Wilkinson Kate: Wills Bill — In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Wills Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9801] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on the Wills Bill. I will try to bring it back to some sort of common sense— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: And decency. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: —and decency because it is important. At the end of the day it is the last wish of a person. Once that person has died of course it is far too late. 
I take the point that the language has been simplified but I also make the point that the old language which I must admit I have used for 27 years has been tested over the years by all the cases. Some of this new language may need to be tested. As a young law graduate I learned how to write a will in situations such as sitting next to a hospital bed or even dining in a restaurant. I think that one of the wills I wrote on a table napkin is still as valid as it ever was. 
The old language is comfortable I must admit but that is not to say we cannot move on. It is a challenge. As I understand it the law is not written so that we can understand it; it is written so that we cannot misunderstand it. There is a big difference in that. Under this bill though whereas previously we used to “give devise and bequeath all our real and personal estate of whatsoever nature and wheresoever situate” now we just “give our property”. In a sense the language is becoming more accessible to the ordinary person on the street. 
I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to the meaning of “will” because I do not believe it is totally sufficient. Although the bill tries to simplify the language and perhaps it uses better language than that used in 1837 all it states under clause 8(1) is that a will is a document that is made by a natural person and does any or all of the following: “(i) disposes of property to which the person is entitled when he or she dies; or (ii) disposes of property to which the person’s personal representative becomes entitled … or (iii) appoints a testamentary guardian.” 
Wills do more than that in this day and age. Wills appoint trustees and executors. Under this bill these wills do not apparently. Wills can appoint trustees of existing trusts. Wills can provide directions as to how someone wants his or her funeral service or cremation to be conducted. One might laugh at that but I have had the situation where a family disputed where the mother’s ashes should be laid to rest and the three children of the family divided the mother’s ashes three ways. That is a true story. 
So wills do more than just dispose of property; they can avoid a lot of family disagreements at a later stage. In the very nature of wills it is too late when there is found to be an uncertainty in the will to argue about it at that stage because the testator—in the old days it was the testator or the testatrix; I did not mind which one it was—or in this day and age the will-maker is not there to clarify exactly what his or her intentions were. 
I ask the Minister to take a call on the definition of a will because not every natural person person natural or otherwise has property to dispose of but that does not preclude those persons from making a will. I suggest that this is depriving some people of having their last say—of being able to rest in peace knowing that they have properly documented their last wishes and knowing that their directions for disposal of their ashes their burial directions or their funeral directions will be complied with. 
Under this bill I believe that there is an omission and I believe that it would be very simple to fix. I believe it should be fixed. I think it will avoid some misunderstandings and some family disagreements at a later stage when it comes perhaps to dividing the ashes of someone’s dearly loved one. Wills are very important.