Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSummary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 25 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18896. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment BillIn CommitteeClause 1 TitleCAROL BEAUMONT (Labour):I seek leave for the clauses to be debated as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose—that the clauses be taken as one question. Is there any objection? There is objection.Dr CAM CALDER (National):It is an extraordinary pleasure to stand and take a call on the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill in this the Committee stage. I am told that I can actually take—Hon Amy Adams: As many as you like.Dr CAM CALDER: —as many calls as I want and I cannot believe this because rarely does one have that honour in this House.Simon O’Connor: In these final days.Dr CAM CALDER: Indeed. As you know my time here is coming to an end so I am delighted to take this opportunity to speak on the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. I have to say that this was something that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee changed the title of. It changed the title of the bill. Many of the members of the committee are here today and I have to acknowledge the extraordinarily fine chairmanship of David Bennett and the remarkable support of Chris Auchinvole Simon O’Connor and other members of the committee who looked at this bill long and hard. There was no withdrawal from the scrutiny they gave this bill. What they decided—for very good reason—was that the name of the bill should be changed from the Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill to the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. I would like to go into some of the reasons why.Phil Twyford: Don’t feel you have to.Dr CAM CALDER: Some of the reasons can be found on the internet Mr Twyford. I know Mr Twyford that you are a habitué of the internet. You yourself were you to peruse the entry for high-power lasers would be surprised at what you found. What he would find is the extraordinary power of these devices. I noted in the speech I made on the second reading how easy it was to purchase high-power laser pointers for a relatively small price. I am pleased to say that now if one goes on to the internet one finds warnings to prospective customers from the Ministry of Health and the New Zealand Customs Service outlining to potential buyers of these devices our new customs and health regulations which cover the importation and supply of these dangerous goods. These new controls on the importation supply and acquisition of high-power laser pointers are reinforced in this legislation that we are debating in the Committee of the whole House today.As I said the title of this bill has been changed to purposefully bring in the definition of “high-power laser pointer” because what we found at the select committee—and I am sure members of the committee may bring this out draw it out and expand upon it a little bit more in their own contribution to the debate—and what we heard was that there was a body of opinion that suggested that devices of 1 milliwatt and less in power were highly unlikely to cause problems. I have to put up my hand and say that when I drafted this bill I personally wanted to include all laser pointers because I was of the opinion that one could still be distracted by a laser beam in one’s eye at whatever strength. But the committee looked at the various arguments for and against this—and I am sure one of my colleagues may bring this out to a greater degree later—and the committee made the decision that it would apply to laser pointers of over 1 milliwatt in power. This is the reason we changed the title of the bill which we have alluded to before—to make it clear that this Summary Offences (Possession of High-Power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill applies to the possession of high-power laser pointers and makes it an offence to carry such a device in a public place without reasonable excuse.This bill is another strand in this Government’s efforts to reduce the very real danger—very real—posed by these devices. So just to recap it is not just this bill; this bill is an adjunct to some excellent legislation that the Government has brought to the scene. The Government has brought in Minister Jo Goodhew and some extraordinarily good legislation. When I get the opportunity I will speak more on that later in this debate.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour):I rise to speak in support of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. As my colleague Cam Calder fellow member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has said this bill has had a change of name to limit it because previously it was too broad.Essentially the bill aims to introduce law to govern the possession of hand-held lasers in public places—to have a preventative impact and make it an offence for a person to have in his or her possession a hand-held laser in a public place without a reasonable excuse. This is a safety matter and that is why we support this bill. Thank you.Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development):Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill which I do think is very important. I would like to congratulate Cam Calder on bringing this through. I know that it is part of a much bigger piece of work that has been done on hand-held lasers particularly those with high velocity and the dangers of them. I have actually been on a plane when a laser was pointed at the plane. I was flying—not actually flying the plane myself but I was a passenger on a plane going into Invercargill. People saw a laser and the pilot came on to say that it was disturbing. I did think that only in New Zealand would it be that other passengers on the plane actually identified the street right down to the house where the laser had come from. Is that not the beautiful thing about New Zealand—that you actually know—Hon Amy Adams: And probably who it was as well.Hon PAULA BENNETT: They knew who it was! So I am not kidding you—as we were landing we were literally having the discussion as to where the house was and what the street was and people were discussing whether they knew them or not. The pilot had already rung the police to go around there. That is kind of a nice anecdote but it was a very serious matter and the pilot took it very seriously. Just having had that rather small personal experience I think that we do need to take the possession of hand-held lasers really seriously.But I have a question for the member in the chair Cam Calder. The member was saying something about how strong a laser is. As the member has identified he is leaving Parliament this year. We will be very very sad to see him go. I was wondering whether this would affect lasers being used by motivational speakers on whiteboards—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! When we are debating in Committee on clauses we have to relate to the clause. We are on clause 1. I would like the honourable Minister to actually mention the title. We have been going for over 2 minutes. I would actually like to hear the title mentioned.Hon PAULA BENNETT: Sorry about that. I think I was getting the title wrong and that is because I kept saying “the possession of hand-held lasers”. I acknowledge that you have changed the title to the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers” Amendment Bill. My question is related to the title and it is most definitely related to the possession of high-power laser pointers. I note that the member himself said that there was discussion within the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee about how high-powered those laser pointers could be.My question also relates to motivational speakers because they use laser pointers. I am thinking that after Parliament the member might have a career on the speaking circuit—I find him incredibly motivational I have to say—and I wonder whether he thinks that this legislation will affect the laser pointers that may be used in his motivational speaking as he goes around. [Interruption] This is most definitely about the title.I accept that the title of the bill was changed at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee based on the fact that it should be just for high-power lasers. I would just like to know that this bill will not negatively affect what the member is doing when he is on his circuit—and I actually think the member would do a fantastic job—striding across the stage with his laser in his hand and pointing to his presentation.I would also be interested if the member would address a few other things around the title. It sounds like it was quite a discussion about lasers within the select committee. I do not understand completely what you mean about the strength of the laser and what that means. Is it about distance? Is it about how far the laser’s light actually shines light as to whether it is considered high powered? Who will actually be testing the lasers to see whether or not they come under the title of high-power laser pointers? Those were the sorts of questions that I had that I would really appreciate some sort of address on. Thank you.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū):I take a call in this debate on the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. It is nice to be speaking in a debate about a bill that will surely be the political epitaph of the member in the chair Cam Calder. I think that is fair to say. I think of him as the Abe Lincoln of the New Zealand Parliament. Never has so much alliteration been delivered by one man in one House of Parliament with so little thanks—with so little thanks. Labour is supporting this bill. We would like to see it passed into law as quickly as possible. For that reason I commend this bill to the Committee.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am going to call—[Interruption] Hang on. This is how it works: if you want a call you stand up and say “Mr Chairman”. All right?Dr CAM CALDER (National):Look it is an extraordinarily extraordinarily fine point that the honourable Minister Paula Bennett has made.Hon Amy Adams: But she didn’t make it with a pointer though.Dr CAM CALDER: She did not make it with a laser pointer—agreed. But with a laser pointer at 1 milliwatt or less she could have made it. She could have been addressing her adoring electorate in the west of Auckland—and they are going to be mortified Minister when you move on to another group of people who will similarly adore you but should you be wanting to make a point in one of your debates you could use a pointer of less than 1 milliwatt. That is what the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee decided in its wisdom was a reasonable strength. [Interruption] In fact Mr Prosser has made a point about these 1 milliwatt lasers and I am sure he will perhaps talk about this in a contribution that we are all very excited to hear very soon.