Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill

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.

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 Tāmaki. 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.

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 $103,000. 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.

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 30,000 people who used it, but back in 2001 it was just over 1,000—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.

When the Joint Family Homes Act 1950, the predecessor to the legislation that would be repealed by this bill, the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill, was enacted, the then National Government described that Act as part of its programme to reinforce Christian family values. What the current Act does, as we have heard from the previous speaker, Simon O’Connor, is allow a married couple that lives in a house owned by either or both of them to have the house vested in both of them as joint tenants. Originally there was a great deal of benefit in doing this because it would save potential liabilities for death duties, to unsecured creditors, for gift duty, and in respect of other anomalies that have now been excised from the statute book. Most of these advantages simply do not exist any more, except, perhaps, for some of the creditors protection and perhaps some minor advantages in relation to legal costs.

That is why, in December 2001, the Law Commission recommended that the Act be removed from the statute book. The Law Commission points out in its report that the legislation discriminates against single owners; it is anomalous, given the way in which our society has evolved; it discriminates against those in de facto relationships; the protection that it provides against creditors is limited; and it takes into account neither the differences in property values around the country nor the fact that trusts are often used on a contemporary basis to protect against creditors.

The Law Commission report is an excellent report. The bill replicates almost exactly the Law Commission’s recommendations. The Labour Opposition will be delighted, for those reasons, to support it to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee, and we will listen to the evidence given at the select committee carefully.

Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Whakanuia Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker, and to us, the House. Celebrate Māori Language Week.]

I would like to congratulate my colleague Simon O’Connor, the member for Tāmaki, on his achievement in bringing this measure, the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill, to the House. It is a significant matter for any MP to advance a member’s bill, but to be doing so in his first year of office is particularly meritorious. Mr O’Connor has made an excellent start to his parliamentary career, and, if I may say so, the people of Tāmaki made an excellent choice in sending him here. Me whakanuia e tātou. [We need to celebrate it.]

I would also like to commend the Waikato Bay of Plenty Magic team for a stunning victory in last weekend’s ANZ netball championship over the Melbourne Vixens. In fact, I would like to describe their superb fightback to clinch the title in the dying moments at some length, but I suspect that some humourless representative of a less talented region would object, on the grounds that the Magic’s brilliance may not be fundamental to the core provisions of this Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill.

One might argue that Mr O’Connor has demonstrated the stunning leadership of Laura Langman in triumphing in the lottery that is a parliamentary member’s bill ballot, or that he has reflected the coaching expertise of a Noeline Taurua in ensuring that all members of our caucus are well prepared and understand how we must contribute to the team effort in the course of this first reading debate—perhaps the never-say-die tenacity of a Casey Williams. Hōmai te pakipaki to them all. We are so proud of our girls and their achievements. But I do note that their performance was tinged with sadness, as we all felt for Irene van Dyk, who suffered the death of her mother just days before the final. Truly, those last goals that secured the title were for Irene’s mother, and we send our aroha and prayers to the family as they prepare for the funeral this week.

But before I suffer the devastating interception of a Leana de Bruin, seeking to bring this analogy to a close, let me instead offer on behalf of this House my very best wishes to the home side, which will surely prevail in its crusade against the hopes of the south at the Waikato Stadium this Friday night. Kia kaha. Go the Chiefs. I know the whole House will be willing them all on—or at least those of us with two eyes and a sense of destiny.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know this is a relatively wide-ranging speech, and there was a point I think, when we were playing the Australians, where everyone was behind the member, but I think now he is being absolutely controversial in his attacks on Canterbury. It should stop, and he should get back to the bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I thank the honourable member for his views, and indicate to the member on my right that I had indicated several times that he should speak to the bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your indulgence. I am sure the people of the Waikato will be reminded from that point of order about why they sent Mr Mallard slightly south, but, yes, I appreciate that I must get to the point.

As you may have gathered, I was really hoping that I might have got to take a call in the general debate this afternoon. Had I done so, I would also have referred to the Law Commission’s 2001 report The Future of the Joint Family Homes Act. In his introductory remarks, the member for Tāmaki acknowledged the commission’s report, which observed that “The advantages flowing from registration as a joint family home, were at the commencement of the scheme, these: a substantial death duty saving; a degree of protection against unsecured creditors … the security for a spouse not already on the title (usually the wife) of being able, on becoming a co-owner, to thwart dispositions of the property of which she disapproved (as improvident for example); the convenience of being able, as part of financial planning schemes (usually but not invariably tax driven), to vest their homes in both spouses without incurring stamp or gift duty; and the saving of legal costs in the case of very small estates …”.

