Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker for the opportunity to speak to this the Incorporated Societies Bill at its third reading. Other members have used such rhetorical flourishes as the lifeblood of society" "engine room of civil society" and the "fabric of society" which I think is quite neat actually in terms of the way that we view these very important entities and organisations in our communities.I want to acknowledge that my discussion of the bill leans on the analysis by Andrew Bayly our National Party spokesperson in that regard. He's made clear I think in various discussions and at previous stages as have other speakers on this side of the House—for example the Hon Judith Collins leading the charge for us on this—that National does support the bill. We've decided that its benefits outweigh its costs but I did want to place on record as others have on this side of the House the fact that there are a couple of areas in which we are wishing to express concern which we'll be watching carefully. So I'll emphasise those in my contribution not to dwell on the negative for any reason other than to provide for the record the fact that we'll be watching closely to check that there aren't unintended consequences of the legislation passing.So first of all as others have mentioned this is an update to legislation. Some 114 years on following the 1908 Act we have its replacement. Of course there have been amendments along the way and the fact that it's an old Act doesn't necessarily mean in itself that it's not worthwhile. Of course if it were a new Act that wouldn't also necessarily mean that it's worthwhile. So we should judge these things on the quality not the age and to do otherwise would be bone-headed in the words of an item about this very piece of legislation by one Liam Hehir. For those transcribing in Hansard that's H-e-h-i-r pronounced "hare".Reflecting on the fact that it is an update and a considerable update there are positive aspects that go along with that. Rachel Brooking has mentioned the plain language that's now been employed within the legislation and that's a positive thing of course as far as it goes. Interestingly we don't need the Plain Language Act as it will no doubt soon be unbelievably in order to be able to make legislation with plain language in it but nevertheless that's a positive thing to be celebrated. The example of updated language and even the currency with shilling being—I think I'm right in saying—somewhere in the old Act as an amount payable of course is outdated and outmoded so it's appropriate to update that. But more substantively of course we think about the desire to make these entities these coming together of individuals within a community worthwhile and attractive to them and of course not deter them as volunteers who would give their time; their money oftentimes; and certainly their energy expertise and other resources to the community.Various members have used the example of a tennis club. The Hon Judith Collins spoke of tennis clubs. Rachel Brooking spoke of a specific tennis club in the electorate of my friend and colleague Joseph Mooney. I think it's a good analogy or good example to use because of course we don't want people who sign up to the tennis club to end up in the wrong kind of court and others have spoken about the potential for legal liability. I hoped you'd enjoy that one Madam Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I'm laughing on the inside.CHRIS PENK: You're laughing on the inside. The mask is hiding it very well. But of course we hope that there will be net benefits rather than net costs and—you'll forgive me one more—of course we don't want the service of the legal variety but more the tennis nature to result from people's involvement in tennis clubs. For those reasons we've talked about the fact that we don't want legal liability to attract in a way that would be inappropriate for essentially volunteers to these kinds of organisations and entities.Others have talked rightly about the fact that there are reasons that we want to protect those who would be bound by obligations entered into or purportedly entered into by officers of an incorporated society. Actually we had from Andrew Little discussion of a particular society in which he was involved or at least had knowledge—and he didn't say it was a tennis club but he did say it was involved in a summer sport so that may be a further example along those lines. But he talked about the need for decision making with a certain amount of solemnity and of course he's right to make that point.As others on this side of the House have said though of course the good-faith obligation that exists within I think clause 49 no doubt it's already existing in a particular equivalent section in the current legislation. Of course the need to act in the best interest of the incorporated society already does apply. So we just place on record the fact that some manner of obligation already does exist notwithstanding of course an intention that we would all agree with that solemn decision-making good-faith decision-making decision making consistent with the duties of a fiduciary in some cases is appropriate.But of course what we don't want to have on the other hand is either a situation where would-be members of a society and would-be officers of a society are deterred from involvement because they think they might be legally liable if it's found that they haven't acted to that standard—of course the equivalent situation but if it were to be the case that a person was needing to defend such a claim such litigation that they would be found wanting in a way that would unfairly reflect the responsibilities that they've taken on in good faith for all the right reasons and so on.I think the idea of a social contract as others have sort of hinted at—I'm not sure that they use that language exactly but I think the idea that interconnected obligations are owed is a good one. Of course these are consciously entered into contrary to discussions oftentimes around a social contract which ignore the fact that a contract by definition is an obligation that's entered into knowingly. But of course in this case people do join clubs and societies—incorporated societies technically—in a knowing and willing fashion. They do the things that are required to entail membership. They might seek election as an officer on the governing body of the society and so on.So having placed on record those concerns we do say of course that there are many good things in the bill that are worth supporting. I think it's only fair to nod at least to those lest it should seem that my contribution is unduly emphasising the negative aspects.One positive feature I think always worthwhile noting for new law that we're making if it is adding to the statute book legal understandings that haven't maybe necessarily been crystallised in the form of case law or noting that of course some people don't have access to read judgments—possibly they can't get hold of them. They don't know to look for them. They might find them difficult to understand or navigate. Even those involved in the practice and administration of law would have some sympathy with that. So I think it's helpful that the Government has been progressing and the select committee has considered and so forth the undertaking such that the law will fill in some gaps so to speak—fill in some legal gaps in terms of our understanding and therefore adding certainty to those who put their hand up to serve the community in this way.Others have referred to the lifting of thresholds so that more societies will qualify as small. The significance of that is that they will then benefit from an exemption which makes the financial reporting requirements less onerous—so for example being able to avoid the cost of hiring an accountant. I should actually acknowledge in saying that of course that oftentimes an accountant or a lawyer or other professional person will render their services for free in a pro bono fashion and I think that that's a really positive feature. Again I think it was Andrew Little who noted that that's commonly the case and long may it be so in our society that those who would serve either directly in the administration of for example a tennis club or those who would support the efforts of those doing so perhaps to establish or administer or advise do so on a volunteer basis. Of course that's part of the magic of these kind of organisations and these societies and the things that we do together in this country be it sports or other community activities.So I think we've between us all given the issue a pretty good go over. I think we've agreed as a House and the record will reflect shortly in a majority passing this legislation that there are many good things that it achieves. On the National side of the House we have nevertheless stated that we'll be watching carefully to check that these unintended consequences do not flow through and of course if they do we shall be ready to legislate or to offer our assistance to legislate accordingly. We commend the bill to the House."