Wills Bill

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) Link to this

I move, That the Wills Bill be now read a second time. The Law Commission reviewed the existing wills legislation in 1997 as part of a wider review of succession law. The commission concluded that the current law generally works well and that there is no need for radical change, but it recommended restating the existing legislation in one statute in plain language, and modernising certain aspects of the substantive law. This bill is based on the Law Commission’s report and was introduced alongside several other bills that give effect to Law Commission reports, such as the Arbitration Amendment Bill, the Property Law Bill, and the bill that we have just previously dealt with, the Succession (Homicide) Bill. That bill also arose out of the Law Commission’s broader review of succession law.

This bill improves the legal framework for will-making. It makes the law on wills easier to understand, ensures that better effect can be given to will-makers’ intentions, and makes it easier for certain people to make wills. On behalf of my colleague Clayton Cosgrove, I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its very careful consideration of the bill. I endorse the committee’s amendments to the bill, which are entirely in keeping with the spirit of the bill and its objective of modernising the current legislation and making it more user-friendly.

The Justice and Electoral Committee made a number of helpful changes to the bill. The majority of the committee’s changes relate to the drafting of the bill. One of the bill’s express purposes is to modernise the language of the Wills Act 1837—an old imperial statute—and its numerous amending Acts. The language of those Acts is often difficult for a modern-day reader and layperson to read, and the committee’s changes make the bill easier to understand. Of course, this will be very depressing for a lot of lawyers, because they will not be able to rely on the fact that the language is completely dense and impossible for people to penetrate, on their own ability. Tragically, this will probably reduce reliance on the legal profession—which is very, very sad. Seriously though—

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) Link to this

I thank Minister Lianne Dalziel for her generous remarks about the hard work of the Justice and Electoral Committee, but I have to say that they were a bit over the top because really it was not too much hard work, at all. This is legislation that has been hanging around for an eternity. As I said a few minutes ago, this bill was based on report No. 41 of the Law Commission, which was published in about July 1997. So it has had a 10-year gestation period.

The Minister rightly addressed the primary concern with the legislation, and that is to simplify the language. What the bill does is restate the existing law, which goes back to 1837—and there have been some amendments since then—in a single statute in plain, modern language. I certainly hope that we have achieved that aim. That is really the point that I want to address tonight, because some of the more technical material can await the Committee stage.

There is a real need to express this legislation in contemporary, plain English. I would be very interested in hearing contributions from some of the lay members of the House—the non-lawyers—as to whether we have actually achieved that aim. In some respects, that is open to debate. There is no doubt that we have improved on the definition of “will” from the 1837 Act. That definition stated: “The word ‘will’ shall extend to a testament, and to a codicil, and to an appointment by will or by writing in the nature of a will in exercise of a power, and also to a disposition by will and testament or devise of the custody and tuition of any child, by virtue of [the Tenures Abolition Act 1660], or by virtue of an Act passed in the Parliament of Ireland in the fourteenth and fifteenth years of the reign of King Charles the Second, intituled ‘An Act for taking away the Court of Wards and Liveries, and tenures in capite and by knight’s service,’ and to any other testamentary disposition;”.

The Law Commission proposed that that rather fulsome definition of will could be replaced by: “A will includes a codicil and any other testamentary disposition.” Members will note that clause 8 of the proposed legislation does not pick up what the Law Commission recommended but has a slightly lengthier definition of “will”. So I hope we have done our job to make the language simpler—I have my doubts in one or two circumstances.

As to some of the other terms that were changed, I tell members that we removed the word “natural” from “natural person”, and we also replaced the term “doing a testamentary action”, which is ambiguous at least, with “making a will”. We replaced the term “testamentary document” with “will”, which everyone understands and, as the Minister said, we certainly replaced the terms “testator” and “testatrix” with “will-maker”. So there has been a genuine attempt on the part of Parliament, through the Justice and Electoral Committee, to simplify the language. As the Minister correctly observed, we really need to make this kind of legislation readily available to all people, not just to lawyers.

With those brief comments in mind, I am happy to say that National will support this legislation based on this ancient report. We commend the bill to the House, and we look forward to the Committee stage when some of the more technical material that was canvassed before the select committee can be properly discussed.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) Link to this

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.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) Link to this

I, too, would like to stand to support the Wills Bill. As my colleague Mr Finlayson said, its changes are not worthy of too much debate; they are pretty straightforward, though technical in nature, and they will affect only wills made after the new bill comes into force. There are two exceptions to that.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) Link to this

As the distinguished speaker before me, Chris Auchinvole, indicated, National does support the Wills Bill, which is a re-enactment of some very old law. If one were to reflect on what are probably the two most arcane areas of legal interest, one would conclude they would be our rules relating to property, and our rules relating to wills and estates.

