Simpson ScottSCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I too want to join with others across the House in supporting this third reading of what is a member's bill initiated by the Blind Foundation which has again shown to the House and to its stakeholders and to the whole nation its level of innovation and credibility in terms of keeping itself modern keeping itself relevant and keeping itself focused on the future. Others have spoken at length about the history of the foundation. I do not want to go there but I do want to just reflect for a couple of minutes on the matters that came before the select committee. Firstly there was a short but quite important initial briefing from our ministerial advisers. I think it is worthwhile just noting that the ministerial advisers supported this bill wholeheartedly. They did not offer any further drafting suggestions. They did not offer any changes and they did not recommend any to the committee. What they did do was highlight the fact that this is one of a number of private Acts of Parliament that provide for the incorporation of single entities. The problem with these historical and largely traditional pieces of legislation is that for the most part they are by today's modern standards not what we would call high-quality pieces of legislation. They are not high-quality statutes. As a general rule they fail to provide or address what we now consider to be quite important issues relating to governance and rights and obligations of the governance holders and they fail to address things like officers' duties. I think it is very laudable and creditable that the foundation took it upon itself to address these sorts of issues through bringing this member's bill to the House. There are probably a number of other worthy creditable organisations that like the Blind Foundation need some improvement to their governance and to their legislative status as well. There was only one submission to the select committee and it came from the foundation itself. The foundation was very keen to highlight in its submission two key reasons for this legislation to proceed. The first one was that by keeping the Act on the statute book it causes confusion to the foundation to its stakeholders to its members and to the other people who contract to it do business with it and support it in its good work. So although the foundation is still a statutory body it is not going to be one that is reflected in the way that it used to be under the existing legislation which is now completely out of date. The Blind Foundation's second point was that it wanted to repeal the Act because it wants to make sure that it can communicate to all and sundry that it acts independently of Parliament—that it is not a creature of Parliament—and the foundation's rich history I think will be well served in the future by this new piece of legislation. There is one technical point that was raised in its submission that I do think is of merit and does need a little bit of focus and that relates to a copyright matter. The foundation does an enormous amount of good work in terms of providing audiobooks for people who are blind or who have low vision. There is an issue that relates to copyright rules and regulations which means that under this legislation when the foundation does that good work of providing audiobooks for its members and stakeholders it will be exempt from the Copyright Act under Part 5 of that Act.So this is a good piece of legislation. It is a worthy piece of legislation but I think the most important thing about it for the foundation is that it is forward-looking. It builds on its creditable creative past and will set the foundation up for a long and prosperous future doing enormously good work for more than 12000 New Zealanders who are either blind or have low vision. I join with others in commending it to the House. It is a very good piece of legislation.