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First):I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a short call to speak to this Committee of the whole House as we debate the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First has supported this bill from the outset and continues to do so. This is as I have mentioned in earlier stages of this debate a fine member’s bill from a fine member. It will be a fitting legacy for Dr Calder as he departs this House at the election and strides out in search of pastures new and one would hope in some ways greener.Hon Members: No!RICHARD PROSSER: There is nothing Freudian in that. Members will appreciate that time is against us as the election approaches—looming one might say like a colossus on the horizon and dominating the attention of members and hopefuls alike not least because of the not inconsiderable degree of overlap between those two categories. That being the case I do not intend to consume too much of the remainder of the 50th Parliament in arguing the self-evident merits of a bill that we are happy to support into law. Its passing is of greater import and I do not believe that delay for its own sake is warranted. Other members who are also in support will agree I am sure.However there are two aspects of the bill on which I wish to make very brief comment. The first is the definition of a hand-held laser and the recommendation by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that this be changed to “high-power laser pointers” along with changing the name of the bill to the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. That will bring the bill into line with other legislation such as the Health (High-power Laser Pointers) Regulations 2013 and the Customs Import Prohibition (High-power Laser Pointers) Order 2013.This makes a distinction and it is an important one. The definition limits the power output of permissible laser points to less than 1 milliwatt but also specifies that such pointers be designed or intended to be operated while held in the hand. If this distinction were not made the prohibition could well be made to apply to certain laser devices with a power output greater than 1 milliwatt but which are not designed to be operated while held in one hand including certain laser sighting devices fitted to certain firearms and perhaps even including one or more such devices owned by myself. I am most satisfied therefore by the distinction so made. I am very pleased to report that the New Zealand First Party is also most satisfied and is pleased to be able to support the committee’s recommendation.The second aspect is the commencement date for the bill which as I have alluded to earlier we do not agree with.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No no. We are on clause 1. We do not talk about the commencement date; that is in clause 2. When we are doing the bill clause by clause we can talk only about what is in the clauses. It is not a bill where we are coming back to the clauses which is what we do when we are doing the bill part by part. When we are doing a clause by clause debate we talk only about the clause—nothing else. We are on the title.RICHARD PROSSER: That being the case I will wrap up what was going to be a fairly short speech anyway by reassuring the Minister Paula Bennett that laser pointers as used by motivational speakers and others such as lecturers usually have a power output of round about 0.05 of a milliwatt so they fall well into that category of under 1 milliwatt and neither the Minister nor the sponsor of the bill Cam Calder has any cause to be concerned. On that note I thank you. We support this bill.DAVID CLENDON (Green):I am pleased to take a short call on this stage of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. May I begin by just congratulating Dr Calder on his success in bringing the bill thus far. I would hope sincerely that his colleagues do not delay matters to an extent that he is unable to see this bill through all stages before his unfortunate departure from this House in a few weeks’ time.This bill came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in an imperfect condition. As I said at the earlier reading the select committee did its job well. It made the necessary amendments. In its original form this bill was inadequate for the task. It has been much improved. Given the improvements that have been made we are now able graciously to support this bill through further readings. Thank you.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki):I would like to join with colleagues across the Chamber—it appears to be to put not too fine a point on it—to acknowledge Cam and the work that he has done to put the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill in the House.As we begin to look at clause 1 and around the title I think it is appropriate to thank you again Cam for the work that you did. I think it is an honour to come through this House and to be able to put your name to a piece of legislation. As things change just like clause 1 has changed you have brought about changes through this bill and others in the Committee have acknowledged the work that has happened around this bill. It came in with a variety of intentions and through the process has been refined down. The best and foremost example is clause 1 the title. As it notes “this Act is the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Act 2012.”What people at home may not know is there has been a simple change. It may initially seem semantic but what we have changed in clause 1 are the words “hand-held lasers” to “high-power laser pointers”. The member in the chair Dr Cam Calder has noted this was not necessarily his preference first and foremost. I think for most of us in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee working under the tutelage and support of David Bennett we all sort of just went with that colloquial notion of a hand-held laser.Phil Twyford: Tutelage?SIMON O’CONNOR: Tutelage. Well newer members have to accept the tutelage of older members; some would also say “wiser”. What we are drawing out here around clause 1 is that we did start with the title. We started with a title that reflected a colloquial understanding. We all would accept it is a hand-held laser—something that we would point. I am thinking my colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson would be right into the technology. No he is not so sure. But the key was that we were working within that colloquial expression of a hand-held laser and we have moved now to a high-power laser pointer. There is still some concern and there has been even though we have reported back to the House around this clause 1 that we may have missed some elements but what we wanted to do by redefining the title moving into this clause 1 was to point towards—no pun intended—the Customs Import Prohibition (High-power Laser Pointers) Order of 2013. This customs import prohibition around the high-power laser pointers is I suppose the mechanism the conduit and the basis of understanding of why we made this titular change.David Bennett: Titular!SIMON O’CONNOR: It may help the Committee. It certainly has helped me to understand a little bit. Titular change—yes that is right: a good Latin derivative there but we will not get into that and into declensions and conjugations even though it is to do with titles.David Bennett: It’s not Spanish then?SIMON O’CONNOR: It is not Spanish.So what we are saying here is around the title moving from hand-held to high-power lasers. That is linking us into the Customs Import Prohibition (High-power Laser Pointers) Order of 2013. It starts first and foremost with the fact that the Director-General of Health in his or her opinion understands that this device is commonly understood to be a laser pointer. It also refers—and there is an “and” here—that it is a battery-operated object. [Interruption] Well you can immediately see why we are moving away from the hand-held nature. We are trying to be a little bit broader here with the title of the bill—that it is a high-power laser pointer. I mean not for a moment am I suggesting that we are going to be taking a modern theodolite and shining it at a plane in the way that the Hon Paula Bennett experienced down in Invercargill but we are trying to say that there are lasers that could be of detriment to aviation that are more than simply hand held.Returning to the customs import prohibition which clause 1 links to eventually it is intended to be used by the hand. That is another element within the customs import order. It has a coherent beam. I think this is something that the Minister Paula Bennett was referring to and had asked for clarification about from the member in the chair. I would welcome that as well actually. It has to be a coherent beam. I suppose it is the nature of the laser hand-held or high-power that it has a coherent beam. We know about the milliwatts Dr Calder but we would also want to know whether there is an element of distance that is required here and where the coherence begins to break up. It may be too much within the physical realms but who knows? And 1 milliwatt—this is one of the critical reasons we did make the change there in clause 1 around the title to say it was a high-power laser. By referring to the customs order we were referring to this 1 milliwatt of power.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour):I move That the question be now put.