I would like to speak from the outset about the distinguishing feature of a will, which is carried forward into this legislation. I would describe that distinguishing feature as being testamentary, ambulatory, and revocable, because we all know that a will is a document that has no effect at all until the testator’s death. Until then, it really remains just a mere declaration of intention, and can be revoked or varied. So it is said to be ambulatory, or changeable. The execution of a will still leaves the testator free to dispose of his or her property inter vivos, and I will look at that inter vivos aspect in a moment. It is also the case that a will is capable of dealing with property acquired by the testator between the date of the will and the date of the death. So if a will executed in 1996 provides for a gift of “all my sports cars”, that would include those sports cars owned by the testator at the time of the testator’s death in 1997, whether those cars were acquired before or after the date of the will. I will not talk about animus testandi, but, certainly, that is an essential part of a testator’s capability to execute a will.

Probably of greater significance is that we have seen significant legislative change that has intervened in, and has denied to a significant extent, the right that a testator had in the past of complete testamentary freedom. Prior to 2002, the two most important pieces of legislation were the Family Protection Act 1955 and the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949. The first was concerned with circumstances whereby a testator had failed to fill a moral obligation that he or she might have owed to third parties, including, primarily, children, and the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act dealt with situations where promises that had been made by the testator had not been honoured. But what happened in February 2002 was that the Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 2001 was enacted; it renamed the Matrimonial Property Act 1976, extensively amended that legislation, and made huge inroads in the context of matrimonial property and property in a partnership setting, in the testamentary freedom that those persons would otherwise have had.

The last item I want to deal with briefly is to note the difference that wills have, as distinguished from other transactions. I am particularly thinking of inter vivos transactions, because a will may be distinguished from an inter vivos transaction by two features. An inter vivos gift takes effect immediately, and a will, of course, takes effect only upon death. Another distinguishing mark, in looking at wills and other transactions, is the important class of gift called donatio mortis causa. All these matters are carefully covered in the Wills Bill, and I do not doubt that the work the Justice and Electoral Committee has done in reporting this bill back to Parliament has been done carefully, and well.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was interested to hear the view of a lawyer working with Māori within my electorate, TamakiMakaurau, just last Friday. Andrew Lawson, who has worked at the Mangere Community Law Centre for the past 10 years, was reflecting on the experiences and perspectives of Māori regarding wills. It should perhaps be pointed out that the Mangere Community Law Centre has recently celebrated 20 years of service, being one of the first law centres in Aotearoa to provide services to address the unmet legal needs of its community. It is a community law centre that is well supported by mana whenua, by Tainui. So when Andrew Lawson described the view of Māori as dismissing the need for wills because they think they are tempting fate, it made me sit up and listen. This is an organisation that knows what it is talking about. Mr Lawson went further and explained that although many Māori view writing a will as bad luck, the misfortune actually occurs following the death in the whānau if deliberations about the inheritance of assets such as taonga and shares in Māori land assets are up for debate.

So with the words from my electorate ringing in my ears, I have taken a particular interest in this, the second reading of the Wills Bill. Its purpose is all about modernisation and simplicity. It replaces the Wills Act 1837 of the UK Parliament with an Act in plain language that updates certain aspects of existing wills law, and brings all matters relating to wills together in a single statute. It is to be written in straightforward, modern language that is clear and accessible to all those who wish to make, update, or revoke their will.

The need for a revamp of current legislation governing wills was recommended in the Law Commission’s 1997 publication Succession Law: A Succession (Wills) Act. As we understand it the interest was a practical one, because the legislation dating back to 1837 was archaic. So, too, were the words and the provisions. Thinking further about the suggestion that Māori are not interested in writing wills in the first place, I wonder, then, whether the process of simplifying and clarifying the legislation may also have an educative function about the value of setting out directions in legal form for the distribution of one’s property after death. Some of the key areas one would think should be included are the answers to questions such as: can I leave my whāngai some of my Māori land interest; how appropriate is it to defer property disposal provisions to the Māori Land Court to determine matters of succession; how are Acts such as the Family Protection Act 1955, the Matrimonial Property Act 1976, and the Administration Act 1969 able to comply with Māori cultural processes and laws; how are the succession rights of individuals, whānau or hapū, whose rights have been previously extinguished, able to be considered; can I ensure my wishes will stand after I pass on, and should I be able to make them stand; and is it time to consider a separate Māori law of succession?