The commission then concluded—and I remind the House that this was more than a decade ago: “In the half-century since the coming into force of the Joint Family Homes Act 1950, most of these advantages have evaporated.” Death duties, estate duties, stamp duty, and gift duty are all now abolished. In relation to protection from creditors, the Law Commission noted that registration as a joint family home did not often make a difference in the way the estates of bankrupts were disposed of.

Jumping ahead to 2012, it is clear that this Act we are considering repealing is discriminatory, as it excludes de facto partners, civil union partners, and those who live alone. So for many reasons, most of which have already been outlined by the member in charge of the bill, this Act is now redundant. I commend the member for Tāmaki for acting on the Law Commission’s long-deferred recommendation and bringing it to the House. Kua mutu, kai raro.

I just want to speak briefly to the introduction of the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill, to also join in the spirit, I guess—I am hoping that there will be a similar response to my member’s bill, which is next on the Order Paper—and to say that we will certainly support the bill to select committee. It does raise an issue that has been dealt with substantially by the Law Commission, so, therefore, it is a very good bill for the member Simon O’Connor to be introducing. I think I heard him say that the first time he went down for a ballot he had it drawn. I say congratulations to that member. I have been here a very long time. I do not often get bills on the Order Paper, but I have got one next, and I do hope that I am able to encourage members on that side of the House to support it, at least to select committee.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: So he’s scoring at 100 percent—that’s pretty good.

It is actually not bad. It is actually not bad on every level. He has scored at 100 percent. I just thought I would note for the record what others have mentioned—not to traverse the ground about where the legislation originally came from but simply to comment on the one remaining element of protection that it does offer, and that is protection against creditors. When one looks at the detail of the Law Commission report around that remaining protection, though, it actually is more stated than real. It is less of substance in terms of a remaining protection. In terms of the rights of spouses or their survivor, they are protected from bankruptcy in execution, but the rights of secured creditors remain unaffected. So it really is not quite a substantial protection.

The other thing is that the specified sum, which is fixed from time to time by Order in Council, is currently $82,000 for the joint family home—an amount that was fixed in 1996. [Interruption] Well, I do not know that there are many places where one can purchase a house for $82,000 or anywhere near it, but I certainly know that property prices have been increasing in Christchurch quite considerably, having been recently in the property market myself. I think—and this is going back in my memory—we signed up for a joint family home on the basis that you just signed up for a joint family home. There really was not any substantial reason for so doing. I think the time for this legislation to stay on our books has probably gone, and that is certainly the conclusion the Law Commission reached in December 2001.

I congratulate the member on his success, and look forward to some positive support for my member’s bill, which is next on the Order Paper.

E te Rangatira o te Whakaruruhau nei, te hunga kōkō tātākī me te kaupapa o Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori, taketake o te whenua nei, tēnā koutou katoa.

[To the Speaker of this House, the witty speakers, and the matter that relates to Māori Language Week, the indigenous language of this country, acknowledgments to you all.]

I am happy to take a short call on the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill, to support my colleagues in articulating the reasons why the Green Party will vote to support this bill. I would like to begin by offering my sympathies to the bill’s sponsor, Simon O’Connor, who appears to have drawn somewhat of the short straw with this bill, and has very selflessly put forward what really should be a Government bill—and should have been a Government bill many years ago—as a member’s bill in his name. I guess one thing we can all celebrate is that this bill is no longer cluttering up the ballot, and we can look forward to some bolder and more interesting and innovative bills coming from the member in future. Long may his luck with the ballot continue.

As my colleagues will outline, the Green Party will be supporting this bill, which repeals the Joint Family Homes Act 1964. This change is long overdue, and we note that the Law Commission first recommended its repeal as long ago as 2001. So it is very much a case of better late than never.

Under the Joint Family Homes Act 1964 a dwelling occupied as their home by a married couple and owned by either or both of them could be vested in the husband and wife as joint tenants. At the time, the advantages of this provision were considered to be savings in death duty, a protection against unsecured creditors, security for the spouse not on the title—which in those days was usually the wife—the ability to vest a home in both spouses without incurring stamp or gift duty, and the saving of legal costs in the case of very small estates.