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I am very pleased to be able to take my first call on this first clause of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-Power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. Can I just join others in acknowledging the work of Dr Cam Calder. There has been a degree of frivolity throughout the progress of the bill Dr Calder but of course we have all acknowledged the seriousness of offending or incidents that can occur as a result of people misusing these instruments. The Hon Paula Bennett has alluded to it. Certainly we have seen even in warring nations the use of hand-held lasers to attempt to take down aircraft and to successfully take down aircraft.The crux of the title discussion throughout the course of this bill and fundamental to this clause was the change from it being simply a hand-held laser to a high-power laser of 1 milliwatt which the previous speaker alluded to. There was much conjecture and discussion on this at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and indeed officials and the police provided some good advice. I think we have landed in the right space in terms of the redefinition of the title but also the fact that we are talking about high-power lasers as opposed to simply hand-held lasers which may be used in a completely inane domestic area and not present the same risk. I guess if we look at the difference between a hand-held laser and a high-power laser one could argue—and I think that Dr Calder certainly did successfully bring this point of discussion to the table—that it is no different from the summary offences possession of a knife. We do not talk about the knife being of a certain length; it is simply the fact that it is a knife which used inappropriately or in an offensive manner can cause grievous harm. One can do that with a very short knife in the same way as one can do it with a very long knife. So one could argue in terms of the redefining and as it relates to the—Hon Maurice Williamson: What about a two-edged knife?MIKE SABIN: Sorry what was that?Hon Maurice Williamson: What about a two-edged knife?MIKE SABIN: Double-edged? It is a double-edged sword indeed. But we jest. Coming back to the point that we arrived at the select committee which is now obviously highly relevant to clause 1 in terms of the title the decision was made—and it is probably on balance a wise decision—that high-power would be over 1 milliwatt. That is I guess given where the substantive damage is likely to be done or the risk is actually arrived at probably a fair landing place. Therefore the Act when it comes into force will be known as the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Act. I think that on balance Dr Calder accepts that that is fair. It will still achieve its purpose and ultimately that is something that we can discuss later in the passage of this bill.I think the title certainly reflects accurately what it is that this legislation aims to achieve—that it is high-power lasers over 1 milliwatt that are likely to cause the most risk to those travelling in vehicles and by air that we are concerned about if someone is stupid enough to use them in a malicious way. Of course that will I am sure ensure that university lecturers all around the country will feel that they can go about their business without fear of being unfairly targeted by this legislation. The bill will be amended as discussed to incorporate high-power laser pointers. In that I think that Dr Calder should be congratulated on his pragmatic efforts to ensure that he did not lose the essence of what he was trying to achieve legislatively and that this bill will achieve its purpose in that sense.Dr CAM CALDER (National):I have been asked a couple of questions during the course of this debate that I would like to take the opportunity to answer and one of them was from the honourable Minister to my right Paula Bennett who queried the distance that one of these laser pointers can reach.Hon Paula Bennett: They’re high-powered.Dr CAM CALDER: Yes well let us just start with low power lasers—and I thought the honourable member Richard Prosser may address it—but even those of 1 milliwatt or less which are by definition low-powered laser pointers can actually go several hundred metres. I remember going to a market in a country from whence many of these laser pointers both low and high-powered come. Some of those laser pointers were low-powered some were high-powered but the majority it has to be said were of the nature of those that you would find on the end of a key ring so they were not large and they were not more than 1 milliwatt. They were extending beams across the night sky that were several hundred metres in length. That is why I was initially concerned by the fact that even these were in the public domain and were able to be used. But as we have alluded to many perceptive and erudite members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on both sides of the Chamber have reflected upon the in-depth discussion that took place within the select committee walls to try to deal with it. I see that through doing that we have the support of the Greens. It has to be said that that support—Hon Amy Adams: That’s rare.Dr CAM CALDER: —is quite rare but it is very much appreciated. In fact I think I am right in assuming that we have support across the Committee on this particular bill. Let us face it: this bill—what will be titled the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill—actually makes all of us safer. It probably makes our wives girlfriends grandparents and children significantly happier to think that the planes that we are travelling in as we all have to do to come to this House are not going to be assailed by—or are less likely to be assailed by it has to be said because no legislation stops anything happening—the dangers of having a pilot blinded by these devices.I would like to come back to a point that the honourable Minister Paula Bennett further asked. She asked how far some of these high-powered laser pointers can extend. It is absolutely staggering that you can go on the internet at the moment and you can purchase for under US$300—and given our exchange rate that is not a lot of money—high-powered laser pointers of over 2000 milliwatts of power which have a range of how far?David Bennett: Twenty kilometres.Dr CAM CALDER: Twenty kilometres?Hon Amy Adams: Fifty?Dr CAM CALDER: Fifty kilometres? They have a range of 60 miles. It is staggering—it is staggering. These are the devices that under this bill when you are walking along the road you are not allowed to have in your pocket because—why the hell would you need it? Nobody has got any reason—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I say this for the third time—when we are on clauses we must relate the debate to the clause. We are on the title clause. I ask the member to come back to the title clause.Dr CAM CALDER: Thank you Mr Chairman. The point I was making is that that is one mother of a high-power laser pointer—a high-power laser pointer which is in the proposed amended title of this bill.Just to recap this bill is not just standing alone. The Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Act will be part of a basket or cable of measures to reduce the chances of these devices being misused. I mentioned Jo Goodhew who is an excellent Minister. The honourable Associate Minister of Health brought in the Customs Import Prohibition (High-power Laser Pointers) Order 2013 which restricts the importation of these high-power laser pointers. This is an extraordinarily useful regulation because it means that one can import high-power laser pointers—which is in the title of this bill—only if a person has consent to do so. Anyone who commits an offence under this regulation is liable to be fined. How much do you think that fine is?Carol Beaumont: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I ask whether under Standing Order 108 “Relevancy” the issue to do with where the member in the chair is now going is relevant to this bill—and also Standing Order 108(2) about repetition.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member. Three times I have mentioned that when we are on clauses you must relate the subject of the debate to the clause. This is not a peroration of what is in the total bill; this is specifically about the clause. I ask the member to come back to clause 1 which is the title.Dr CAM CALDER: Thank you Mr Chairman. The title of this bill has been altered as we have heard by the select committee and that was done for very good reason. I am actually trying to keep right on the topic of this because I think it is very important that we make this point and please tell me Mr Chairman if I am straying. But I mean what we see with the possession of high-power laser pointers as in the title of the bill is how necessary the bill is and I was bringing this point up. When you go on the net the fearsome nature of these high-power laser pointers becomes immediately obvious. Not only are they available but they are inexpensive. You could imagine a paper boy saving his money to purchase one of these things—one of these high-power laser pointers—which is in the title of this excellent bill that we are debating in the Chamber at the moment.May I mention a quote about these high-power laser pointers in this debate because what one can read on the internet is that one could purchase the Arctic which is a model of high-power laser pointer that is outlined and is covered by the title of this bill. “A real life lightsaber” was the quote from CNN and another one was “The perfect gift for the supervillain”—we are talking about these high-power laser pointers. This is the type of device that this bill as its title denotes is designed to make it extraordinarily difficult for anybody in our country in New Zealand to purchase over the internet.These are high-power laser pointers and as a result of the select committee’s work on the bill it now covers these particular devices. I think it is extraordinarily important that we do that because until now anybody could have brought them into the country. With the work that has been done by the Minister as I said in the supporting legislation about importation and sales and acquisition this will be an extraordinarily useful addition to our legislative armamentarium to keep New Zealanders safer. They will be safer from the high-power laser pointers which hitherto have been so readily available by this legislation’s passage. It will make that fact that you cannot walk down the road the boardwalk the sidewalk or the beach with one of these stuffed down your boardshorts. Why would you want to do that? I do not know. I do not know myself but the high-power laser pointer amendment bill will stop that from happening without reasonable excuse.It is possible that some people will be able to have a reason to have one. University lecturers have been mentioned in this debate. So presumably if a university lecturer wanted to stuff one down his boardshorts and go to a lecture he could but only with permission. Without permission—without reasonable excuse—the title of this bill the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Lasers Pointers) Amendment Bill would make it impossible for anybody without reasonable excuse to walk down the road with one. They might be going out in their dressing gown at night and they might have it in the pocket of their dressing gown but they cannot do that under this bill. The high-power laser pointer amendment bill means that you cannot walk around in a public place whether you are in your boardshorts or in your dressing gown with a high-power laser pointer in your possession without reasonable excuse.