The Māori Party believes that the creation of a will can play a role in maintaining whakapapa links through the succession of resources and taonga to whānau and hapū. As such, we are happy to support any amendments that assist this process. We are also of the opinion that the procedure of establishing wills is not one that applies just to contemporary times. Indeed, Frank Acheson’s essay for the Jacob Joseph Scholarship of 1913 describes the process of ōhākī—verbal wills—as a routine part of Māori custom. In 1914 a former student of the excellent Te Aute College, Hoani Meihana Te RamaApakura, was employed as a licensed interpreter and clerk of the Native Land Court. Through his work he would be called upon to witness wills and translate official documents from Māori to English. So, clearly, as tangata whenua we have had our own distinct process of establishing wills, which may well be useful in any future wills education programme.

The key issue for the Māori Party in looking at the creation of a bill in plain, modern, accessible language is ensuring that the reforms that take place are explained in such a way as to make it perfectly clear how the law works in relation to key elements of customary law. In 1996 the Law Commission requested that a working paper be written by Professor Pat Hōhepa and Dr David Williams that could help to describe some of the intricacies of Māori law. The paper, entitled The Taking into Account of Te Ao Maori in Relation to Reform of the Law of Succession, noted that there had been legal recognition of Māori customary law in the past in the case of marriage or adoptions, but that such provisions were removed at the convenience of legislators who were not of Māori descent.

A key example of the impacts of this relate to the case of whāngai. Under Māori customary law whāngai are similar to legally adopted children in accordance with tikanga Māori, yet the Adoption Act 1955 does not apply to whāngai. In a precedent established in November 2002, in Keelan, the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court decision stating that whāngai cannot make claims under the Family Protection Act. As a consequence of this case, if Māori want to make it clear that a whāngai child is to be included in a will, he or she has to be named or referred to by the term “whāngai” to be a beneficiary.

But we have been pleased that with the passage of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act on 1 July 1993, there are now clear legal protections with regard to succession to Māori land. It used to be that a person could leave interests to whomever they wished or be imposed upon to do so—as often happened—but now an owner of Māori land interests can leave those interests only as set out in the Act. In summary, Māori land interests or Māori incorporation shares can now be left only to children or descendants; brothers and sisters; anyone else entitled to receive interest by whakapapa, anyone else related to the testator by blood who is a member of the hapū associated with the land; other owners in the land who are members of the hapū associated with the land; whāngai of the testator; trustees of any of the above; and the spouse for life or for a shorter period. If Māori land is willed to someone who does not qualify, that part of the will is invalid. The idea is to continue the collective nature of whakapapa and the maintenance of land within the whenua tīpuna bloodlines. Freedom of choice should not extend to being able to alienate one’s children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren from their whenua.

Finally, one of the issues referred to in a paper by Professor Hōhepa and Dr Williams was the absolute importance of discussing with tangata whenua the context and criteria encompassed in wills. Their discussion paper was always intended as a basis only for going forward to consult with iwi and pan-Māori organisations. Their recommendation was that the consultation process would be crucial in providing answers to questions on the future direction of the law of succession as it affected Māori. It would appear from such a recommendation that what the author suggested was a wide-scale hui process. The Māori Party is more than happy to offer suggestions for, and support, such a nationwide consultation.

It may well be timely to revisit a concept I first raised in my first reading speech—that of ōhākī, a formal speech given when dying that takes the form of an announcement of one’s wishes regarding personal property disposal to the assembled relatives. With regard to ōhākī, I say that the legal oral declaration of intention was at first recognised as legally binding, but powers were removed by legislation last century. The Māori Party believes it is an important succession concept, and we would welcome further debate about its application in a modern-day context. We in the Māori Party support the Wills Bill at its second reading.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) Link to this

It is a pleasure to stand again and speak in support of the second reading of the Wills Bill, which was before the Justice and Electoral Committee. It was another bill that received unanimous support and very constructive work from the committee.

The Wills Bill does not radically reform the existing laws relating to wills but, instead, aims to better those laws. The current laws relating to wills are verbose, archaic, and difficult for many people to understand. They can also make it difficult for the wishes of the will-maker to be carried out. The aims of this bill are, firstly, to restate the existing law in a single statute in plain modern language that is both clear and accessible. The bill improves the legal framework for will-making. It makes the law on wills easier to understand, ensuring that better effect can be given to will-makers’ intentions and making that process easier. An example of the use of plain English is that the reference, used previously, of “doing a testamentary action’’ has been removed. The bill now refers instead to “making”, “revoking”, “changing” and “reviving” a will, as appropriate. That language would be more readily understood by the average reader or, as former speakers have said, by ordinary people. I myself am quite proud to stand here and say I regard myself as being very much an ordinary person.

