Mark Ron: Wills Bill — Second Reading 
Mark Ron: Wills Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9009] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to say a few short words in support of the Wills Bill and to acknowledge a number of things. 
This bill has come on the tail of the Succession (Homicide) Bill which was debated prior to the dinner break. It is interesting when one compares the two bills to note the similarity between the concerns and issues in and possibly the conflicts that arise from the two bills. Specifically I know that the Succession (Homicide) Bill aims to codify the law that precludes a person who unlawfully kills another person from benefiting from the death of that person. That includes benefit from the proceeds of the victim’s estate or from any non-probate estates. It will be interesting to see how that bill goes on. If we look at the clauses relating to restriction of claims we see that that bill provides that a killer who has a valid claim against the estate of a victim is entitled to make an application in respect of that claim under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949. However the bill does not allow such an application to be made where a testamentary promise is expressly provided for in the victim’s will. 
It is interesting to read on and note that the Justice and Electoral Committee recognised in the hearing of submissions on that bill and that the House recognised in its consideration of the bill that the purpose of the bill is to ensure that a person should not profit from the act of killing. Therefore we consider that killers under the bill should be deprived only of the rights they gained by virtue of the killing. A host of New Zealanders in reading that would say that killers should not get anything and that it did not matter whether they were entitled to it from a will or from preceding promises that had been made. The mere fact that a person who killed could profit in any way as a result of that killing would in the eyes of most New Zealanders be abhorrent. But I am trusting—and New Zealand First is hoping—that given that both of these bills were examined and considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee its members fully understand the consequences of one bill upon the other. 
Moving to the Wills Bill we note a number of things. We note the extraordinarily large number of MPs who sat on the select committee in the hearings on this bill. Quite clearly a bit of shuffling was going on with some members coming in from December and some from February and some members being there as non-voting members. The honourable Hone Harawira was there as a non-voting member. 
I can assure the House that I know the frustrations that can occur. New Zealand First and the Greens are parties that I tend to refer to as alternative parties not as minor parties. One cannot consider a party that has six or seven MPs—or one that represents four major constituency seats in this country—as being minor. But that is the view of an alternative party member. Alternative party views need to be heard in the hearings on these bills. It is frustrating to say the least that alternative parties are permitted on these select committees only at the behest or through the goodwill of the major parties and that the major parties still inflict their control by removing voting rights. It does not actually speak a lot for the functionality and the performance of MMP. 
I guess that is something that the alternative parties need to articulate more to the constituency and to the electorates so that the electorates understand that when members such as Hone Harawira sit on these committees they may have the opportunity to listen and to question but they are prevented from exercising a vote. They are prevented from exercising any capacity in terms of the decision-making process. That is something that in time we will have to deal with and it is something that must be dealt with if we are to have a truly mixed-member proportional Parliament in the full sense of that term. 
The other thing that strikes me is the number of submissions: 10 submissions of which only six were heard. This is curious. I am absolutely confident that all of the 121 MPs in this House at some stage in the performance of their duties end up advising citizens of this nation as to their rights responsibilities obligations limitations and restrictions in respect of the Act in terms of wills. One of the issues that may confront constituents in their lifetime that very often becomes a very personalised and vexed issue is that of wills—what Uncle Bloggs left or did not leave to nephews aunties sons and daughters. It absolutely amazes me that regardless of the degree of angst and dissatisfaction the numbers of disputes that arise and the level of sensitivity and emotion behind those issues only 10 submissions were received on this bill and only six of those submissions were actually heard. 
I am further puzzled by that when I reflect on my own experience as a citizen and as a member of Parliament. In my time I have acted as an executor of the estate of my sister who passed away with no will. I have personally dealt with the difficulties of trying to manage an estate in such a circumstance to the satisfaction of the wider whanaunga. I was left somewhat frustrated that my sister had not made the time found the time or seen the need to make a will. I know that she is not the only New Zealander who has passed away in such circumstances; there are many many more people out there without wills. As a Parliament we need to impress upon all New Zealanders the absolute importance and necessity of having a will. I accept the concern raised by Pita Sharples that a good number of—not most—Maori do not write wills for specific reasons. Some of those reasons are cultural some are superstitious and some are simply other reasons. There is a very definite need for the people of this nation to take on board the need to write a will and to have confidence in the wills process. 
The other thing I have to point out relates to Part 1 of this bill where it talks about the armed forces and dispositions. As a soldier nothing focuses the mind more than being told by one’s company sergeant major to sit down and write out a will. For most Defence Force personnel it brings the realisation that they will be deployed and that the chance they will be killed in action is a reality. I can assure the House that when I as a 17 or 18-year-old soldier was told to sit my butt down and write out a will what was being said crystallised very very clearly in my mind. At that time I was looking rightly or wrongly to go to Viet Nam. In the event thankfully it did not happen but as is the case for all defence forces personnel who are deployed all over the world right now I had to write out a will because I was being deployed operationally. It is good that the military does that and that these issues are taken care of in this bill. 
It is regrettable that the public as a whole in New Zealand have not taken on the importance and the significance of writing a will. The one fact that remains is we all will die. The condition in which we leave our estate the ease with which the executors and other whanau members can tidy up our affairs is often dictated by our ability to take on board that simple message. 
I gather that this bill is a good bill in the sense that if nothing else it simplifies the language using plain English. If I can make one plea it is that it seems that we in this House are forever telling officials to please write things in plain English. Shakespeare died a long time ago. Ordinary New Zealanders average New Zealanders even highly educated New Zealanders in this country prefer that laws be able to be read and interpreted swiftly. It does nobody any good—no matter what the legislation no matter what the issue—if we continue to tie up our legislation with archaic and secularised terminology that only certain people can understand. That only produces grey areas and grey areas lead to dissention. 
I finish by saying that I have taken on board the comments of Pita Sharples in respect of Maoridom. Specifically I think he said that ohaki which is a form of speech given when one is dying should have some legal recognition. I say that I am listening and that it is something I will discuss with my caucus and I look forward to further debate on it in the Committee stage of this bill. I know that many Maori people—particularly our elderly our kaumatua and our kuia—have lived a life where the oral word the spoken word has been the law. It does seem that sometimes we overlook such things. I am not quite sure—I have not had the opportunity to talk to my caucus about it—but the arguments that I heard put in this debate seem to me to have some sense and some grounds. 
We look forward to the debate in the Committee stage. Thank you. 
Bill read a second time.