In the nearly 50 years since the legislation was enacted, most of those advantages have since evaporated. Most of them were superseded by the Matrimonial Property Act in 1976, namely the provisions related to death duty, shared title, and gift and stamp duty. The only outstanding benefit, as we have just heard from the member Lianne Dalziel, is protection from creditors and some minor advantages in relation to legal costs. The Law Commission concluded in 2001 that these were not sufficient to retain this legislation.

What I would like to add to the debate, which the Law Commission did outline, are the issues with discrimination on the basis of marital status that are entrenched in this outdated bill. As we know, in the intervening years there has been a trend away from formal legal marriage towards de facto relationships, which have since been recognised in law. And, as I know probably better than many members, as my partner and I are happily united in civil union, we also now have the option of civil unions in New Zealand and have done since 2004.

The 1964 legislation has never been updated to take this into account. So what we have is a prima facie case where under the Human Rights Act 1993 discrimination on the grounds of marital status is prohibited, and it is clear that to afford a protection against the claims of creditors to married couples that is unavailable to anyone else is discriminatory. That alone should be reason enough for the repeal of this legislation.

The Green Party is very happy to vote in support of this bill, and we look forward to the future contributions in the members’ ballot from the member Simon O’Connor. Kia ora.

Like many other members of the House who have been legal practitioners, I have acted in the registration of so many joint family homes over the years that I have certainly lost count of them. The Joint Family Homes Act was a very, very popular piece of legislation and it was a very, very popular thing for people to do. I might say that it was a nice little earner as well for those of us in the legal profession. So that was an advantage all by itself.

💬 Dr Cam Calder: Very candid of you, Denis—very candid of you.

Thank you; thank you so much. It was, of course, fundamentally a way in which a husband and wife could become the joint owners of a property, and become the legal and beneficial owners thereof. It was a convenient and inexpensive way to reflect the real interest of both the husband and the wife in the family home. It offered some protection against creditors, but not very much, and I do not think that was ever a major reason for people registering joint family homes. It meant a transmission by survivorship if one of them died; that was important to them. It confirmed equal rights to occupy and use a property, and that was pretty important, especially to wives, who liked to see this being done, for obvious reasons. It prevented alienation of the interests of either party while both were living—again very popular, especially with wives. It did not affect the capacity to mortgage, sell, or charge, with the agreement of both parties.

It was not property for the purposes of the Insolvency Act, but the main reason was that it was a transaction that was exempt from stamp duties while they were applied, from estate duties while they were applied, and until relatively recently from gift duty, which has now also been abolished. Now that those things have been abolished, the popularity of registering joint family homes is, of course, reduced. It is sometimes said that there is a lingering advantage in joint family homes with the protection against creditors. But as I said before, I do not believe that was ever a primary consideration for most people who registered joint family homes. So the loss of that very limited protection, which was not a primary reason for joint family homes, will not really be missed, and it is not a reason for opposing this bill, the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill.

The joint family homes legislation and facility was very popular, but it is no longer necessary. One of the disadvantages of it, of course, was that it was discriminatory, in that it did not apply to de facto partners, and that it did not apply to single owners. It has been superseded, of course, by matrimonial legislation, which provides the same facility in a different way. So we in New Zealand First agree that the Joint Family Homes Act is redundant, and we will certainly support this bill going on to the select committee.

Tēnā tātou e te Whare. It is a great pleasure to rise and speak briefly on this bill, the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill. It is wonderful that occasionally we get the chance to remove legislation from the statute book that is no longer necessary. Normally we are making legislation; this is an opportunity to remove redundant legislation, and I want to congratulate my colleague Simon O’Connor who very early in his career has achieved the opportunity to bring a member’s bill to the House—well done, Simon.

As we know, the purpose of this Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill is to repeal the Joint Family Homes Act 1964. The bill effectively seeks to tidy up New Zealand’s existing legislation on relationship law, and to ensure it is up to date and current. It is important to consider 1964. What was happening in 1964? Well, in music the Beatles were storming the USA with their tour to the USA, and took the top five places in the Billboard Hot 100—the top five places in the Billboard Hot 100. I can see Denis O’Rourke over there thinking is it “Can’t Buy Me Love”? Yes, Denis, it was. “Twist and Shout”, Mr Mallard? Yes. “She Loves You”, Parekura. That is right. “I Want to Hold Your Hand”, who would be that? Yes, Rino. And, “Please Please Me”, Charles Chauvel. Those were the top five in the Billboard Hot 100 in 1964 when this legislation that we are repealing was enacted.