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour):I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The question is that the question be now put—David Bennett: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member has moved that the question be now put but that member has already done that previously in this debate.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No that is not a point of order. The question is that the question be now put—Hon Maurice Williamson: She did the closure already.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): She can move a closure motion—Mike Sabin: But she has already done it.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I know and she can do it again.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes60New Zealand National 59; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The debate on clause 1 will continue but I want to make it very clear—or I will terminate speeches in future—that when we are on the clauses we will stick to the clauses or I will terminate the speaker’s call. [Interruption] I am still on my feet.Hon Amy Adams: It’s hard to tell.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well I am standing. The other thing is that with closure motions a member can move more than one closure motion. They can but that is treated as a call. They cannot take more than four calls in a debate. So the member from the Labour Party who moved the closure motion was quite proper and that is why I accepted the closure motion.Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment):I have certainly listened to and heard your guidance on the issue of speaking to clause 1 Mr Chair and I do thank you for the call because there is just one small point on the issue of the title that I did want to raise. I was not a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which has done good work on this bill but I have been here and listened to the whole of the debate on clause 1 and I think there is just one point that is important to get on record. I have listened—and I have found it quite interesting actually—to the debate around the reasons for the change in the title clause. I have heard Dr Cam Calder talk very eloquently I thought and very informatively about why that change in the title clause to include the words “High-power” was important and I found that very helpful.But the piece that I do not think has been talked about in this debate at all and it is the one thing that I just wanted to pick up on was that the select committee has actually recommended two changes to the title clause. The first is to add in the words “High-power” which I think is very very important. We have heard a lot about that and I thank the members for their contributions. The other change to the title clause that was recommended by the select committee—which I do not think has been discussed anywhere as yet in this debate and it is why I was so anxious to take the call—was the addition of the word “Pointers”. I think that this is something that we have not really dealt with in this debate and I did want to contribute just briefly on that point.It is important that when we describe this legislation and we attribute a title to this amendment bill we make a very clear distinction between the type of harm that the bill is definitely intended to capture—which is what we have heard discussed in terms of pointing at planes which Paula Bennett discussed and the outrageous examples of devices that the member in charge of the bill Cam Calder has talked about—and of course the other very real but very legitimate and valid uses of high-power lasers. High-power lasers are prevalent in many many aspects of society and are perfectly legitimate. It has not in this entire debate been highlighted that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has made I think a very important change to the title clause when it added in specifically the word “Pointers’ because originally the bill was titled “Possession of Hand-held Lasers”. It added obviously the change to make them “High-power” but also very very importantly highlighted that what we are talking about is laser pointers.That is a critical change. I appreciate that it is just one word but it makes a very clear delineation between the absolutely legitimate and valid use of legitimate high-power lasers of other forms. So there are laser cutters. There are obviously a lot of high-power lasers used in medical technology and we certainly would not want for one minute to suggest that this bill was in any way criminalising the use or possession of those devices. So I particularly wanted to highlight that aspect to the change in the title clause.I think Mr Chair you will allow me to also take my opportunity as other members have done to congratulate Dr Calder on this bill because it is an important bill. It is a bill that really reflects his contribution as a member which from day one has always been to be passionate about the public safety of New Zealanders and public safety will be enhanced by ensuring that we have legislation that is focused on high-power laser pointers. I do think it is important that when we are crafting legislation we are very careful to delineate very carefully particularly when we are criminalising or ascribing the status of a summary offence so that we do not put more into that catch than should really be there. We certainly would not want New Zealanders to get the wrong idea about the impact of the legislation from the title clause. So getting that defined properly is very important.I wanted to particularly commend the select committee for picking that up. I know that that was always Dr Calder’s intention with the legislation—that it certainly would not catch high-power lasers that were not pointers and that were of as I say medical or cutting or other technologies—but I think as I said that having listened to the whole of the debate it is not a point that had been mentioned.I do absolutely endorse the comments that have been made about needing to focus very much on clause 1. To ensure that we now have a piece of legislation that is properly I believe titled Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Lasers Pointers) Amendment Bill. It is a small change I accept that but actually as is often the case in legislation the use of precise words and precise titles is a critical part of ensuring that our legislation is as certain and as clear-cut as we would want it to be. We all know the intention of the bill was always to do that but intention is only of limited use if we cannot be clear in our language. As a lawyer before I came into this House I can tell you firsthand that if you are not incredibly careful in words like those in the title to ensure that they do properly capture the meaning and the essence of the legislation then problems can ensue. So I did think it was worth highlighting and getting into the record that the addition of the word “Pointers” is deliberate.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū):I move That the question be now put.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes60New Zealand National 59; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National):Basically I have one point to make concentrating very much on the title of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill as you have made it very plain we must do so and that is all I want to do so I might not even take the full time.But if we have a look at the title—I have had a careful look at it—there are I think 15 words in it although one of them is hyphenated so I do not know whether a hyphenated word is one word or two words. But of the 15 most of them make sense. Most of them follow and we have heard the reasons for the change and everything else. So I take it and really it is a question for the author of the bill that it is agreed to change the title of the bill and it was unanimously agreed to “high-power laser pointers” from “hand-held lasers” as the Minister for the Environment the Hon Amy Adams has just been speaking about. The thing we did not change though and this is my question to the author—it might be a technical point but we still have it described in clause 1 as “Amendment Act 2012”. Is it to remain like that or is that a change we should make at this stage? Because it was not an Act in 2012 at all. We have passed 2012; we are into 2014.I had hoped that Mr Twyford might spot this because you know when we were in Opposition it was sort of our part of the contribution to get things absolutely right. But no—complete disregard for correctness other than in pronunciation where he makes a fuss. So I could say that as far as the title is concerned I was disappointed in the lack of diligence on the part of the Opposition. I am glad to have noticed it myself. I think every member on this side is aware of it. So it is something that we would invite the author of the bill Dr Cam Calder who we all agree has done a really good job on this particular one to address and to give us some form of reassurance and technical explanation. To make sure that there is time for that I think I will just make that particular point in the hope that the bill’s author will be able to guide us appropriately. Thank you.