Finlayson Christopher: Succession (Homicide) Bill — Second Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Succession (Homicide) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:8987] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 The Succession (Homicide) Bill is the second of the trilogy of bills that we are dealing with this afternoon that arises out of a Law Commission report—in this case the report  
Succession Law: Homicidal Heirs 
 dated 15 July 1997. If one reads the introduction to that report one sees that this issue has had a very long history. In this case it goes back almost 30 years. The then Property Law and Equity Reform Committee wrote a report in 1976 called  
The Effect of Culpable Homicide on Rights of Succession 
. Then as a result of a case in the High Court in 1996 the then Minister of Justice Sir Douglas Graham asked the Law Commission to look at this issue. It reported back on 15 July 1997 and 10 years later we have this technical legislation. 
I will reserve most of my comments on the detail of the bill to the Committee stage. As the Minister Ruth Dyson said the bill codifies the law that precludes a person who unlawfully kills another person from benefiting from the death of that person. Of course that includes benefit from the proceeds of the victim’s estate or from any non-probate assets. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee worked very methodically through the legislation. Surprisingly a few issues were raised relating to joint tenancies and restrictions on claims that could be made. An important issue that I will deal with in the Committee stage is about the application by the victim’s estate under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. Another important issue arises under clause 15 and that is on what is to happen in terms of evidence if there is no criminal prosecution in New Zealand. Members will see a minor change has been made to subclause (1) in relation to a person who has been prosecuted in respect of a homicide but who has been acquitted other than on grounds of insanity or for example if the prosecution has been stayed or withdrawn. I will address those issues in the Committee stage. 
There are only brief points that I want to address now to illustrate the careful nature of the select committee’s work. We looked at the possible impact of the Simultaneous Deaths Act 1958 and are satisfied that if a killer and a victim died simultaneously then the killer would be treated as predeceasing the victim. The only other point I want to raise at the second reading stage concerns the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. I do not know whether the commentary on this bill is exactly accurate because it states that the select committee was satisfied that Maori land succession under that Act would not be “unduly affected” by this bill. That is a classic case of why one should be very careful about using adverbs because the adverb “unduly” renders the commentary a little misleading. I thought the select committee was satisfied that the 1993 Act would not be affected at all by this bill but maybe Mr Chauvel or my friend Ms Pillay may care to deal with that matter in their speeches. 
That is all I have to say on the second reading of this bill. National supports this legislation. It is overdue by about 30 years.