DIANNE YATES (Labour) Link to this

I rise to speak on the Wills Bill. It is interesting that the bill has a very, very simple title. We have at times discussed what bills are called and said that bills before Parliament should be very explicit and obvious in what they are about. I think it is pretty obvious what the Wills Bill is about; it is about wills. I do not think there is any other bill that has such a short title. I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for the work it did. It is pretty obvious—as has been said by other speakers—that this bill is not one that has caused a great deal of controversy. I am surprised that the committee received only 10 submissions—of which six were heard—given the amount of interest that people in this country have had about violence towards children. One of the most violent things concerning children is when they cannot inherit from a will, or when people change their wills so that their family cannot inherit. I am surprised more people did not make submissions on this bill, which is basically about what people can inherit and what many, many people spend a great deal of time thinking about.

So I was surprised there were only 10 submissions. That obviously indicates that the bill is not about changing the law in any dramatic way but is about making the law easier to understand. Having been an executor, I think that that is something that is perhaps long overdue. As Dr Worth mentioned when he was speaking, we look back to 1837 with this bill. It is not a bill that started off in New Zealand; it is one we inherited. It is a Wills Bill that was inherited by New Zealand.

I am optimistic that the changes that have been made will enable people to more easily understand their rights. As has been mentioned by Lynne Pillay, there was a particular anomaly about someone who marries when under age. This bill has dealt with the anomaly so that the will-making powers and legality of the will have been sorted out in that regard.

I note that on the Justice and Electoral Committee, which dealt with this bill, there are a large number of lawyers—many of them practising lawyers. No doubt they put their minds to this legislation and ensured that this bill would become more workable and easily understood, not only by the law profession but by the laypeople who wish to make their wills.

It is interesting, as we have said, that there are some changes—for example, for those entering into a civil union. There have been changes to other legislation that have this impact. Legislation such as the Civil Union Act contains clauses that change other legislation automatically. Those will no doubt have affected this legislation as well and ensured that there is fairness, and that what applies to marriage applies also to civil unions and, as we have heard, to those under 18 who marry.

It does seem a little strange that the outdated terms are going. I actually quite like the word “testator”, but I guess I am a little old-fashioned. We do understand that a will-maker is a will-maker and that the Wills Bill will make things much easier to understand and use.

Once again we thank those who made submissions on the bill and who came before the select committee to give their opinions. Those whose opinions were taken into account and changes made will be especially pleased. I thank all of those who were on the Justice and Electoral Committee. I thank the staff and all of those who worked on this legislation. We look forward to its going through its other stages in the House and becoming law. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) Link to this

I felt moved to take a brief call on the second reading of the Wills Bill.

RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to say a few short words in support of the Wills Bill and to acknowledge a number of things.

This bill has come on the tail of the Succession (Homicide) Bill, which was debated prior to the dinner break. It is interesting, when one compares the two bills, to note the similarity between the concerns and issues in, and possibly the conflicts that arise from, the two bills. Specifically, I know that the Succession (Homicide) Bill aims to codify the law that precludes a person who unlawfully kills another person from benefiting from the death of that person. That includes benefit from the proceeds of the victim’s estate or from any non-probate estates. It will be interesting to see how that bill goes on. If we look at the clauses relating to restriction of claims, we see that that bill provides that a killer who has a valid claim against the estate of a victim is entitled to make an application in respect of that claim under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949. However, the bill does not allow such an application to be made where a testamentary promise is expressly provided for in the victim’s will.

It is interesting to read on and note that the Justice and Electoral Committee recognised in the hearing of submissions on that bill, and that the House recognised in its consideration of the bill, that the purpose of the bill is to ensure that a person should not profit from the act of killing. Therefore, we consider that killers under the bill should be deprived only of the rights they gained by virtue of the killing. A host of New Zealanders in reading that would say that killers should not get anything, and that it did not matter whether they were entitled to it from a will or from preceding promises that had been made. The mere fact that a person who killed could profit in any way as a result of that killing would, in the eyes of most New Zealanders, be abhorrent. But I am trusting—and New Zealand First is hoping—that given that both of these bills were examined and considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee, its members fully understand the consequences of one bill upon the other.

Moving to the Wills Bill, we note a number of things. We note the extraordinarily large number of MPs who sat on the select committee in the hearings on this bill. Quite clearly, a bit of shuffling was going on, with some members coming in from December and some from February, and some members being there as non-voting members. The honourable Hone Harawira was there as a non-voting member.