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 CommencementDAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East):It is a pleasure to speak on this bill the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Bill especially in regard to clause 2 which is the commencement date of the bill. Clause 2 states that “This Act comes into force on the day that is 28 days after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” That clause was something that was also well debated within the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I remember we spent much time on that date because there were a number of alternative views on what that date should be that is being the number of days before the commencement date would come into force.But just before I progress on to those I want to acknowledge the fine work of Dr Cam Calder in bringing this bill before this House. I think the Hon Paula Bennett indicated the nature of the issue that can be involved in such situations and it takes somebody with Dr Calder’s great desire to see results-based politics and also his capacity to undertake the level of research and dedication that is needed to bring a bill of this fortitude to the House. So well done Dr Cam Calder a very valuable member of the committee. All members of the committee will miss his presence but it is a very very important bill that he has done today and it is something that we commend him for bringing in front of this House.But going back to the commencement date—[Interruption]—when we have the commencement it says “28 days after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” I am sorry Mr Chair. Did I not talk about Dr Calder long enough? Do you want me to go back to him? But no the commencement date is 28 days. Some of you may ask well why is that so important. Well that is the number of days in the month of February which is important but it also is the time that we looked at to be—Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: What’s that got to do with the bill?DAVID BENNETT: Is that the New Zealand First member over there the lone member of New Zealand First in this debate? It would be great to have a call from her but it might be more difficult than she can manage at this stage of the afternoon I think. Dr Calder actually wanted to bring it forward earlier. He wanted a commencement date immediately and being such a fine and astute committee that we are we look at prudence as something that we also value in our committee. So the question the committee members had to decide was whether we bring it forward and immediately as the member who was bringing in the bill thought was the best option or whether we look at having a little bit of prudence there just to see whether the 28 days would be appropriate. The committee members in their entirety—and Dr Calder was part of this—decided that yes the 28 days would be a good time period. It could have actually been a longer time period. It could have been 3 months and that would have been just too long for this bill to have achieved its purpose but 28 days was a good balance. It was not something that was immediate but it was something that gave some time for it to work through. The question you may ask is why you would want to give that time for it to work through and that was something that we had advice from the officials on.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The House is in Committee for consideration of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. It is resumed. Before the dinner break we were debating clause 2. David Bennett at that time had the call and he has got just over 1½ minutes should he wish to avail himself of the opportunity.DAVID BENNETT: I think I will need more than 1½ minutes just as a warning to the Chair because this is a very important section of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. It was part of—is this all right Carol? Are you all right? It was something that was debated long and hard in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and that was around the commencement date. I will read it to give a summary to people who may have missed it just before the dinner suspension: “This Act comes into force on the day that is 28 days after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” As everyone can see that is very clear. It is 28 days afterwards. That is the month of February effectively for those who look to do it on dates—Mike Sabin: Except in a leap year.DAVID BENNETT: Except in a leap year. Yes Mr Sabin from the north is very correct.Hon Todd McClay: My wife’s birthday—February.DAVID BENNETT: And it is also the Hon Todd McClay’s wife’s birthday and we would like to see that—Moana Mackey: Relevance.DAVID BENNETT: The relevance is that 28 days is the period that the commencement comes in after it receives the Royal—Hon Todd McClay: The point being that if I miss her birthday it is a summary offence.DAVID BENNETT: Yes and as Mr McClay says if he misses her birthday it is a summary offence. He would get more than a hand-held laser I am sure.Hon Todd McClay: If it was my birthday I would get a Taser.DAVID BENNETT: You would get a Taser.But effectively what the select committee had to look at was that timing. As I mentioned earlier the mover of this bill Dr Cam Calder who was bringing this bill forward sought a date for it to come into force immediately on achieving the Royal assent. The choice of the select committee was whether we do it immediately or whether we do it on some other date that would be seen as prudent and reasonable. The select committee came to the decision that 28 days was the reasonable approach.Tim Macindoe: But why was that? Interesting.DAVID BENNETT: Well it is very interesting actually because we did receive advice that it should be longer than 28 days.Tim Macindoe: Oh and why was that?DAVID BENNETT: I will come to that. That might need another 5 minutes when I come to that bit. So the options were basically either longer than 28 days or the immediacy of it and in the end we decided as a prudent select committee that we would settle on a month and so 28 days was the time.Dr Cam Calder: Far too long.DAVID BENNETT: As Dr Calder says far too long and I can understand his desire to see this piece of work enforced as soon as possible because who would know when the next incident could occur? If it occurs within those 28 days are we actually putting people’s lives at risk?Scott Simpson: How can you be sure?DAVID BENNETT: We cannot be sure. That was the debate that concerned the select committee for much of its time. It was a very serious issue because we take a risk that in those 28 days there may be an incident and that is the nature of it. Mr Macindoe the very good member from Hamilton West has just returned from overseas and come back to New Zealand. Good to see you here Tim.Tim Macindoe: It will be man love soon.DAVID BENNETT: Yes. When we considered that period of time the question was why not go immediately and why have a period of time. It was to give a sense of understanding and education to the community around this change in legislation. There would be some people who do have hand-held lasers and they may not be aware that suddenly they had come under the rules. For education purposes for those legitimate people in the community who may hold these products—Tim Macindoe: I am sure most people are legitimate.DAVID BENNETT: —who hold these products I said Tim—and who were in a state that they may have been engaging with them they would need to know that there was a period of time in which they would then become aware that the laser itself was the issue. So the reason is to give a period of time for education so that people are well aware of the circumstances of the bill. It was felt that if there was an immediate commencement there would be the potential that there would be some people who did not receive that notification. We did not want to put anybody at risk but at the same time we had to balance that. If we left it for 3 months that was a long period of time where there could have been another incident within that period. That was the difficult balance that—Scott Simpson: The wisdom of Solomon.DAVID BENNETT: And it was the wisdom of Solomon and that is because we have such a fine select committee there. I am surrounded by good committee members in front of me here who spent hours poring over these finer details and took a very considered approach in the end to this bill.If we go back to clause 2 that is why we settled on 28 days. It is a date that would achieve the purpose of being relatively quick after the passing of this bill so that it is not a period of time that is too long. But it is also a period of time that enables people to be notified and made aware of the consequences of this very fine piece of legislation. In essence that is the dilemma that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee found itself in and the decision was made to stick with 28 days. We find that is a very good balance and will achieve the purposes for all concerned. Thank you.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):It appears I have blown the Opposition away.David Bennett: You’ve lasered them out.MIKE SABIN: Lasered them out indeed. I just want to pick up where my good Transport and Industrial Relations Committee chairman David Bennett has left off on this clause 2 the commencement date because there was a fair degree of conjecture and I am hoping that the member Dr Cam Calder will actually take a call and advise as to why he was willing to concede that a date of 28 days after the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill received the Royal assent was satisfactory.Suffice it to say that there are a number of challenges in terms of this bill becoming an Act and going live as legislation because these devices are actually quite commonly held in the possession of people around the country. In fact there needs to be some degree of education and some degree of notification for those people that the possession of the high-power hand-held laser pointers would constitute an offence. It is quite right that we do not want to catch people on the hop. I think it also prevents stockpiling. Dr Calder may want to comment on that but the last thing we want is people of course stockpiling if they are given too much lead-in time. So it is all about getting the balance. Imagine someone having an enormous stockpile of hand-held high-power laser pointers that could be weapons of mass destruction in that context.I am quite confident that the member Dr Calder will be elucidating for the public as to the live commencement date of this bill once enacted being 28 days after the Royal assent because it is incumbent on him as a responsible member of Parliament to inform the public that this legislative change has occurred and that the malicious behaviour of individuals who seem to find some sort of entertainment in this use of these high-power laser pointers has come to an end. I think that gives Dr Calder fair time to inform people. Of course the police did allude to the fact that they would need some time from an enforcement point of view to actually see where this thing lands because although it is not a