What else was happening in 1964? In 1964 we had the Tokyo Olympics Games, where Peter Snell won a gold medal in the 800 and 1,500 metres. Peter Snell achieved notoriety and fame in New Zealand for the rest of his life as a double gold medallist in Tokyo. Nikita Khrushchev, whom many of us may have seen pictures of banging his shoe on the table of the United Nations, was mysteriously deposed from leadership of the Soviet Union. And Barbara Hepworth, that well-known, internationally renowned sculptor unveiled Single Form, her sculpture outside the UN headquarters. Andy Warhol, of course, produced his signature five Marilyns series.

In 1964—and there are some in the House who can probably remember—there were droves of schoolboys and schoolgirls wearing caps and berets going to school on bicycles. Yes, it did happen—it did happen. Guys who erred in school cadets, which was another event in 1964 that many took part in, were asked to run around the field at school, carrying a .303 rifle above their heads, or, if it was outside of school cadets and they were in the classroom, they were often given a couple of cuts with a cane.

That was then and this is now. I mention this: in the family we are talking about, dad probably went to the pub, there was early 6 o’clock closing, and he would get home to the wife. That was another thing in 1964 that was extant then. Of course, Austin Mitchell wrote about these times in his classic tome The Half Gallon Quarter Acre Pavlova Paradise. But that was then and this is now, and in 2001 the Law Commission advised the repeal of the Act, noting that the public has ample alternative legal devices at its disposal in its absence. I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora e te whānau. Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I congratulate sincerely the member Simon O’Connor on his Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill being picked out of the ballot. I also have a bill in there—for a couple of years now—and it takes a while to get the luck that that member has had, so congratulations.

The background to this bill is very simple. Some time before 2001 the then Minister asked the Law Commission to have a look at this area, at whether enough changes had occurred and whether we needed the Joint Family Homes Act 1964. The Law Commission went away and did a detailed piece of work. Clearly, people who have spoken today have read that report. After that examination, the commission concluded that there were only two serious bits remaining that needed to be talked about: protection from creditors—and other members have talked about that—and savings in legal costs in developing joint family homes. The Law Commission then had a look at both of those and concluded that there was nothing there that required the Act to stay on the statute book. In 2001 its report said that the Act should go and, alongside that, the provision in the Family Protection Act that also is repealed by this particular bill also needed to go.

So this bill is quite simple, and, clearly, we support it, but not the arguments that the members opposite have presented for this particular bill. In a sense this is Simon O’Connor’s Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill. This bill is identical to that one. Somebody in the National Party has decided: “Look, those backbenchers need to get their act into gear. We have got to give them something to do, so we will dream up bills that really will not make one iota of difference to contemporary issues facing New Zealand.”

💬 Tim Macindoe: The Law Commission reported it—

Not one iota, Mr Macindoe—not one. So this bill was put in the ballot. I do think the members speaking on this bill today are far more fortunate; they are in a much better place than when they were asked to defend the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill. At least Simon O’Connor has presented an argument. I remember that, on the third reading of the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill, members opposite gathered in large number. That bill seemed to have been designed only to pick the spirits up of the member who had proposed that particular bill. At least there is something serious about this Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill, in the sense that the member Simon O’Connor can present an argument, and he has presented it as well.

But look at the argument he has presented. This bill is the Government’s attempt to actually have a clean legislative slate, so to speak—to clear out legislation. This bill is its attempt. By golly, if this is it, then I am sorry but there is not much left in the tank. And there are so many other, more important things to do. I wish the members would think about that. Of course, the private—[Interruption] Ordinarily, Mr Macindoe, an omnibus bill would be brought in to strip, to clean out these things, and would put them all together. That is what ought to have happened, but it did not.

But look at the difference between what these members opposite are now presenting, using the member’s bill process to do it, and what this side of the House is doing. Here we are today discussing this bill, which will not make an iota of difference to anybody’s life today.

💬 Hon Members: Aw!

It will not—not to anybody’s life today. But on the other side of the House here we have just had passed—the Government was defeated—a bill about full recognition of holidays. That was what somebody from this side of the House had thought through. It will make a difference to the lives of people. Again, maybe later on this evening we will be discussing the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. Here also a member has thought it through. But, no, the members opposite would sooner discuss the equivalent of the Military Manoeuvres Act Repeal Bill—bills that do not make any difference at all, bills that do not address contemporary issues, bills that just keep backbenchers busy. Mr Macindoe has not had one picked out of the ballot. I wonder what it would be. Maybe some kind of thing about—I do not know—houses? I do not know. It might be a housing one, Mr Macindoe. There might be something about housing that the member might want to talk about.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: We used to have a good MP in Hamilton West.

