Gosche Mark: Succession (Homicide) Bill — Second Reading 
Gosche Mark: Succession (Homicide) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:8996] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I am pleased to be following the previous speaker in this debate— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Why? 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: —because at least he was on the Justice and Electoral Committee; I do not have an excuse. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: He doesn’t even know the name of the bill. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: I think I know the name of the bill—it is the Succession (Homicide) Bill. It has been an interesting afternoon listening to those who sat on the select committee that debated this bill because it has made me a little bit wiser. Having read some of the notes that were provided to me for this speech and having listened to the debate I think it is now my turn to explain why this bill is necessary. 
It was interesting to note that we have dealt with this issue on a case by case basis through the courts in New Zealand’s past and that must have been a very painful experience for a lot of people. The good thing about this legislation when it comes to be is that people will not have to go through that agony again because we are putting into law something I think that most—in fact all—New Zealanders would agree with. 
There have been some interesting changes made by the select committee members who obviously heard from a lot of people who are knowledgable on these facts and I think it is good that the select committee has taken note of those things. I like Doug Woolerton found it interesting that there are areas where people have killed by negligence infanticide suicide pacts and assisted suicide and that the law in those cases recognises that they are not so morally repugnant. I guess there will be some debate as Doug Woolerton suggested about whether that is commonly agreed. But in this situation it is agreed so those people would not be excluded from profiting. Obviously though there are provisos in the law that will deal with that. 
The other issue that has been raised by speakers in the debate relates to the sense of people not being punished twice. So if they were to receive a benefit of sorts that was not related to the killing then that benefit would not be excluded. I suppose it will take a bit of effort in getting people’s heads around that issue but I think I understand what the law and the committee is proposing and I suppose that on balance it will be a correct principle to take forward in this legislation. 
Having not been on the select committee and having not studied this bill greatly in the past but having heard the debate of those people who did and having read the explanations made by the select committee in its commentary for the changes that have been promoted I am sure that this will be one bill that will go through without any real contention. It is good that we are passing legislation that will remove people from having to challenge these things on a case by case basis in the courts which as I said earlier in my speech must have been a painful exercise. I suppose the only people who would have profited in a narrow sense would have been those who represented such people in the courts. So we will now have a law that takes the pain away and I am pleased to support it. 
Bill read a second time.