punitive bill—and I am sure Dr Calder will inform us all when he takes his next call on this—it is very much about prevention rather than taking a punitive approach.But the point is that the enforcement agency the police obviously have a role in that and there were some quite considered comments given by the police through the select committee submission process. So that is why when we wrestled with this point in the select committee and we did wrestle with this point—I think it was this point as well as whether or not the title should include “high power”. Those were the two points that caused the select committee some contention. But in terms of the commencement date I know that Dr Calder wanted to see this go live as soon as humanly possible. I know he was concerned that there was a likelihood that people would stockpile these things and there could be some sort of travesty in the fact that people would take liberties that they should not take. But I think we have landed in the right space with this. The 28 days simply provides ample opportunity firstly for the police to be fully informed of this law change.In all seriousness these things will take down an aircraft they will blind a driver and they have been used for those two purposes. I suspect that the police will be quite happy to go out and find someone to make an example of if they choose to disobey what will be a very sound piece of preventive legislation. But no doubt there will be some who will choose to challenge it. I think the police need that little bit of time to get themselves across that.Carol Beaumont: Relevancy.MIKE SABIN: Sorry you want me to talk about the—Carol Beaumont: Commencement date.MIKE SABIN: I am talking about the commencement date. The member is very very helpful—Hon Member: They are not listening.MIKE SABIN: They are not listening. The reason I am saying the commencement date—28 days after the Royal assent—is the importance of the police having the opportunity to get themselves across this legislation in due course. OK? Is it not funny when the boot is on the other foot? Is it not hilarious when the boot is on the other foot? But that 28 days is about balance. If there is one thing I will say about Dr Cam Calder it is that he is a man who sees the perspectives from all angles.Dr CAM CALDER (National):This is a very important point that my colleagues have actually aired at some length in the Chamber. It is quite true to say that I was somewhat saddened by the decision the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee made because as has been alluded to by my honourable colleague Mr Mike Sabin I wanted this legislation the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill to come into effect as soon as possible. I make no apologies for that. As we have heard this clause provides for all provisions in the bill to come into force on the day after the Act receives the Royal assent. That is what we thought. That is what I wanted to happen. But after we had considered it as a committee when does it come into force Mr Auchinvole?Chris Auchinvole: 28 days.Dr CAM CALDER: Twenty-eight days after receiving the Royal assent. So I asked this question of the committee members. I said: “What possible reason is there for delaying the implementation of such an important bill?”. We have heard some of the arguments. I have to pay credit to Carol Beaumont who is part of the committee and contributed to this debate. In fact we had a committee made up of members from all sides of the House and it was a collegial committee. The upshot of the combined wisdom was that for a number of reasons 28 days after receiving the Royal assent was preferable to the instant implementation that I was hoping for. The committee recommended that clause 2 be amended to provide that additional time after the Act received the Royal assent before the provisions of the bill came into force. We have heard that this is to give people time to understand about the law having changed. But I would submit to you—Mike Sabin: That’s right.Dr CAM CALDER: That is right. But I have a lingering bit of schadenfreude here because I just think—as you raised the very valid point yourself—what if an act occurs in the interim period between the Act receiving the Royal assent and coming into law? We hope that people will realise as word gets out about the passage of this bill and the commencement date being what it is that we have had some publicity from the Airline Pilots’ Association recently calling for a bill just like this in light of a recent incident that occurred just a few weeks ago. That 28 days is what we are left with. I just hope that that 28 days will not be a time where people take advantage of the fact that the bill has not come into law and they pick up their high-power laser pointer put it in their pocket and march off out into a public space. There is actually no reason for that. The commencement date of 28 days after the Act receiving the Royal assent means there is going to be a 4-week period where that could occur. I have just done my sums. It is an interesting situation. My valedictory speech is timetabled for 23 July at 4 o’clock.Phil Twyford: Can we book seats now?Dr CAM CALDER: You can secure your seat now Mr Twyford. I will look forward to seeing you there. The interesting thing is that this bill is likely to go for its third reading after I have given my valedictory speech. I might be in the position of not being able to deliver a third reading speech on my own bill but such is the way that Parliament works. Really it is a small price to pay for the chance to get this bill through the House whilst I am still a member of this House. It is a huge privilege to stand here—I must say it is a great privilege to stand here—and be able to speak in the House without getting dark looks from the whip saying to stop speaking. It is very rare that that actually happens. How many of us sitting here tonight can say that they have had that privilege?Tim Macindoe: What an aspersion against my good character.Dr CAM CALDER: You are a very fine whip it has to be said. It has to be said that you are a very fine whip and you are doing remarkably well for a man who has just come back from attending a high-level Westminster seminar in the United Kingdom representing our Parliament in the best possible way that you have done. The commencement is 28 days after receiving the Royal assent. If I give my speech on 23 July then it is likely to receive the Royal assent on 25 July because normally the bills go to the Governor-General to be signed and it is possible he might be in town and he could give the Royal assent on 25 July. So 28 days from that period—have we got any people in the House who are good at mental arithmetic? It is all right. I have done the sums. It is actually 22 August. So I wonder. I pose this question: do you think that it is likely that this date—28 days after the Royal assent which we are suggesting is a putative 22 August—when you google what happened on 22 August sometime in the future could come up as the day the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill passed? Could that be?It is very interesting to see what did happen on 22 August historically. Remember that 22 August is the putative commencement date for this bill. It is the putative possible commencement date when the Governor-General His Excellency Lieutenant General Rt Hon Sir Jerry Mateparae signs the bill and effectively it gains Royal assent. I am posing the question to the Committee that in years to come could it be that when you google 22 August it comes up that that was the date that in the New Zealand Parliament the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill passed? What else has happened on that day?Tim Macindoe: My brother-in-law has a birthday.Dr CAM CALDER: Ah well that was not on Google. But the commencement date of 22 August has had a mixture of the sad and the joyful and a mixture of the memorable and the less memorable. But let me just outline some of the things that have happened on 22 August which we know is actually the likely date of the commencement of this bill.Carol Beaumont: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I call your attention to Standing Order 108 around relevancy and also note in Standing Order 108(2) tedious repetition being referred to and wonder whether this meets that clause.Tim Macindoe: Previous speakers have drawn attention to the fact that the commencement date of this bill is very significant because of the significant implications particularly for those who will be charged with enforcing it. Therefore for members opposite who frequently delight in filibustering on matters to criticise the member in charge of the bill for going into some detail for discussing the significance—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): All right that is enough. I do not need any more assistance thank you very much. There were two points that the member made. One was that we should be speaking about the commencement date and certainly Dr Cam Calder is doing that. With regard to repetition I think he is probably getting into the furry edges of actually doing that.Dr CAM CALDER: I cannot imagine I have ever been in the furry edges in this Chamber before. That has to be a first. I am going to move swiftly along from there because there is nothing furry about these edges which I am about to delineate for you. We are talking about 22 August. All these points are relevant—all these points are relevant—because 22 August is the likely putative commencement date of this bill. I ask the Committee what else happened on that date. Sadly the first thing that came to mind was—and this is not something that I am treating with anything other than the utmost seriousness—that there was a suicide bombing in western Iraq. That was 22 August 2013. When you think about what is happening now that is an extraordinarily sad indictment of the world situation. I was unaware of this I have to say. In 2012 on 22 August which is the putative commencement date of this bill Russia and Vanuatu became members of the World Trade Organization.Could it be that in a few months’ time or maybe longer after this bill is passed in 2014 on 22 August this bill being passed into law in New Zealand—because this is a worldwide problem; it is not peculiar only to New Zealand—could be of such significance that it would also come up in a Google search? If somebody wanted to look at significant dates and we have heard that it is Tim Macindoe’s brother-in-law’s birthday—Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):I move That the question be now put.