That is right, and he did a lot of good work. So I ask Mr Macindoe to put forward something serious that makes a difference. But we will be supporting this bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee, and let us listen to the arguments. Thank you.

Tēnā koutou katoa. It is indeed a pleasure to speak in this first reading of Simon O’Connor’s bill, the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill. It is about repealing old and tired legislation, and cleaning up our statute book. Existing legislation, once it has served its purpose, needs to be repealed. Certainly, the 40-year-old Joint Family Homes Act 1964 fits that category, and this bill will do exactly that. We have heard that the Law Commission recommended that it should be repealed over a decade ago. I am delighted that Simon has the opportunity to do just that today. The world has certainly moved on from 40 years ago. The Joint Family Homes Act 1964 is out of date and has been superseded by legislation and, certainly, modern practice. The Law Commission noted that even in 2001 the Act had largely lost most of the commercial and social importance that it once may have had.

The 1964 Act was originally intended to protect the homes of married couples from the claims of unsecured creditors and from death duties by allowing a dwelling occupied by a couple to be registered as a joint home. Of course, the 1964 Act had many benefits, which we have heard about today. Briefly, they were savings from death duty, protection against unsecured creditors, security for the spouse who was not already on the title on becoming a co-owner, avoiding stamp or gift duty, and legal costs in the case of very small estates. The Law Commission, as I said before, said those advantages had been superseded. Indeed, stamp duty was abolished in 1999 and estate duty in 1992, and, more recently, gift duty was abolished in 2011. The Act has not kept up with modern-day practices. Back in 1964 marriage was certainly the norm; increasingly there have been more and more de facto relationships. The Law Commission report in 2001 said there had been a big shift away from formal, legal marriage. In 1996 there were almost 240,000 people living in a de facto relationship, which was an increase of 46 percent since 1991. Over that time, there had definitely been a decline in the number of marriages. Certainly, it is interesting to note that since 2001 to the present day the absolute number of marriages has remained pretty static, despite the increase in the population. Of course, we have had civil unions, which is something that was not around in 1964. Since 2005 the number of civil unions has gone from 278 up to 377 in 2011.

The rationale for supporting this bill is clearly obvious. I am delighted and I am sure it will get the support of the House, so congratulations to Simon. It is important that legislation and its current purpose remain valid, and it is time this 40-year-old Act is repealed. I commend this bill to the House.

E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Tuarua, ki ngā mema o tō tātou Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. Tuatoru, mihi atu ki Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori nā reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you, the Speaker of the House. Secondly, greetings to you, all members of our House. Thirdly, acknowledgments to Māori Language Week, so greetings to you all collectively.]

I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party regarding the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill. As my colleague Holly Walker said earlier, the Green Party will be supporting this bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee so we can have a closer look at it. I would like to congratulate the member Simon O’Connor on bringing a fairly simple but sensible bill to the attention of the House, though I must say it is troubling that the Government is unable to implement simple recommendations of the Law Commission, and instead leaves it to its backbench members in their capacity as personal members to undertake what really should be core Government business. I believe that Chris Auchinvole has a similar member’s bill implementing Law Commission recommendations about habeas corpus, which will be coming up before the House very soon.

So this bill seeks to repeal the Joint Family Homes Act 1964, as we have heard, and replace it with nothing at all, because the world has moved on, and moved past the need for this Act. The Act in question enables the dwelling occupied as their home by a married couple and owned by either, or both of them, to be vested in the husband and wife as joint tenants by a reasonably cheap and simple procedure. At the time we heard what the ostensible benefits of the Act were, but the Law Commission noted that, of the five principal benefits of the original legislation, the only remaining ones were some protection against creditors and some savings in legal costs, but only in a minor sense because they benefited only married couples, and therefore were discriminatory against everyone else.

Offering a benefit to traditionally married couples, and not to single homeowners or those in non-traditional relationships or living situations, is potentially discriminatory and certainly does not keep pace with our evolving understanding of what can constitute a relationship. It is our hope that this bill in removing discrimination against non-traditional families is one step—of many—in our evolving understanding. We would be thrilled if non-discrimination were extended to adoption laws, allowing more people to become parents, and if it were extended to marriage equality.

