Tanczos Nandor: Succession (Homicide) Bill — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Succession (Homicide) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5574] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I think Mr Mark is perhaps being a little bit unkind to suggest that a desire to look carefully at the legislation and to make sure we are enacting legislation that works and does not have various unintended consequences is unnecessarily delaying. It is important that the Justice and Electoral Committee takes the time needed to comb through the legislation and to make sure that it does what Parliament intends it to do. There are some difficult issues in the legislation as there are in some of the other matters that the member raises such as the proceeds of crime legislation which I know that the Government has mooted. Although there is a concern to make sure that people do not derive benefit from criminal activities there is also a valid point in ensuring that the right people are being targeted and that we do not introduce legislation that is so draconian as to punish people unfairly. So it is important that we take the time necessary to look at this issue carefully. 
Having said that I point out that the Green Party certainly supports this bill going to the select committee and I would imagine through the various stages as long as some of the difficult issues can be teased out and properly sorted out. We support the bill because in principle of course it is right. Other members have said before me that it is repugnant that someone should kill a person then benefit from the act by getting access to that person’s estate or property. The point has been made quite properly that this matter is reasonably settled in law but that some specific applications are uncertain and therefore need to be clarified in order to reduce court time and make things move more speedily. So it is useful for Parliament to be addressing this legislation. 
One of the benefits of having a Government that is a bit hamstrung on the numbers is that there is much less on the legislative agenda and therefore the House has the opportunity to go back through these Law Commission reports. The commission does an enormous amount of good work in making all these recommendations and they are often ignored for decade after decade. It is only when we have a hamstrung Government that we able to bring this stuff to the House and get it through. This is not sexy legislation but is important law reform. Indeed that is the role of the Law Commission. So I say: “Yay for the MMP environment!”. 
I thank Mr Power for making a number of good points which were backed up by Kate Wilkinson. Although the bill looks quite straightforward on the face of it it has some difficult knotty issues. It has complexities that we need to work through. 
I would like to touch on a couple of points raised by Mr Power. The first is whether the bill would apply where a person kills someone in self-defence. The way I read the bill I would have thought that it would not apply. Perhaps I misunderstood what is meant by “homicide”. I would have thought that someone using the defence of “self-defence” would be found not guilty. It raises another question around the interpretation of self-defence particularly in cases raised by Mr Power of domestic violence and longstanding abuse. I know of difficulty and uncertainty in the courts around the interpretation of self-defence where a person does not kill someone in the heat of the moment when under attack but after perhaps decades of oppression and abuse one day that person snaps and kills another person. I understand there have been cases of that nature where there has not been a finding of self-defence. I think many members would have a great deal of empathy with that sort of case. There are difficult issues around self-defence that we need to work through. 
Another issue raised by Mr Power and also by Ms Wilkinson related to timing when someone is found guilty and ultimately the conviction is quashed as provided for in clause 13(1) but that applies after considerable time. That raises difficult issues in terms of the restitution that will go to people who have been unfairly deprived of a benefit possibly a substantial benefit through no wrongdoing of their own. 
The fact of people being wrongfully found guilty is a live issue in this country. A number of cases concern those of us who are worried about the state of the criminal justice system. A number of people in jail have convictions that raise concern among members of the public and some members of this House. The proposal for an independent body to review cases for possible miscarriages of justice is an idea whose time has come. That issue relates to the bill as well. 
Mr Power raised the question of insanity but I think he is wrong. From my reading of clause 14 I think that concern is addressed. He wondered what happens when a person kills someone and is found to have been insane at the time. I think clause 14 is quite clear. Although we could argue about the policy intent I do not think there is any confusion. 
The only other issue I would like to raise on behalf of the Green Party at this stage was also raised by Kate Wilkinson. If someone is alleged to be guilty of the homicide of a person but has not been prosecuted in New Zealand this bill would allow a court in hearing the proceedings to decide for the purposes of this legislation whether the killing of a person or a child who has not become a person has taken place; if so if the alleged killer had been prosecuted in New Zealand that person would have been found guilty of the homicide of that person or been found not guilty by reason of insanity. The point that concerns me and was raised by Ms Wilkinson was that the decision would be based on the balance of probabilities. That is a concern because it seems to produce a real anomaly within the justice system whereby if a person is going to be criminally prosecuted it must be beyond reasonable doubt but for the purposes of this bill it would be on the balance of probabilities. 
That is a real concern and particularly in light of increasing reliance of the test of balance of probabilities into areas where it does not rightly belong. Again I refer to the Proceeds of Crime Act that Mr Mark mentioned and although the legislation has not yet been introduced to the House we know the Government has announced a policy intention of saying that people will have their property confiscated on the basis of a balance of probabilities test. Even if a person has been acquitted in this country under that proposed legislation property could still be confiscated on the balance of probabilities if the person is assumed to have committed an offence. 
This bill is simply a part of that broader package of the extension of the balance of probabilities test into areas that really lie on the border between civil and criminal proceedings and in areas where they do not rightly belong. Even if a person has not been found guilty of a homicide if he or she is found on that basis to have killed someone wrongfully then the effect on the person’s reputation will be considerable. These are very real issues but nevertheless the Green Party supports the bill to the select committee and looks forward to dealing with these questions in more detail at that stage.