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National):It is a pleasure and a privilege to stand and speak. I hope that some of the things that I say about the commencement date of this Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill will go some way to consoling the author of this bill Dr Cam Calder a known sensitive person.Tim Macindoe: He is.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Oh indeed. He is extremely proud of having his own bill in the House and he is shattered by the callous comments from the other side that he was being repetitious and boring—oh how dreadful!Hon Member: And furry!CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Well—adding to it. And those comments came from a lady whom we have always considered to be quite polite.When we look at this bill we have heard about how we did not wish to have conjecture over when it took effect because it is quite significant. We heard from my colleague on my right Mike Sabin with his police background talking about people stockpiling these sorts of things. This is what happens. On a serious note because this is a very serious business I cannot remember last week but—[Interruption] Let me rephrase that: I cannot remember in which part of last week I heard the news item that a farmer had had to endure a large number of sheep being shot on his property.Hon Michael Woodhouse: That was North Otago.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: North Otago. And how many sheep were shot on the first night?Hon Michael Woodhouse: About 110.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: About 110. Then he moved his flock of sheep into a safer paddock and the next night they shot another 80. The point about this is that it is vital that we have this bill commence fairly quickly because there are very odd people around. Well think of it none of the sheep were eaten and none of them were taken away; they were just shot. Some people are nuts. If you give weaponry of any sort to people they are going to use it.Remember this bill does not stop people owning these things; it stops them having possession in a public place without reasonable purpose. For those who think you cannot use lasers for that sort of thing I think there was an advertisement that might have been in the Sunday Star-Times last weekend where a company was advertising helicopter drones that fired pepper spray and used blinding lasers to blind demonstrators at meetings.Mike Sabin: Surely not.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Yes surely not. But I mean we say let us do it seriously and this is a very serious thing. The 28 days though will achieve the purpose and it was carefully discussed by the committee.The immediate commencement could easily cause confusion. You have got these things. You are allowed to have them you can own them but you cannot have possession of them in a public place without due reason. That is the whole purpose of the bill. So by giving 28 days it is enough for the education to hit the papers to move around and for people who own these things to become familiar with what they should and should not be doing with them where they can take them and where they cannot take them. [Interruption] Do you have another point Mr Sabin?Mike Sabin: That’s the crux of the commencement date.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: It is the crux of the commencement date.This is a behaviour-changing bill and that is why it needs education for it. [Interruption] I hear chuckles—chuckles—from the other side of the Chamber. I have seen an All Black ready to take a goal kick who was lasered to put him off. This happens—this happens—and it happens fancy that in sport. I remember when we introduced this bill with all due respect to the serious-minded members on the other side that there was a certain “Oh come on. They’re only toys for cats to play with.” and that sort of thing. It ain’t. These lasers can be extremely dangerous articles—back to the furry edges again!The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I call Simon O’Connor.Hon Member: Oh this will be good.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki):I am very pleased. It is a good choice. I am biased though of course. I am very pleased to talk to clause 2 the commencement clause of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. It is a little bit similar in fact to the first clause in so far as some simple elements got quite complicated as we heard in clause 1. Of course that was around the change of semantics in terminology; in the commencement clause it is obviously a debate around timing. Should we bring this about immediately? Should the Royal assent be granted quickly and efficiently or should it be held out for 28 days? As you can imagine with anything to do with dates there is a whole continuum of debate there. There was some thought of whether we should go out to 6 months. There was some thought that we should even look to 8 days and so forth. They have been too facetious.I did notice earlier when the member in the chair Dr Cam Calder the sponsor of the bill was noting the calendars he did lack clarity on whether it was a Julian calendar or a Gregorian calendar. I am very disappointed—very disappointed. But seriously this was an area that we debated quite a bit because on one side immediate commencement recognises the fact that this is an important bill and that there is a serious consequence here.I was talking to some friends last week on a different topic around what we would say is high risk but low frequency. There is a degree of that here but when you are talking about an airliner or even if it is just the Eagle unit helicopter—I have friends in the police particularly in Auckland who are noting the dangers even to the police helicopters—surely the argument goes we should put this into immediate effect.We as the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee debated that at length. The corollary to that and where we ultimately ended up though was that we needed time to embed the launch of the bill to seek Royal assent as is proper in this constitutional arrangement. What we thought was that 28 days allowed two things. First and foremost it gave an opportunity to our constabulary to the New Zealand Police to put its structures in motion in order to allow the police a full and proper consideration of what is required to get the paperwork sorted and to read through the various legal consequences because as other speakers I am sure have noted this bill itself relies on other legislation. We heard Mike Sabin earlier talking about the possession of knives and so forth so there are those elements that have to be considered.The second side though was the fairness of the law. I am no lawyer which may be a good thing for the country but one of the elements is that people have to understand the laws themselves—what I suppose we would look on in philosophy as natural justice—giving people the opportunity to understand what this law means and what it means for them. At the heart of this are hand-held lasers items that people are quite familiar with from those who use them for quite normal and adequate means be they a lecturer at a university or so forth or in an engineering firm to those with more nefarious intent. Whether or not Dr Calder those people are fluffy hirsute or otherwise is a point for another debate but we need people to fully understand—I am sorry I just had to get “hirsute” in tonight.The key though is what the appropriate timing is. I think what we have tried to note is the balance between those two points of tension. Do we get this bill under way immediately to show it is a serious piece of legislation or do we give enough time so that consideration can be undertaken by the constabulary by the police and so that people can understand what this law means to them? It is particularly for citizens who are used to carrying around a hand-held or a high-power laser so that they can fully appreciate what is required.I think that after a bit of debate in the select committee—and I note that the chair David Bennett a fine chair is here with me in the Chamber and a number of my colleagues—we came to the belief which we have now articulated in clause 2 the commencement clause that this Act comes into force on the day that is 28 days after the date on which it receives Royal assent. We thought that was a good spot so that we can take this bill—once it is completed in the House in a timely and appropriate manner which is quite germane to this clause in itself—and we can send it to the Governor-General. He can sign it on behalf of the Queen of New Zealand. We can get it into the statute book but then we have 28 days for consideration so that Kiwis can make—David Bennett: In 28 days?SIMON O’CONNOR: Well actually a lot of things can happen in 28 days. I believe you can even bite a player which seems to be in vogue at the moment. Fortunately this is not part of it. Again this was an area like clause 1 which took up a bit of time in the select committee as we considered the various options. I am hearing from my colleagues in the Chamber but I would be open to more discussion but I think that we came to a point that we felt was appropriate balancing those respective rights—Dr CAM CALDER (National):I do appreciate the sensitivity that fellow members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee are displaying when we are talking about the commencement date. This Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill is a very serious bill. There has been a bit of banter about it over the course of it because I think a lot of people mistakenly think when they think of laser pointers even if they think of high-powered laser pointers that they are actually toys and of course they are not. That is why the commencement date for when this bill comes into effect is so important. Members of the committee sensed my pain when I was unsuccessful in getting an immediate enactment of this bill so that once it is passed and has got Royal assent it then comes into force.I picked up on the points raised by a number of speakers. These speakers have raised points that are very very pertinent and it was canvassed at some length by the committee. It has been said that we could have gone out to 6 months. That would have been ridiculous as the commencement date. Why would you go out to 6 months? I cannot think of any reason why. However I think it was one of the timespans