Barnett Tim: Wills Bill — Second Reading 
Barnett Tim: Wills Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9008] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I felt moved to take a brief call on the second reading of the Wills Bill. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Why? 
TIM BARNETT 
: I have three reasons which is always appropriate in these situations. My first reason is that for some time when talking to audiences in the rainbow community and explaining the process of civil union I have explained the fact that some legislation was left out of the very comprehensive law reform process that ran parallel to civil union. The statutory references legislation that effectively cleared up discrimination in over 150 New Zealand statutes left unamended and unreformed a range of legislation including the adoption legislation the Wills Bill and what was then the lawyers and conveyancers legislation because that legislation was undergoing a law reform process. 
The phrase “law reform process” is a somewhat mysterious one that probably means very little to the general public. Indeed if one looks at those different pieces of legislation one sees that the process was very very different in terms of adoption law. This House has through select committees—and notably through committees that my colleague Dianne Yates has been involved in—discussed the issue from time to time but it has never ever got to the point of being legislation and that remains one of the anomalies in our law in terms of who is and who is not allowed to adopt. 
Another piece of legislation that was then at a reasonably early stage was the wills legislation. That reform process as we have heard from colleagues was driven by the Law Commission. As we have heard from earlier discussion only a handful of submissions were received on this process when the bill got to the Justice and Electoral Committee. But I think one should always recognise that when the Law Commission engages in a law reform process it takes its time. It also receives public submissions. Really what it is doing which is a great service to this House is preparing legislation to the point that what we have to do is just make sure that it has been done properly then on that basis go ahead and get the legislation through. So not only did the select committee receive only a handful of submissions on the Wills Bill but also the changes the committee made were quite modest. 
My first point of interest was the fact that this law reform process which we have been talking about for at least 3 or 4 years has now finally culminated and secondly that this process highlights what law reform is all about. Today in discussions elsewhere in this place I heard that the income tax legislation is going through a similar reform process—reform not so much in terms of changing the law but in terms of really making sure it is written in consistent and modern English. Indeed it seems in looking at the report we have before us today from the Justice and Electoral Committee that the committee has adopted much the same approach. We have legislation relating to wills that goes back through 170 years. What will come out of this process when the bill goes through the Committee stage and the third reading will be a single Wills Act in plain modern language that is both clear and accessible. That was the essence of this process but at the same time there were reforms. 
Even though the area of wills is one where there probably are not dynamic changes from year to year over time changes do happen anomalies appear and the law needs to be modernised. What we have is what I think can best be described as modest reform—necessary quite low-level changes to ensure that this is effective and functioning legislation. 
I note from looking through the report of the select committee that it made changes in five areas. As I understand it those changes were made mainly in response to comments coming from public submitters and also from officials. The reality of our select committee process is that when officials start to put the heat of attention on legislation then a lot of minor detail starts to emerge. I say that it is minor detail but in the case of wills it could well be that what seems to be minor detail could be of fundamental importance to somebody faced with a conflict in terms of a will. 
The select committee looked at issues of terminology. It was gratifying to know that a committee of politicians could simplify the legislation beyond what the officials could produce. For example the committee has omitted the word “natural” from “natural person” and replaced the term “doing a testamentary action” with “making a will” and so forth. That was the first function that the committee undertook. Secondly it slightly amended the meaning of “will” so that documents that change revoke or revive a will are included in that umbrella term which makes perfect sense to me. Thirdly it deleted clause 9 which explained the relationship between the clause concerned with people who may change revoke or revive wills and clauses later on in the legislation. The committee did that because its members thought that the wording was unnecessary and repetitive. Fourthly the committee amended the clause concerning age restrictions for preserving a will. 
Fifthly the committee looked at the whole issue of the terms of the will and the surrounding circumstances. That was the amendment particularly relating to civil union. Obviously the bill already included civil union as all our legislation does now when it refers to relationships—marriage and civil union are effectively mentioned together—but this amendment talks about the revocation when a will-maker enters into a marriage or civil union. Those are all important points in what is detailed legislation that for most of our lives we will not have any contact with whatsoever. But on some occasions particularly when there is a death in our families and at the end of our lives those points will become extremely important. 
I commend the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee and the work of the Law Commission. I commend the fact that the select committee was able to working on a cross-party basis make good and useful changes to this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.