Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) Link to this
I move, That the Wills Bill be now read a third time. At the outset can I acknowledge my colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, who is not with us tonight because of a bereavement in his electorate, which he has rushed back to attend to. That is probably with a degree of poignancy, given the fact that we are dealing with the Wills Bill, so I would like to place that on record.
The Wills Bill is of significance to all New Zealanders. Anyone who wishes to make provision for one’s family and the disposition of one’s property when he or she dies has an interest in this legislation. Wills allow a person to protect the interests of future generations. They give the will-maker the peace of mind of knowing that loved ones will be looked after when he or she has gone. Accessible and well-functioning wills legislation is therefore of vital importance to society.
When the Law Commission reviewed the existing legislation in 1997, it concluded that the current law generally worked well and there was no call for dramatic change. However, the commission did recommend consolidating the existing legislation into a single, plain-language statute and modernising certain elements of the existing law. The Law Commission’s work on the original report, and its subsequent contribution to readying the Wills Bill for introduction, have made this revision of the law relating to wills possible. The Government has demonstrated its commitment to implementing a number of Law Commission proposals. These bills, all of which arise from Law Commission reports, update key statutes and make the law more accessible. I am very grateful to the Law Commission and also to the Justice and Electoral Committee and, in particular, to certain members of this House for their valuable contributions to the development of this bill.
The Wills Bill will improve the standard of legislation on our statute book and make the law more user-friendly for the average New Zealander. The intention of the Wills Bill is to make the law clearer, ensure that better effect can be given to will-makers’ intentions, and make it easier for certain people to make wills. The key purposes of the Wills Bill are, first, to create a single, plain-language statute, and, second, to modernise key aspects of the existing law. The legislation governing wills is currently contained in a series of separate enactments. The main Act comes from the United Kingdom and dates back to—
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL Link to this
Well done, Mr Worth. It is wonderful that Mr Worth is paying such attention on this occasion. It has been substantially amended by, and must be read together with, a number of amending Acts. When combined with the archaic language used, the current legislation is very difficult for most people to read—except for Mr Worth and Mr Finlayson, of course. Therefore, the Wills Bill restates the law in a single statute in plain, modern language. The process of modernising and improving the language of the bill has also been substantially contributed to by the Justice and Electoral Committee, which made a number of sensible changes to the drafting and language of the bill.
To the extent that the bill modernises the substantive law relating to wills, it essentially follows the Law Commission’s proposals. These changes improve the legal framework for will-making. They make it easier for certain people to make wills and mitigate the risk of a will-maker’s wishes being undermined by a poorly drafted or executed will. Overall, they allow better effect to be given to will-makers’ intentions.
Wills speak for people who are no longer able to speak for themselves. Legislation that makes it clear what is required for an effective will eases the burden on the will-maker. Legislation that also offers avenues for overcoming defects in the will, when the will-maker is no longer able to do so for himself or herself, eases the burden on those who are left behind. In that regard this is a bill that is worthy of commendation to this House, and I commend the bill to the House.
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this
I thank the Minister for her kind and generous words about the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee. I endorse what she said about the good work of the Law Commission, and I would also mention the Ministry of Justice officials who, I think, made a great contribution to the work of the select committee as it reviewed this bill. Given the Minister’s excellent summation of the legislation, I will not attempt to go over that material again. I endorse what she said; that can all be taken as read. I simply want to say that I am very pleased we are at the third reading stage of this bill.
I am also pleased that this is one of three law reform projects that will shortly become law. I would say this about law reform: I believe that law reform is a subject that should transcend party politics. I think it is very good that in the dying days of this Labour Government, the Prime Minister has discovered law reform. But a display of energy after 8 years of laziness is, quite frankly, disappointing. It behoves National-led and Labour-led Governments to pay attention to law reform. I certainly endorse what Sir Geoffrey Palmer of the Law Commission said a few years ago: “Keeping the law up to date is important for the commercial life of the country and for the better functioning of society.” That statement is nowhere more applicable than it is to this legislation, which, as the Minister has said, will replace the Wills Act of 1837 of the United Kingdom Parliament.
