Pillay Lynne: Wills Bill — Second Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Wills Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9005] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand again and speak in support of the second reading of the Wills Bill which was before the Justice and Electoral Committee. It was another bill that received unanimous support and very constructive work from the committee. 
The Wills Bill does not radically reform the existing laws relating to wills but instead aims to better those laws. The current laws relating to wills are verbose archaic and difficult for many people to understand. They can also make it difficult for the wishes of the will-maker to be carried out. The aims of this bill are firstly to restate the existing law in a single statute in plain modern language that is both clear and accessible. The bill improves the legal framework for will-making. It makes the law on wills easier to understand ensuring that better effect can be given to will-makers’ intentions and making that process easier. An example of the use of plain English is that the reference used previously of “doing a testamentary action’’ has been removed. The bill now refers instead to “making” “revoking” “changing” and “reviving” a will as appropriate. That language would be more readily understood by the average reader or as former speakers have said by ordinary people. I myself am quite proud to stand here and say I regard myself as being very much an ordinary person. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: But an extraordinary chair of the committee. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Thank you. Secondly the bill will implement certain reforms to enhance and modernise the law relating to wills while also removing certain differences. It will also reduce the chances of a will or a gift failing which does happen now and make it easier for younger people to make wills. 
Once again I want to thank the Law Commission which in 1997 reviewed the wills legislation— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: When? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —1997—which currently comprises six statutes the oldest of which goes back to 1837. That was done as part of a wider review of general succession law and we have seen a number of bills before this House that have come from the work of the Law Commission in that area. The commission recommended restating and modernising the law into a single statute and modernising the law of wills in certain minor aspects. This bill is based on those recommendations though it also takes into account certain developments. I refer to de facto and civil union relationships. Civil union relationships have come in as part of our legislation and are now recognised in it. They were not recognised in 1997 when the Law Commission did its work. 
The bill slightly shifts the wills legislation away from the benefits of the formalities in will-making which often prevent fraud and uncertainty towards the interest of carrying out the will-maker’s intentions. The bill will remove a minimum age at which a person can make a will. Those under 18 years of age can make a will if they are planning to marry or enter into a civil union. Also a signature will no longer be absolutely required at the end of a will. Improperly signed or witnessed wills may be made valid by the High Court if it is satisfied that the will expresses the will-maker’s intentions. 
The select committee heard a number of submissions. I commend the advice we were given during the select committee process; I am sure all members of the committee would agree it was most constructive and helpful. Further changes were brought in by the committee to make the language of the bill plainer and the English easier to understand—for example using the term “person” rather than “natural person”. Clause 8 was amended to further define the meaning of “will” and was reordered into a more logical sequence making it easier to understand. The main purpose of the bill is that ordinary people can get good advice from the legislation in a practical way and can read in plain English about how to make a will and how to ensure that it is valid and delivers exactly what the will-maker or person wants to see happen. The committee saw clause 9 to be unnecessary and repetitive and it was deleted. We also amended clause 18. As I said before that clause related to preserving a will when a will-maker gets married. It seemed ridiculous that a will made by a minor remains intact upon marriage but that a will made by an adult does not. So that inconsistency was corrected. Clause 18 was amended—as I spoke about before—so that the circumstances associated with making a will when in contemplation of marriage or a civil union can be taken into account. 
Indeed I thank the select committee. I do not think anyone would claim that this legislation will set the world on fire. It certainly has not engaged much debate in this House nor indeed at the select committee. But I will say that it will probably make quite a substantial change to a number of people’s lives—families’ lives in particular—when someone has passed away and they are looking at and considering what is in the will. The legislation actually ensures there is a fairness and a quality in will-making. I also think that using plain English which I have always been an advocate for will enhance wills in the future. There will not be a mystery around them. Will-making will become a simpler process and people will be able to rest in peace knowing that what they wanted to happen with regard to their will is going to happen because there is some common-sense plain language to ensure that it does. I think that is important. When I spoke before I thanked the select committee; I would like to do so again. It always helps when legislation is not particularly controversial and members apply themselves very well to it. We had good advice and support and we were able to bring the bill back before the House in quite a speedy time. 
It is with pleasure that I speak in support of this bill at its second reading and along with other speakers I commend it to the House. Thank you.