Finlayson Christopher: Wills Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Wills Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9798] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I think that the previous speaker dealt very adequately with the key issues that arise in Part 1. I have not heard a much more adequate address than that in a very long time and I do commend him for it. But the one critical thing he did not do was to ask the Committee whether the Justice and Electoral Committee actually succeeded in what it was seeking to do. I hope that the opportunity will be afforded to one of the competent and intelligent lay people on the other side of the Chamber—for example Maryan Street or the member for Rotorua—to comment exactly on whether from a layperson’s point of view the terminology has been simplified. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh even the chief whip may want to say something as an intelligent layperson. 
Although a lot of legislation is necessarily technical and complicated we were determined that with this legislation every endeavour would be made to express it in clear simple English. Indeed I had an idea that I was very fond of but the hard-line chair of the committee Lynne Pillay the MP for Waitakere overruled me on it. I thought it would be very useful to engage probably one of New Zealand’s most eminent exponents of the English language Owen Marshall to look at the legislation from an intelligent layperson’s point of view to say whether we have expressed what we are wanting to say in clear unambiguous simple English. That is because a lot of people want to write their own wills; they do not want to go to a lawyer or to the Public Trust to write their wills for them. I covered some of those situations in my first reading speech on this bill some time ago. 
So the terminology is extremely important and we have made an endeavour to simplify it. Along with Mr Chauvel I would ask what a natural person is as opposed to an unnatural person. It makes no sense. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Ask “Barmy Bob”. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes. Doing a testamentary action is ambiguous and possibly offensive. Certainly making a will seems to be a lot clearer. I am not quite so clear—picking up on what the member for Tauranga said—about whether there is such a problem with the term “testator” or “testatrix” as opposed to ”will-maker” but every endeavour has been made to simplify it. No one uses the term “testatrix” these days; I think it is considered sexist—and those proponents of political correctness on the other side will be able to assist in relation to that. “Testamentary document” is an awfully pompous term for a will so every endeavour has been made to simplify it. 
However when I read through the legislation it does at times seem to be somewhat dense and unnecessarily verbose. That is why I like to use the terminology that in the old days—when Mr Chauvel was doing law—the reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus would have used; these days it would be the terminology that the reasonable person on the Kilbirnie bus would use. Perhaps one of the members whom I have nominated may care to stand cast his or her eyes over the bill and tell members whether the select committee has succeeded. 
The other key aspect of Part 1 deals with the meaning of “will” and although it does seem to take an eternity to state the definition I think that all contingencies are covered. It means that a “will” will also mean a document that changes a will revokes a will revives a will and is a codicil to a will. The only thing that I would say about clause 8(1B) is that there seems to be a tendency to use the word “that” rather than “which”. I think that is an unfortunate tendency in written English these days but there we have it. 
So Part 1 deals with the preliminary provisions. As Mr Chauvel said it is really the first time probably in the history of New Zealand that there has been an opportunity to take a good look at legislation governing wills because the principle Act is still the 1837 legislation. There have of course been some amendments to the Act and they are referred to in the schedules to this legislation. But this is the first time that we are to do it. Presumably it will be another 150 years—or more than 150 years—before Parliament looks at it again so let us get it right this time. That is why clarity and simplicity in the area of wills is really the name of the game. Thank you.