Finlayson Christopher: Wills Bill — Second Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Wills Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:8999] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I thank Minister Lianne Dalziel for her generous remarks about the hard work of the Justice and Electoral Committee but I have to say that they were a bit over the top because really it was not too much hard work at all. This is legislation that has been hanging around for an eternity. As I said a few minutes ago this bill was based on report No. 41 of the Law Commission which was published in about July 1997. So it has had a 10-year gestation period. 
The Minister rightly addressed the primary concern with the legislation and that is to simplify the language. What the bill does is restate the existing law which goes back to 1837—and there have been some amendments since then—in a single statute in plain modern language. I certainly hope that we have achieved that aim. That is really the point that I want to address tonight because some of the more technical material can await the Committee stage. 
 There is a real need to express this legislation in contemporary plain English. I would be very interested in hearing contributions from some of the lay members of the House—the non-lawyers—as to whether we have actually achieved that aim. In some respects that is open to debate. There is no doubt that we have improved on the definition of “will” from the 1837 Act. That definition stated: “The word ‘will’ shall extend to a testament and to a codicil and to an appointment by will or by writing in the nature of a will in exercise of a power and also to a disposition by will and testament or devise of the custody and tuition of any child by virtue of [the Tenures Abolition Act 1660] or by virtue of an Act passed in the Parliament of Ireland in the fourteenth and fifteenth years of the reign of King Charles the Second intituled ‘An Act for taking away the Court of Wards and Liveries and tenures in capite and by knight’s service’ and to any other testamentary disposition;”. 
The Law Commission proposed that that rather fulsome definition of will could be replaced by: “A will includes a codicil and any other testamentary disposition.” Members will note that clause 8 of the proposed legislation does not pick up what the Law Commission recommended but has a slightly lengthier definition of “will”. So I hope we have done our job to make the language simpler—I have my doubts in one or two circumstances. 
As to some of the other terms that were changed I tell members that we removed the word “natural” from “natural person” and we also replaced the term “doing a testamentary action” which is ambiguous at least with “making a will”. We replaced the term “testamentary document” with “will” which everyone understands and as the Minister said we certainly replaced the terms “testator” and “testatrix” with “will-maker”. So there has been a genuine attempt on the part of Parliament through the Justice and Electoral Committee to simplify the language. As the Minister correctly observed we really need to make this kind of legislation readily available to all people not just to lawyers. 
With those brief comments in mind I am happy to say that National will support this legislation based on this ancient report. We commend the bill to the House and we look forward to the Committee stage when some of the more technical material that was canvassed before the select committee can be properly discussed.