”. The first question I am advised is not whether a death is assisted suicide; the first question is actually whether it is homicide within the meaning of the bill—for example whether it is an unlawful a reckless or an intentional killing. So we go first to the criminal law and decide whether it was an unlawful killing. Then if it was homicide for the purposes of the bill we consider whether it was assisted suicide. What constitutes “immediately” would ultimately be determined by the courts but it does imply an element of proximity. So the term was not defined in this bill; it was a policy decision. It was not defined as such; that is an element to be left to the courts. 
I will address one other point that an Opposition member raised in respect of whether it is fair that guilt could be proved in civil proceedings on the balance of probabilities and therefore result in the loss of an inheritance. That is a civil proceeding and therefore the normal civil standard would apply and no criminal consequences would come into play. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Chauvel Charles: Succession (Homicide) Bill — In Committee 
Chauvel Charles: Succession (Homicide) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9792] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I take a brief call to address one or two of the points made by the previous speaker Chris Finlayson. As he says he was not present at the meeting of the Justice and Electoral Committee where we deliberated this matter and I think he is quite right on the point about the reference to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act in the commentary. That word “unduly” is clumsy and we ought to make it clear in the record of Parliament that as far as the select committee was concerned—and I think I can speak for the entire committee on this—we were assured of and accepted the advice that Te Ture Whenua Maori Act was absolutely unaffected by this legislation. We ought not to have used a loose adverb such as “unduly” in the commentary; that is quite right. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: A lazy adverb. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Yes a lazy adverb—certainly not the mot juste. I would also like to deal with the discussion of clause 10. I agree that these questions are not easy ones. It will be remembered by the Committee of the whole House that clause 10 essentially preserves a killer’s pre-existing claim against the victim’s estate in restitution or under the Matrimonial Property Act the Property (Relationships) Act or the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act provided it is not made more certain or more valuable. The New Zealand Law Society pointed out in its submissions that as originally drafted the bill could lead to inconsistencies regarding testamentary promises. A testamentary promise is as I said earlier an implied or expressed promise to reward a person for work or service in one’s will—a fairly broad concept obviously. If the deceased fails to keep that promise the promisee can gain reward by a claim in respect of the deceased’s estate under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act. 
Under clause 7 of the bill any disposition in satisfaction of a testamentary promise to the killer under the victim’s will would have been automatically revoked. The killer could not then have made a testamentary promises claim; the killer could have done that only if the victim had failed to provide for him or her in the will. So there was an ironical drafting issue with the legislation. It would be inconsistent in my view that a killer could recover payment for services if the victim failed to keep that promise but not if the victim did keep it. 
So that is why we have addressed the inconsistency with new subclause (2A) of clause 10 to ensure that a killer can claim payment in respect of a victim’s testamentary promise to reward the killer for services or work provided irrespective of whether the victim provided for the killer in the will. That again has been an unpalatable balancing exercise but none the less one that we felt we had to perform consistently with the objectives of the legislation. I think it is one we have performed satisfactorily.
Cosgrove Clayton: Succession (Homicide) Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Succession (Homicide) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9788] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I am more than happy to take a short call and I start by addressing the question posed by Mr Auchinvole. The simple answer is this. The member is right that the Law Commission reported in 1997. The Government of the day I recall was a National Government and I would simply answer that question by asking Mr Auchinvole why his Government did not move on it when it was in office. 
In addressing more notable points I would say simply that Ms Wilkinson raised some interesting points which are worth touching on. In essence I believe they were in relation to whether the bill accounts adequately for different levels of moral culpability in respect of killings. She also posed the proposition that the court should have the discretion to modify the effect of the disinheritance provisions. 
I would comment that the bill does indeed take account of different levels of moral culpability in different types of killing. For instance it does that through the definition of “homicide”. For example a killing must be reckless or intentional; a negligent killing is not enough. Recklessness is included because it involves an element of intention. It involves being aware of the risk of harm and then acting anyway. 
Also the bill specifically excludes certain types of killing that might be thought to amount to mercy killings. Assisted suicides have been mentioned. The bill also excludes killings pursuant to suicide pacts. These aspects of the definition of “homicide” acknowledge that some killings are more culpable than others. 
In respect of a discretion it would have to be said that a discretion is a difficult drafting proposition to action effectively. The Law Commission considered that point when it prepared its report. But the commission decided against that aspect of discretion because as I have said it is difficult to enact effectively. It is also fair to say that other foreign jurisdictions have struggled with the concept. In their view the question of whether a killing was sufficiently abhorrent to trigger the bar of profiting was better decided by Parliament. 
A key concern of the bill is to create greater certainty and it could be argued that having a discretion would actually reduce certainty and that more cases would end up before the courts. The other point that should be made is that currently there is no discretion of course in common law so this could increase uncertainty in itself. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Auchinvole Chris: Succession (Homicide) Bill — In Committee 
Auchinvole Chris: Succession (Homicide) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9788] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 1 of the Succession (Homicide) Bill. It is a bill that could be described—and was described in the select committee—as a repugnant bill. It is repugnant to a sense of decency and it is repugnant to a sense of normality to discuss and debate the reality of someone killing another person in the hope of benefiting from the death of that person. The preliminary provisions in Part 1 reflect exactly the circumstances that have to be dealt with and the Justice and Electoral Committee was very conscious that they do have to be dealt with at a parliamentary level. It falls to us to provide a blanket of protection through law for those who would otherwise be vulnerable. 
Part 1 gives the interpretation of some of the terms. For assisted suicide which my friend and colleague has just been speaking about the definition reads: “… if immediately before death the deceased asked the other person to help them commit suicide;”. The definition for homicide states that it “means the killing of a person or a child who has not become a person by another person intentionally or recklessly by any means that would be an offence under New Zealand law whether done in New Zealand or elsewhere”. It goes on to describe other terms and references all of which frankly reflect badly on a society where it seems life has become so cheap and inconsequential that we have a spiralling rate of violent crime that leads to death. 
From memory I think it is the people of Tibet who have no word in their language for murder. What a wonderful situation what a wonderful place and what a wonderful attitude! But here we do and we need to have laws to cope with the situation—laws like this one which prevents any possibility of killers receiving or becoming entitled to or claiming interest in property as the result of the death of the killer’s victim. 
Being part of the select committee discussing this bill was an interesting exercise. We were certainly engaged in a lot of thought and it left me wondering whether in fact there should not be much wider application of law preventing criminals from benefiting from crime. This is a well-established principle but in the case of succession courts have been required to resolve any uncertainties on a case by case basis which causes delays in and costs to the administration of estates which are often modest in their value. This bill will simplify that. 
Something that is of concern though—and the Minister may choose to address this—is the fact that the Law Commission reported in 1997 on the law of succession and recommended then that there should be statutory rules clarifying a killer’s rights and disentitlements. Why has this taken quite so long since the Law Commission’s report in 1997 to surface as legislation? I think that is a question that needs to be answered in conjunction with other questions about this Government’s neglect in response to Law Commission reports.