Dalziel Lianne: Wills Bill — Second Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Wills Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:8997] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
  
on behalf of the 
 Associate Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Wills Bill be now read a second time 
. The Law Commission reviewed the existing wills legislation in 1997 as part of a wider review of succession law. The commission concluded that the current law generally works well and that there is no need for radical change but it recommended restating the existing legislation in one statute in plain language and modernising certain aspects of the substantive law. This bill is based on the Law Commission’s report and was introduced alongside several other bills that give effect to Law Commission reports such as the Arbitration Amendment Bill the Property Law Bill and the bill that we have just previously dealt with the Succession (Homicide) Bill. That bill also arose out of the Law Commission’s broader review of succession law. 
This bill improves the legal framework for will-making. It makes the law on wills easier to understand ensures that better effect can be given to will-makers’ intentions and makes it easier for certain people to make wills. On behalf of my colleague Clayton Cosgrove I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its very careful consideration of the bill. I endorse the committee’s amendments to the bill which are entirely in keeping with the spirit of the bill and its objective of modernising the current legislation and making it more user-friendly. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee made a number of helpful changes to the bill. The majority of the committee’s changes relate to the drafting of the bill. One of the bill’s express purposes is to modernise the language of the Wills Act 1837—an old imperial statute—and its numerous amending Acts. The language of those Acts is often difficult for a modern-day reader and layperson to read and the committee’s changes make the bill easier to understand. Of course this will be very depressing for a lot of lawyers because they will not be able to rely on the fact that the language is completely dense and impossible for people to penetrate on their own ability. Tragically this will probably reduce reliance on the legal profession—which is very very sad. Seriously though— 
Darren Hughes 
: Does it include a compensation package? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It does not include a compensation package but it probably would have been nice if it did. It is probably appropriate that people do actually understand what the legislation means when they are trying to deal with what will happen to their property after they pass on. Of course if any mistakes are made in that particular provision there ain’t nothing they can do about it afterwards. 
I want to look at some of the examples in the legislation of language that has been changed. The word “testator” is now seen as an outdated term and I think that is fair enough. It has been replaced by the more commonly used term “will-maker”. At the same time references to doing a testamentary action have been removed and the bill now refers instead to making revoking changing and reviving a will as appropriate language that would be more readily understood by the average reader. I think that that is a good thing; to make the language a lot more accessible to the general public is a very good move indeed. 
Some provisions have been moved around to make the bill easier to navigate—another disappointing feature for the legal profession. That people will be able to find their way easily through legislation is a tragedy obviously for those who rely on the complexity of legislation as the basis for their legal practices. For example new clause 10A combines original clause 10(3) and clause 18(4) which relate to wills made by young persons who have agreed to marry or enter into a civil union with another person. Those two provisions had to be read together anyway. The amendment recognises that they are easier to understand if they are combined in a single clause and the reader does not have to work through the whole bill in order to understand the relevant rule. 
Another example of a change that makes the bill easier for laypersons to understand is the inclusion of an express statement that the definition of a de facto relationship for the purposes of the bill is the standard definition in the Interpretation Act 1999. I know that I sat on the select committee with my colleague Tim Barnett and we looked at the issue of statutory references. The Wills Bill was one of the ones that we left out because we knew that this particular provision was coming. So we are very pleased to be able to see this particular measure introduced and now proceed through the House. The change does not alter the effect of the bill in the absence of a specific definition in the bill—the default definition is the one set out in the Interpretation Act. However including an express cross-reference to the generic definition assists the layperson who may not be aware of the significance of that other Act. I endorse the committee’s improvements to the drafting of the bill. The bill is relevant— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Thank you. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I say that to Mr Chris Auchinvole whom I think has shown tremendous focus and attention on matters of detail when he is not a lawyer himself. I think that that is fantastic and it shows members just how far we have come in making the language accessible to the layperson because Chris Auchinvole can understand it too. The bill is relevant to all New Zealanders and the changes make what is by necessity a set of very technical provisions much more user-friendly. 
The committee also amended the provisions in the bill that relate to wills made in contemplation of marriage and civil unions. The general rule is that an existing will is revoked by a subsequent marriage or civil union unless the will was in fact made to provide for that marriage or civil union. I remember learning these rules when I did my degree a million years ago; my friend Charles Chauvel will remember learning the rules about wills in contemplation of marriage as well. The original clause 18 followed the existing law. It required that to avoid being revoked by the marriage or civil union in question the will had to expressly state that it was made in contemplation of that marriage or civil union. Actually that is not quite correct because of course there was no such thing as a civil union when Charles and I did our law degrees. It is however readily conceivable that a will that did not expressly state that it was made in contemplation of marriage or civil union might nevertheless have deliberately been made to provide for that change of affairs. The committee has amended the bill so that even if the will does not expressly say that it was made in contemplation of the marriage or civil union it will not be revoked if the circumstances in which the will was made clearly show that it was nevertheless made in contemplation of that marriage or civil union. That change ensures that although a will should normally be revoked by a subsequent marriage or civil union—a significant change of circumstances for the will-maker—that is not the case where the will-maker deliberately made a will to provide for that anticipated change. Consistent with those changes the provisions relating to wills made by young persons in contemplation of marriage or civil union have also been amended. 
Finally I would like to note that the Government expects to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that changes the commencement date to allow for time for the bill to proceed through the House and for a consequential amendment of the High Court Rules relating to probate. It will also amend a minor definition in the bill. Again I would like to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its work on this bill. The committee has approached this bill in an efficient and professional manner and has made a valuable contribution to its development. The committee’s changes serve to promote the laudable goal of creating a plain language bill that is so much more accessible to the average New Zealander. I commend this bill to the House.