It is simply not good enough that some law reform projects languish. As I said, the wills project is almost completed. But let us look, for example, at the law of limitation. We should consider the very poor performance of the legislature on that issue. The Law Commission in 1986 was asked by the then Minister of Justice, Geoffrey Palmer, to look at limitation defences in civil proceedings. It came up with a report on 31 October 1988, and nothing happened to that report. In 2000 the Law Commission published another paper on limitation law. Nothing has happened, yet time and time again the courts of this country have been asking the legislature to act on that important area of the law. Most recently, the Supreme Court commented that New Zealand law concerning limitations was long overdue for consideration.
I say this in a bipartisan way: Parliament has to lift its game, as it is currently failing the public. The Wills Bill is a good start. In the last 12 months we have already dealt with the law relating to evidence. Shortly we will be dealing with arbitration, homicide succession, and property law reform, and the select committee is currently dealing with sedition. But many other reports of the Law Commission need to become the subject of legislative action, and it is high time that Parliament lifted its game.
Darren HughesCHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON Link to this
The last time the member asked me to name them, I started to name them, and that caused groans from the Labour benches. So I will not accede to his request but, rather, I will continue with my speech. I will name them afterwards to the member if that really interests him, although I suspect that it does not do so. Before I was rudely interrupted, I was saying that Parliament has to lift its game.
I refer to an outstanding speech, which was just recently handed to me by Dr Richard Worth, that he gave in 2004 on the subject of law reform. One of the things Dr Worth mentioned was the possibility of our introducing to the New Zealand Parliament a Main Committee, or a second but parallel Chamber, which is basically a large select committee to which business can be referred and where decisions have to proceed with unanimity. The Main Committee was established in 1994 in the Australian Parliament to minimise business overload in the House and increase opportunities for all members to participate. So legislation like the wills legislation, homicide succession law reform, and matters such as that would be referred to the Main Committee, comprising about 40 members of the Australian House of Representatives. In a non-adversarial and cooperative environment, devoid of some of the petty points-scoring we sometimes see in this Chamber, there can be substantive debate in the House of Representatives on non - party-political, but none the less very important, legislation.
I think it is time that the New Zealand Parliament considered that, because even now it takes too long for non - party-political, but none the less important, legislation to get through this House. Much of the work of the Law Commission could be brought into force a lot more quickly if we had something like a Main Committee. I commend that outstanding address by my friend Dr Worth to all members of Parliament. They should read it, they should understand it, and they should implement that proposal as quickly as possible. So, in a John Fitzgerald Kennedy kind of way, I exhort all members of Parliament to work together as parliamentarians to ensure that important law reform projects do not languish for as long as the wills project has, and certainly for as long as the limitation project has. In fact, limitation is an important area that still has not been looked at by this lazy Government.
The Wills Bill is good law. It replaces ancient legislation and is generally expressed in clear and accessible language. But may I close by warning laypersons of the desirability of continuing to have the legal profession draft their wills. In my first reading speech I spoke about certain testators whose wills had resulted in litigation. Generally, those wills were drafted by the testators themselves, so for the benefit of Mr Hughes—
who makes his own will.
And I do think it is an important point, notwithstanding that we have renovated the law on wills, that it is expressed in clear and unequivocal language, and that concepts are made much simpler and easier to understand, that I still exhort laypersons not to try to draft their own wills but to ensure that the legal profession drafts them. If one reads my first reading speech, one will see many examples of cases where wills have come to grief because people have tried to draft their own wills, be it on eggshells, as I told the House, or in some other peculiar way.
So this is a good bill, and I am pleased that it will shortly become law. But I really do think that in recent times that has been the exception rather than the rule, and that too many law reform projects have stalled because of a lack of attention by this Parliament. I really do endorse what Dr Worth said in that address in 2004: that law reform is too important to be left to party politics, and that we should contemplate having something like the Main Committee, which can consider this sort of legislation very effectively indeed.
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) Link to this
I seek leave to table a speech that has been described by third parties as outstanding, delivered to the Australasian Law Reform Commission.