Chauvel Charles: Wills Bill — Second Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Wills Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9000] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the second reading of the Wills Bill. I just note that the bill is intended not to radically reform existing law relating to wills but rather to improve understanding of the laws that are relevant. Obviously the bill also repatriates New Zealand law given that the current legislation is as mentioned earlier an Act of the Imperial Parliament—the 1837 Wills Act of the United Kingdom. The Act was made part of our law—most recently for the avoidance of doubt—by the first schedule of the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988. It has often been commented that the current laws relating to wills are archaic verbose and often difficult to understand—clearly this is undesirable—to the extent that the law makes it difficult for the wishes of the will-maker to be carried out. 
So the first aim of the bill is to restate the existing law into a single statute in plain modern language that is clear and accessible. The second aim is to implement certain reforms to enhance and modernise the law relating to wills while also removing certain anomalies. It will also reduce the chances of a will or a gift failing or being set aside and make it easier for young people to make wills. With Youth Week coming up that in my view is an incredibly appropriate thing and a useful accident of timing. 
As has been said in 1997 the Law Commission reviewed wills legislation as part of a wider project. It recommended the restating and modernising of the law into a single statute and also dealing with modernising the law relating to the wills of minors. The bill is based on those recommendations but it takes into account certain developments such as the regularising of de facto and civil union relationships since the report was published in 1997. The bill also slightly shifts the legislation away from the benefits of what we used to call at law school “formalities” in will-making that prevent fraud and uncertainty towards the interest of carrying out the will-maker’s intentions. The bill removes a minimum age at which a person may make a will; those under 18 could make a will if intending to marry or enter into a civil union. A signature will no longer be required at the end of the will. Improperly signed or witnessed wills may be valid if the High Court determines that they ought to be treated as valid and if the court is satisfied that the will correctly expresses the will-maker’s intentions. 
It is interesting and instructive to look through the original Law Commission report. There is a very helpful history of the laws of England and New Zealand relating to the ways in which the formalities of wills have been dealt with by the law over the years. There is an interesting discussion for example of the emergence of the law of wills from the feudal system and the emergent role after the 17th century of the Court of Chancery in dealing with wills. There is a chronology of the amendments to the 1837 Act as far as New Zealand is concerned to start to deal with modern phenomena such as divorce. Clearly the current bill can be seen in the context of that set of changes dealing as it does as I have said with the regularisation of de facto and civil union relationships. 
There are also interests in terms of trans-Tasman harmonisation law that ought to be mentioned. In the foreword to the draft bill the Law Commission expressly acknowledges the work done by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General of Australia in 1991 to try to harmonise the law in this area and it acknowledges the work of both the Queensland Law Reform Commission and the Victorian Parliamentary Law Reform Committee in 1994. The Law Commission acknowledges the debt owed to those two earlier pieces of work. So I think it is appropriate to acknowledge that part of the whakapapa of this legislation and also to acknowledge as I have done in previous speeches the hard work of the Law Commission and its advisers in bringing the bulk of this work forward to fruition and allowing us to fashion a bill out of it. 
I will turn finally to the recommendations from the Justice and Electoral Committee. We have recommended a number of further changes to improve the plain English drafting of the legislation. In clause 8 we recommend—and it is pleasing to hear Minister Dalziel tell us that the Government accepts the recommendation—that the definition of “will” should be further clarified and reordered into a more logical sequence thereby making it easier to understand. The deletion of clause 9 which is unnecessary and repetitive is also recommended and an amendment to clause 18(1) is recommended so as to remove the age restriction for preserving a will where a will-maker gets married. It is anomalous in the select committee’s view that a will made by a minor remains intact upon marriage but one made by an adult does not. The final amendment recommended that I would like to highlight and to express pleasure that the Government has accepted is the amendment to clause 18(2) which allows the law to be modernised in respect of wills made in contemplation of a marriage or civil union. That was a timely reform and as I have said it is pleasing to know that that recommendation of the select committee will be accepted. 
In conclusion I thank the officials and my colleagues on the select committee. My view is that this is a very good bill and I commend it to the House.