Finlayson Christopher: Wills Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Wills Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10007] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I reflected long and hard on Supplementary Order Paper 118 proposed by the honourable member Metiria Turei and I am loathe to disagree with her because I think she makes some very good points. The difficulty I have with her proposal particularly in relation to the proposed change to clause 10(2) is that what she says makes a lot of sense in relation to a 16 or 17-year-old but what about a 12 or 13-year-old? Can one honestly say that in those circumstances where a 12 or 13-year-old has a child that as of right that person will be able to understand the effect of making a will? I do not have confidence that that would be the case. 
 So although one has to agree with the honourable member that the age of 18 years is an artificial line in the sand as it were in my opinion probably the best way of dealing with it is to leave the legislation as it is so that a person under 18 years may make change revoke and revive a will in the circumstances set out in that clause without the need for Family Court approval or a Family Court order. But in the circumstances that have been described by the honourable member if someone is under the age of 18 years then the safeguards set out in subclause (4) of clause 10 should continue to apply. It could well be that over the years we will come to look at the age of 18 years and say “Well that was too old.” but for the moment the National Party considers that the legislation as framed has probably got it right. 
I want to make a couple of other points and they relate in particular to Subpart 3 “Military or seagoing persons”. I wonder whether the legislation is consistent and whether it is necessary to make a couple of changes for the sake of consistency. Let us have a quick look at them and then perhaps the Minister could advise whether I am making something out of nothing. 
The first relates to clause 33(2) which talks in the language of informal testamentary actions and it relates in particular to members of the armed services making changing revoking or reviving wills. As one can see from clause 6 we struck out the term “testamentary action” because we thought that saying someone would be doing a testamentary action was a little bit convoluted and why not speak plain English and say “making changing revoking or reviving a will”. Yet we have kept that term “testamentary action” in relation to military or seagoing persons. I think it is much better to express clause 34 in terms of “Military or seagoing persons may make change revoke and revive wills informally” rather than “Military or seagoing persons may do informal testamentary actions”. 
Some consequential changes would also be needed to clause 35 “Oral informal testamentary actions” because surely to goodness that can be expressed in slightly simpler terms. Clause 36 “Proof of informal testamentary actions” would need to change. I refer members of the Committee to clause 37 because in clause 37(1)(b) we have both expressions. Members will see that the phrase to “do a testamentary action” has been deleted and instead we have—rightly so in my submission—“make change revoke or revive a will” yet we still have this idea of informal testamentary action. I think that should be tidied up and I invite the member to make a couple of comments. 
The second point—and maybe it is a reflection of the fact that this legislation has been hanging around for some time but I do think it needs to be tidied up—concerns the schedule and consequential amendments to the schedule. A reference is made to the Evidence Amendment Act 1980 (No 2) omitting from it subsection (2) of section 12 and substituting: “(2) The statement is not admissible to prove that the requirements of the Wills Act 2006”—it will be 2007—“or the Wills Act 1837 of the United Kingdom Parliament have been satisfied.” I have hunted high and low in the Evidence Act 2006 for the equivalent provision. I do not know that it is there but certainly this reference to the Evidence Amendment Act 1980 (No 2) which is shortly to be repealed needs to be changed. So I invite the Minister’s comments on that.