Wilkinson Kate: Wills Bill — In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Wills Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:641;Page:10878] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 This is a bill to simplify wills and although it is to simplify wills one must not underestimate the importance of it. I suppose giving due importance to the legislation it is disappointing—as has been noted by my colleagues who have spoken beforehand—that some of the small details seem to have been overlooked. In the context of wills it is very important that the words are correct. After all when we are dealing with wills if the testator has used the wrong words then it is too late. In this bill it seems that the Minister has also used some wrong words which thankfully we now have the opportunity to rectify by Supplementary Order Paper. 
But one would have thought—and it has been mentioned—that when this Wills Bill which is not very long and had a commencement date of 1 July was being drafted the legislative agenda was known at that stage. One has to wonder why the time it would take to pass the bill was not accurately assessed in the first place. The bill is not contentious. Opposition members are not actually contradicting anything. We are not even making any amendments to it. We are agreeing to the bill. But we have a Wills Bill that had an original date of 1 July the date then was purported to be amended to 1 September by a Supplementary Order Paper and now it is extended even further to 1 November. 
It would be an interesting exercise to see how much taxpayers’ money has been wasted on this movable feast. What sort of competence is displayed when a bill has to have its commencement date—a simple simple clause in a bill that is not contentious—altered not once not twice but three times? 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Three times! 
KATE WILKINSON 
: The commencement date of this Wills Bill has had to be amended three times. 
Some of the other amendments which I would have to say are pretty basic change the expression “is it” being a question to “it is”. Although that might sound simple again it is important and again it should have been pointed out right from the outset. I think it is up to us in Parliament to give New Zealanders confidence that legislation we are passing is accurate especially legislation in relation to wills If a testator relying on this bill which will soon become an Act writes his or her will in all due faith but makes a mistake because the Act is wrong then dies it is too late for obvious reasons to go back and find out what was intended. 
I accept that the bill is to simplify wills. I accept also that it is important that wills are simple and straightforward but I wonder whether what this bill is doing is actually making the legislation around wills more complicated more complex and more uncertain. Yes it uses simple words but that in itself can cause misunderstandings because that new terminology those new terms have not yet been tested by the courts. 
As an example if one looks at clause 11(3) one sees that it is quite straightforward. It states: “The will-maker must—(a) sign the document; or (b) acknowledge that a person directed by the will-maker signed the document in the will-maker’s presence.” I ask what the meaning of “signing” actually is because I have had occasions where will-makers cannot sign. They might put a cross or they might put a squiggle. I would like the Minister to elaborate on what safeguards have been put in place to make sure that the document—the will which has been so-called signed by a will-maker—is indeed the last will and testament of that person. In law and in practice there have been safeguards put in place previously. For example the witness explains why the testator or will-maker has signed with a squiggle or signed with a cross. But in this bill a definition of witness is not included so the witness might be somebody under 18. Those safeguards simply have not been put in place. 
 We must look at the legislation on the basis that it will be misunderstood. I believe that this bill although it is supposed to be simple and straightforward has the potential to lead to uncertainty and misunderstandings. Frankly I think it is too hard for a family having gone through the trauma of losing a loved one to then have to try—just because of laziness and because of trying to make the bill too simple—to second-guess what their loved one actually meant in his or her last will and testament because the will is deficient and was not properly drafted. The testator may have had the good intention of having a simple will but it has ended up being complicated and complex. A whole new regime of court cases may start to try to work out exactly what this Wills Bill means and intends. Although National members are in favour of simplifying wills we have to be confident that making the language clear and accessible does not at the same time by that very fact make wills unclear inaccessible and subject to even more misunderstandings.