Mark Ron: Succession (Homicide) Bill — First Reading 
Mark Ron: Succession (Homicide) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5573] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First and to say that New Zealand First will likewise be supporting the Succession (Homicide) Bill through its first reading and on to the Justice and Electoral Committee. We point out that we do not have a representative on the Justice and Electoral Committee so we will be reliant upon the people who sit on that committee to produce a clear report. 
In acknowledging all of the concerns raised by previous speakers we wish to point out a couple of things. We point out that report No. 38 from the Law Commission  
Succession Law: Homicidal Heirs 
 was produced in 1997. I have just sat and listened to a speech that said we need to expedite matters. How expeditious one would ask has it been to have legislation sitting on the shelves of the House and gathering dust for coming up to 10 years and to not have moved it? I take note of Mr Power’s speech in the House but I say that report was produced for the then Minister of Justice the Hon Doug Graham—a National Minister. One could rightfully ask the previous National speakers what the heck their members of Parliament and Ministers were doing at that time. What did they do subsequent to receiving the report? Why did they sit on it for so long? If the issues are of such concern why was the bill not progressed before now? We have seen the bill languish again for a further 6 or 7 years and now we are talking about being cautious and taking our time. 
I understand the concerns expressed by members who were formerly in the legal fraternity but let me point to page 2 of the Law Commission’s report: “Homicidal heirs cases arise more often than may at first be thought.” Members should bear in mind that the report was written in 1997. It continues: “From 1982 to 1992 the number of culpable homicides and attempted homicides almost doubled from 53 to 103 and about half of these occurred in a domestic setting. Culpable homicide that was murder increased steadily in New Zealand between 1960 and 1985: from an average of six per year between 1960 and 1964 to an average of 27 per year”—am I right that that is an increase of 800 percent; I would have thought that that would have been a concern some time ago—“between 1980 and 1984. The Public Trust Office alone identified eight estates it had administered involving problems of homicidal heirs in the last 10 years or so.” Again I ask members to remember that this report was written in 1997 for the Hon Doug Graham. The report continues: “Even over the brief period from November 1996 to March 1997”—what are we talking about there; 5 months?—“two current High Court proceedings involving homicidal heirs problems were made known to the Commission.” 
Well if ever there was a message that said we should hurry up and catch up because we have a looming problem that would be it. Yet nothing happened between 1997 and 1999 when there was a change of Government and nothing has happened since then until now. Now we have speakers who are standing up and saying we have to be cautious and know what we are doing and study this bill carefully. I would have thought 10 years of study would have been ample. I would have thought 10 years of examination of the Law Commission’s report and its recommendations by the legal fraternity would have been ample. 
But we are tolerant people in New Zealand First. We will watch the select committee do its work. We do not expect to see an undue extension of the report-back time of this bill. The fact is that politicians around the country rattle on about crime and how we must clamp down on violent crime and rattle on about how they want to quickly and expeditiously pass laws to confiscate the assets of criminals who gain monetarily through their illegal activities. We have had legislation put before the House in respect of the confiscation of assets. This bill is but another tool in the weapons against crime another tool to deter crime and another tool to stop criminals from profiteering from their criminal acts. And here we are saying we should be careful about the legislation! Quite frankly some of us get tired of hearing that sort of thing. We want to see some work done on the issue and New Zealand First would have thought that 10 years on the waiting train was perfectly long enough for that. People who are members of the Law Society and the legal community know full well what is needed to be done in this legislation. After all they made the submissions to the Law Commission did they not?