It is a shame that this Government’s progress seems to be driven from the backbenches and wider party membership, sometimes in conjunction with other political parties, and lacks the commitment of the front bench. Although it may not be a priority for the Prime Minister, for example, there is most certainly a clamour in New Zealand to formally modernise its laws to formally recognise other relationships. I also think that there is a lost opportunity for this Government to modernise our approach to residential developments and the laws around them. If we are to overcome many of the challenges that we are facing, including in housing affordability, in transport, and in debt, we are going to need to modernise the different laws that affect residential development. At the moment, the real estate market is not responding to demand, because of significant market failure. That is something that the Government could be addressing, but unfortunately it is not seeking to address that.

What I am talking about, for example, is liberalising the parking requirements in district plans, making sure that planning rules support types of development that are not limited to single, stand-alone family houses on quarter-acre sections, which have been unintentionally subsidised, I think, by the traditional approach to planning. Also, bank lending practices tend to be biased towards single, stand-alone home ownership, and incentivise only property investors to purchase apartments or townhouses, so that leads to a low quality of development and a real shortage in the supply of high-quality, high-amenity dwellings that are not stand-alone family homes.

So although this bill is seeking to modernise one particular law and remove discrimination, I think that the Government could turn its mind to a whole lot of other factors that would enable New Zealand to respond to the challenges facing it.

The Green Party agrees with Mr O’Connor that the principal Act is no longer necessary. We look forward to taking part in the select committee hearings on this bill and gaining full appreciation of the bill before us that, as we can reasonably imagine, will be passed into law. Thank you.

I am very pleased to take this call in reply. May I acknowledge Ms Genter’s last speech. I am always amazed at her ability to get the matter of parking into any debate, question, or conversation. It really is quite the skill. I suppose it is related, because most homes do have an area to park. It is a question that was often put up: why does one park on a driveway? I just leave you with that particular question there. I think it was George Carlin who came up with that.

I want to just thank the House for the generosity in this debate, and the support that has been demonstrated. I think generosity in the House around bills is important, but I want to draw attention to the fact that this is a member’s bill; this is not a Government bill. Part of our democratic structure and process is to allow members, by their choice and volition, to introduce bills into the House for discussion. Although I noted in my initial speech that the Hon Jo Goodhew had this bill, the Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill, initially, I was very happy to put my name to it. It was something that I took my time to consider.

Again, it is for two, I suppose, simple reasons. The first, which has been highlighted by my colleagues and others here, is the removal of discrimination. I think that is an important element, and I am very pleased as the MP for Tāmaki to be involved with that. I am pleased that the Green Party, in particular, has acknowledged that. I must say to the member Holly Walker that I was not thinking of her in particular, but I am most pleased that this is of benefit to her and her partner as well. But the other part is, again, that principle that our statute book needs to be clear and concise, and about good law. I think that is a really important aspect for me as a legislator coming into this House.

I have noted the concern from some members about whether this is going to be the zenith of my career and so forth—concern that I might have been put up to this. Well, I have good news for the House—good news. I see this as just the first step on the ladder. As I noted in my speech, it is very important to learn the process and to take a bill through. Fortunately, between these two ears there are certainly plenty more ideas and thoughts for bills to come. But when it comes to the luck of the next ballot, we will have to see how that works. We will have to continue, maybe, to be in Government and proceed that way as well. I do thank the honourable members for that concern, but yes, the news for the House is that I intend—with the good graces of my electorate—to be around for a while and progress more legislation.

Turning back, then, to the repeal bill—well, actually, before I turn to the bill I should acknowledge Dr Cam Calder’s mention of 1964. It was very useful, Dr Calder, seeing as I was not around in 1964—or 1974, for that matter. It was a useful and quick history lesson—[Interruption] Scurrilous, really. We will not draw that out. But the repeal bill, fortunately, in 1984—I think something else happened there as well.

Coming back to the bill itself, I have just a few messages for those who are following this debate with interest. The Joint Family Homes Act of 1964, importantly—for those listening at home—was only for unsecured creditors, it was a limited amount of money that covered your home, and it was an Act that is now redundant due to the removal of things like death duties, stamp duties, gift duties, and so forth. It was an Act whose time ended many years ago.

I commend the Law Commission and those involved for putting forward the recommendations in 2001, those who translated it into a bill before the House, Jo Goodhew for originally sponsoring it, and colleagues on all sides of the House for the veracity of the debate on this bill. I think that today this bill will be the highlight. I am not sure how members will cope after this, but I am looking forward to that debate. I thank you all once again. I recommend the bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.