Walker Holly: Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Walker Holly: Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3925. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 E te Rangatira o te Whakaruruhau nei te hunga koko tataki me te kaupapa o Te Wiki o Te Reo Maori taketake o te whenua nei tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
To the Speaker of this House the witty speakers and the matter that relates to Maori Language Week the indigenous language of this country acknowledgments to you all. 
] 
I am happy to take a short call on the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill to support my colleagues in articulating the reasons why the Green Party will vote to support this bill. I would like to begin by offering my sympathies to the bill’s sponsor Simon O’Connor who appears to have drawn somewhat of the short straw with this bill and has very selflessly put forward what really should be a Government bill—and should have been a Government bill many years ago—as a member’s bill in his name. I guess one thing we can all celebrate is that this bill is no longer cluttering up the ballot and we can look forward to some bolder and more interesting and innovative bills coming from the member in future. Long may his luck with the ballot continue. 
 As my colleagues will outline the Green Party will be supporting this bill which repeals the Joint Family Homes Act 1964. This change is long overdue and we note that the Law Commission first recommended its repeal as long ago as 2001. So it is very much a case of better late than never. 
Under the Joint Family Homes Act 1964 a dwelling occupied as their home by a married couple and owned by either or both of them could be vested in the husband and wife as joint tenants. At the time the advantages of this provision were considered to be savings in death duty a protection against unsecured creditors security for the spouse not on the title—which in those days was usually the wife—the ability to vest a home in both spouses without incurring stamp or gift duty and the saving of legal costs in the case of very small estates. 
In the nearly 50 years since the legislation was enacted most of those advantages have since evaporated. Most of them were superseded by the Matrimonial Property Act in 1976 namely the provisions related to death duty shared title and gift and stamp duty. The only outstanding benefit as we have just heard from the member Lianne Dalziel is protection from creditors and some minor advantages in relation to legal costs. The Law Commission concluded in 2001 that these were not sufficient to retain this legislation. 
What I would like to add to the debate which the Law Commission did outline are the issues with discrimination on the basis of marital status that are entrenched in this outdated bill. As we know in the intervening years there has been a trend away from formal legal marriage towards de facto relationships which have since been recognised in law. And as I know probably better than many members as my partner and I are happily united in civil union we also now have the option of civil unions in New Zealand and have done since 2004. 
The 1964 legislation has never been updated to take this into account. So what we have is a prima facie case where under the Human Rights Act 1993 discrimination on the grounds of marital status is prohibited and it is clear that to afford a protection against the claims of creditors to married couples that is unavailable to anyone else is discriminatory. That alone should be reason enough for the repeal of this legislation. 
The Green Party is very happy to vote in support of this bill and we look forward to the future contributions in the members’ ballot from the member Simon O’Connor. Kia ora.