Tanczos Nandor: Wills Bill — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Wills Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:5563] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I rise to also express our support for the Wills Bill. As has been said by previous speakers the bill will not excite a great deal of controversy or argument I think although there may be issues in the bill that I have missed and I would be interested to hear about them if any do arise. Of course during the select committee process the bill will be combed through and looked at for unforeseen fish-hooks. As a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee I have to say I do not face this matter with the same degree of excitement and anticipation as some of the lawyer members of the committee. Nevertheless I expect it will be quite interesting to get into it and to look at how the rules currently work and how they should best be enacted in the 21st century. 
Certainly the recommendation of the Law Commission that there was a need to restate the law in plain language in a single statute is worth heeding. I note that there is an international campaign really for the redrafting of legislation in plain language and for there to be something that is easy to understand and that is accessible to the ordinary person. I think that that is useful particularly in the law relating to wills because a lot of people will make use of it. Wills are an important consideration for a lot of people and they need to have simple and easy access to the law in a single piece of legislation and in plain language. I am very supportive of the intention of the bill to make the law relating to wills accessible to ordinary people. 
I will not go on at great length about the bill because I think previous speakers have quite thoroughly canvassed the various provisions of the bill some of the reasons for them and some of the colourful history of wills internationally. I will draw a couple of items which have already been mentioned to the attention of House. The first concerns clause 10 “Persons who may do testamentary actions”. Subclause (1) states: “A natural person of 18 years or over may do all the testamentary actions.” Subclause (2) states: “A natural person under 18 years may do all the testamentary actions if he or she—(a) is married in a civil union or in a de facto relationship; or (b) has been married in a civil union or in a de facto relationship.” Subclause (3) then states: “A natural person under 18 years may make a will if he or she and another person have agreed to marry each other or enter a civil union with each other.” If none of those conditions apply then people under the age of 18 need to get the approval of the Family Court. 
The issue of age limits is something I have found quite curious in legislation. I remember when we were going through the Civil Union Bill finding the quite anomalous age restrictions that apply in different legislation. I am very strongly of the view that legislation should as far as possible be consistent particularly in matters such as age limits. The laws around age limits are widely varied and this bill is a good example of that. I for the life of me cannot think why someone who is married in a de facto relationship or in a civil union can make a will but someone who is not in such a relationship has to go to the court to get approval. That seems to be kind of bizarre. If I have shacked up with someone does that mean that I have suddenly become more mature and more in control of my financial affairs? I do not think so. I think that we should look at that issue during the select committee process. As I say that provision does mirror provisions in other legislation whereby people who are married in civil unions or in de facto relationships are somehow seen to be more mature than other young people. I think we will want to consider and address that. 
The other item is in response to Mr Finlayson’s point that wills will no longer need to have a signature at the end. He thought that was a curious measure. Well it seems to me to be fairly sensible actually. The idea is that a person can sign anywhere on the document as long as the signature is that person’s signature and clearly indicates his or her will. A signature at the end clearly indicates the end of the will so that someone cannot add little bits at the end. I do not see any reason why one should be required to sign a will just at the end and I do not see why that provision should be viewed as a curious measure. 
Apart from that as I have said I cannot see any particularly difficult fish-hooks in the first reading of this bill other than the issue I mentioned in relation to age. We do support the referral of the bill to the select committee and we look forward to going through the finer details of the bill during that process and coming back to the House for the report back.