O'Connor Simon: Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
O'Connor Simon: Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 25 July 2012. Volume:682;Page:3921. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill be now read a first time. 
 I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. The purpose of this bill is very simple but the principles underlying the introduction of this bill are incredibly important. The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Joint Family Homes Act of 1964 and particularly for the people in the Green Party I want to acknowledge that this is not repealing having joints in the family home. 
This is also a bill that is a statement about the laws of New Zealand that they need to be tidy simple current and up to date and is also about reducing tautological redundancy if you will allow me a little bit of etymological humour. 
Tim Macindoe 
: Yes please. 
SIMON O’CONNOR 
: Thank you. I really enjoyed that now that the Labour Party has gone on holiday. Anyway before I turn to the particulars of this bill I do want to reflect on the context in which it was introduced. It is almost 8 months to the day in fact 8 months tomorrow that I was elected to Parliament to the great seat in fact the best seat in Parliament the seat of Tamaki. They are absolutely thrilled that their new member of Parliament is having the opportunity to take a piece of legislation a member’s piece of legislation through the House. It is a really great privilege to be able to guide it through and to learn the process. That does not take away from the importance of the bill but what it is is an opportunity to be a legislator. I suppose it is a good reminder to us all in the House that our first core purpose is to be legislators so I am absolutely thrilled and thrilled too that my constituents are happy with that. I have been having a lot of good engagement with them and with lawyers and that around Auckland in particular. It is an honour to be here to have a bill in my name so early in the piece. 
I want to now turn to thank my colleagues who have given me great support in preparing for this and the Clerk and others in Parliament who have assisted. Again this is a new experience. My thanks also to those in the community. As I said I was struck from the moment it was pulled out of the ballot in the Table Office how many people be they media lawyers or others were on the phone to ask questions around this. That is always an excellent way to polish up your knowledge of and reading on the area. 
I noted that the primary purpose of the bill is to repeal the Joint Family Homes Act of 1964 but I also noted that there is a wider philosophy within this and that is to make legislation that is accessible clear concise up to date non-repetitive and current. This is emblematic of National’s philosophy. It is a commitment to legal clarity to reducing red tape and to eliminating unnecessary legislation. It is a benign little bill in this House and I am looking forward to the unanimous support of the House. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Hear hear. 
SIMON O’CONNOR 
: Indeed. Because you know who wants to stand up here and say that we need more legislation and more red tape? This really is a simple bill to get those easy things done and for all of us to make this country a little bit better. 
I do want to turn now to the legislation itself and to talk a little bit about the background that provides the context around the whole repeal bill. The Joint Family Homes Act was put through in 1964 to protect the family home. Anecdotally what it was there for was that if the wife or the husband went bankrupt then the house itself could not be lost. It was to be registered in the joint name of the married couple. Importantly it was there to secure the family home from unsecured creditors and I think that is one distinction that I have needed to put out to the public when talking with them over recent weeks and months. It was a situation again where bankruptcy was the primary concern—that if the husband or the wife went bankrupt there was an opportunity to protect the family home. 
Another important aspect or area of the Act that was put through and not often discussed is that it protected only the equity of the house or up to $103000. I know there is often a lot of talk in the House around rising house prices and so forth so this bill which is seeking to repeal the Act is shown in the context of really bringing things up to date. 
I should return to the initial Act of 1964 not that I was around at the time of course. At the time the Act came through there were death duties stamp duties and gift duties. We find now that there is no need for the Act. The Law Commission realised this in 2001. It put out a fairly substantial report and I am quite sure all members of the House have pored over that word for word. It was in 2001 that the Law Commission recommended this change and my colleague the now Hon Jo Goodhew sponsored the bill but on taking the Crown warrant she had to hand it over. I took a bit of time to consider whether to put my name to this and as I was saying to someone the other day I did not do so lightly. All legislation is important. I think actually it is a really good example of the efficacy of being in the Table Office when the ballot is being drawn. The first time I put my name to a bill the first time I went to the Table Office the bill got drawn out. So I am looking forward to my second and third member’s bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You should have taken a Lotto ticket instead. 
SIMON O’CONNOR 
: I did. I was not so lucky on that one Mr Mallard. The Law Commission has said that this Act is no longer needed. This is a chance to repeal it. What we have seen is that new legislation over the years has replaced the need for this Joint Family Homes Act. We have the Property (Relationships) Act which splits assets automatically. We have family trusts and the added value of late that gift duty is no longer required. We also note that the previous Act limited the amount that could be held to unsecured creditors. As I said death duties have gone and stamp duties have gone and the Act is now a redundant piece of legislation. 
Finally turning to the practical elements when this Act first started we had over 30000 people who used it but back in 2001 it was just over 1000—of course that is about 11 years ago. Its usage has dropped. I do want to recommend this bill to the House and in doing so I want to return to first principles. This member’s bill sits on the principles of making law that is accessible clear and up to date. It is about keeping our statute book up to date and to that end this bill is very important. It is important too as it brings clarity to the issues of relationships and property. Other laws are well in place to protect Kiwis in this matter and I think that is one key message for those listening in. 
The repeal of the Joint Family Homes Act is not going to revolutionise this country. It is not going to make society better in one bold stroke but it is a small step in the right direction. So Mr Speaker and colleagues in the House I ask for your support as we move this bill in its first reading.