I can assure the House that I know the frustrations that can occur. New Zealand First and the Greens are parties that I tend to refer to as alternative parties, not as minor parties. One cannot consider a party that has six or seven MPs—or one that represents four major constituency seats in this country—as being minor. But that is the view of an alternative party member. Alternative party views need to be heard in the hearings on these bills. It is frustrating, to say the least, that alternative parties are permitted on these select committees only at the behest or through the goodwill of the major parties, and that the major parties still inflict their control by removing voting rights. It does not actually speak a lot for the functionality and the performance of MMP.

I guess that is something that the alternative parties need to articulate more to the constituency and to the electorates, so that the electorates understand that when members such as Hone Harawira sit on these committees, they may have the opportunity to listen and to question but they are prevented from exercising a vote. They are prevented from exercising any capacity in terms of the decision-making process. That is something that in time we will have to deal with, and it is something that must be dealt with if we are to have a truly mixed-member proportional Parliament in the full sense of that term.

The other thing that strikes me is the number of submissions: 10 submissions, of which only six were heard. This is curious. I am absolutely confident that all of the 121 MPs in this House, at some stage in the performance of their duties, end up advising citizens of this nation as to their rights, responsibilities, obligations, limitations, and restrictions in respect of the Act in terms of wills. One of the issues that may confront constituents in their lifetime that very often becomes a very personalised and vexed issue is that of wills—what Uncle Bloggs left or did not leave to nephews, aunties, sons, and daughters. It absolutely amazes me that, regardless of the degree of angst and dissatisfaction, the numbers of disputes that arise, and the level of sensitivity and emotion behind those issues, only 10 submissions were received on this bill, and only six of those submissions were actually heard.

I am further puzzled by that when I reflect on my own experience as a citizen and as a member of Parliament. In my time I have acted as an executor of the estate of my sister who passed away with no will. I have personally dealt with the difficulties of trying to manage an estate in such a circumstance to the satisfaction of the wider whanaunga. I was left somewhat frustrated that my sister had not made the time, found the time, or seen the need to make a will. I know that she is not the only New Zealander who has passed away in such circumstances; there are many, many more people out there without wills. As a Parliament we need to impress upon all New Zealanders the absolute importance and necessity of having a will. I accept the concern raised by Pita Sharples that a good number of—not most—Māori do not write wills for specific reasons. Some of those reasons are cultural, some are superstitious, and some are simply other reasons. There is a very definite need for the people of this nation to take on board the need to write a will, and to have confidence in the wills process.

The other thing I have to point out relates to Part 1 of this bill, where it talks about the armed forces and dispositions. As a soldier, nothing focuses the mind more than being told by one’s company sergeant major to sit down and write out a will. For most Defence Force personnel it brings the realisation that they will be deployed and that the chance they will be killed in action is a reality. I can assure the House that when I as a 17 or 18-year-old soldier was told to sit my butt down and write out a will, what was being said crystallised very, very clearly in my mind. At that time I was looking, rightly or wrongly, to go to Viet Nam. In the event, thankfully, it did not happen, but, as is the case for all defence forces personnel who are deployed all over the world right now, I had to write out a will because I was being deployed operationally. It is good that the military does that and that these issues are taken care of in this bill.

It is regrettable that the public as a whole in New Zealand have not taken on the importance and the significance of writing a will. The one fact that remains is we all will die. The condition in which we leave our estate, the ease with which the executors and other whānau members can tidy up our affairs, is often dictated by our ability to take on board that simple message.

I gather that this bill is a good bill in the sense that, if nothing else, it simplifies the language, using plain English. If I can make one plea, it is that it seems that we in this House are forever telling officials to please write things in plain English. Shakespeare died a long time ago. Ordinary New Zealanders, average New Zealanders, even highly educated New Zealanders in this country, prefer that laws be able to be read and interpreted swiftly. It does nobody any good—no matter what the legislation, no matter what the issue—if we continue to tie up our legislation with archaic and secularised terminology that only certain people can understand. That only produces grey areas, and grey areas lead to dissention.

I finish by saying that I have taken on board the comments of Pita Sharples in respect of Māoridom. Specifically, I think he said that ōhākī, which is a form of speech given when one is dying, should have some legal recognition. I say that I am listening, and that it is something I will discuss with my caucus, and I look forward to further debate on it in the Committee stage of this bill. I know that many Māori people—particularly our elderly, our kaumātua and our kuia—have lived a life where the oral word, the spoken word, has been the law. It does seem that sometimes we overlook such things. I am not quite sure—I have not had the opportunity to talk to my caucus about it—but the arguments that I heard put in this debate seem to me to have some sense and some grounds.

We look forward to the debate in the Committee stage. Thank you.