that was canvassed by the committee. I thought I had it won. I thought I had it won initially on the committee with saying “immediately”. Nothing succeeds like success; let us get it done in down out—we have got it. But it was not to be.I have to pay credit when talking about the commencement date to the artful hand of this maestro of committee chairmanship. I refer of course to David Bennett. David Bennett is known for many things he is esteemed for many things and he has a reputation for many things but nothing is more illustrious than his highly burnished reputation as a very successful and capable committee chair. It was his calm handling of what could have been a fraught situation—it could have been a slightly angst-ridden situation despite the inherent collegiality of this committee when we were discussing this very pertinent point of the commencement date. But as it transpired through the calmness the demeanour the ability to build bridges that he displayed within the committee when we were discussing the commencement date—Mike Sabin: He built bridges and got over them.Dr CAM CALDER: Well there you go—a very pertinent point from the member from the far north who is doing an outstanding job in the far north not only with his perceptive speeches in the Committee on this very important bill but also as the calm presence on the committee who just grounds the chairman and makes sure that things happen in a timely manner with consultation.So we got to this stage that I was uncomfortable about. I have to say that I was uncomfortable but for the greater good I was convinced. I mean I am learning. I am almost away from this place but you learn every day in this House and you realise that politics is the art of the possible is it not? It is the art of the possible. The commencement date is possible only because we came to an agreement because there was openmindedness on both sides. We had a very collegial Opposition. There was a lot of debate—6 months; as I say I was going for “immediately”. And yet the voices in the committee gradually moved around so that 28 days was the length of time that the committee agreed to—I do have to take responsibility; I was part of that committee—unanimously. This has been the great thing about this bill. It has been unanimous not only in the committee but across the House. So I think that if you ask anyone in this Chamber they will support the 28-day period because that is what came about from the select committee for the commencement date.I have to say I am very grateful as the member who first put up this bill and did not even think about the commencement date at that early stage because I had to get it through the caucus and then we had to get it drawn from the ballot and—CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour):I move That the question be now put.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes60New Zealand National 59; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 59 Noes 60.TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National):I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not wishing in any way to doubt what has been expressed by the Opposition whip but it was my understanding that Mr Horan was not casting a vote on this matter. Can she assure the Committee that she has received a proxy for—[Interruption] Sorry could I just complete my point. Can she assure the Committee that she has received a proxy on a procedural motion?The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): All members in this House are honourable members and I think we are getting into dangerous ground when we start challenging the right. Members who cast a vote know what the consequences are if they mislead the House. In any consideration a change in that particular vote is not going to change the outcome of this particular—[Interruption] It still is not going to change the outcome. The member can ring up the whip on the other side.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration):I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have just two quick points if I may. The issue of the procedural motion proxy would determine the outcome of the motion. The second thing is I do not think the Government whip was intending to cast aspersions on—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes I know.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —the Opposition whip. I do think it is important for her sake though to clarify the difference between a proxy on a procedural matter which is—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! I have ruled on this. Let me reread the votes. Those who voted for the closure were 59 including Brendan Horan. Those who voted against were 60. So the motion is not agreed to. I have made that quite clear and we are going to gain nothing by casting aspersions. Members know the consequence of casting votes they do not have.TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National):I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Are we going to get into some new material?TIM MACINDOE: This is new material. I believe that you have just mistakenly declared the result of the vote and I think you have actually just cast the names and numbers the wrong way round.Hon Member: Yes.TIM MACINDOE: Even the Opposition is agreeing with that point.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I declared that the motion is not agreed to on the first cut. Did I—[Interruption] The key point was that I said the motion is not agreed to so we are not having the closure.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I will continue where we left off on the commencement date in clause 2 of the Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill soon to be enacted as the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Act. In terms of the commencement date there are a couple of key points I want to speak to. One of the fundamental things I think was around the education period and the time that was needed particularly for the enforcement agencies.This is a narrow piece of law and it is a narrow field I guess in terms of the likelihood of offending but when it does occur it is very very serious. The police submitted that what they need is an opportunity to carry out training. That is why the commencement date was set at a month—and actually that is quite limiting for the police to carry out training.Typically what they will do and let us bear in mind that they have to do it within 28 days is have a number of training days where the sectional police officers in particular—the front line if you like of the police force; those who are out there in the incident cars—will go through a training process. They will learn what this legislation is about and what the expectation is in terms of how it will be enforced.This is not a punitive piece of legislation. The Summary Offences Act in itself is not something that wields a significant amount of weight. But the point is that the implications of someone using one of these high-power laser pointers maliciously is significant and that fact will not be lost on the police. So in that first 28 days the police will actually have to carry out some training days across what amounts to probably several thousand police officers—the front-line police officers in each police station across the country. What the police will want to understand really is not just the law and what the expectations are and what the ingredients of the offence will constitute but in what manner the police intend to actually police that. I would suggest that they will very much take a proactive informative position on it.That brings me to the next point I want to make about the commencement date and the time allowed for the education process which is that an education process must occur for the general public. So in those first 28 days from the Royal assent what the public has to get its head round is what a high-power laser pointer is as distinct from a laser pointer that may be used—Grant Robertson: A low-powered one?MIKE SABIN: Sorry Mr Robertson?Grant Robertson: As distinct from a low-powered one.MIKE SABIN: Exactly—as distinct from a low-powered one. Of course in the university world this will be a big deal. It will be a big deal because there are a number of people who use these things in the education setting and of course there are many who use them at conferences and seminars and what have you. I would hazard a guess that inside the equipment box of a number of seminar presenters at conferences and so forth are laser pointers. Also there are many people who use these things as toys and many stores that sell them as toys.Chris Auchinvole: Do they?MIKE SABIN: Yes absolutely. Obviously they are going to need to determine as retailers of these products where they land. That is not to say that they cannot sell them but obviously if one falls into the hands of someone who uses it for a malicious purpose then that will obviously be of concern to retailers. So that 28 days from the commencement date provides that opportunity for the general public for those who are commonly using these devices to get their heads round what the expectation is and what is this legislation is actually about. It is not about punishing law-abiding citizens who are going about their lives using laser pointers for legitimate purposes; it is about those who would use them for malicious purposes.Then we have the impact in terms of the workplace. In many workplaces laser pointers are used. In fact in many workplaces lasers are used. So there will be some question that workplaces will have to resolve within that first month as to whether the lasers they are using would constitute high-power lasers if they were actually held and used by hand. In fact in engineering and even on building sites lasers are used. I have used one myself—not well. I have to say that if I laid down a snooker ball on the living room floor it would roll to one corner—disappointingly so. I did use a laser and obviously got that wrong.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East):I would just like to congratulate Dr Cam Calder on his great work on the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill as well. I felt I had to respond since he did go through what the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee had done when we had to go through clause 2 and the conjecture that there was around the commencement date—around the 28 days. Dr Cam Calder raised a number of issues there around how the committee approached that issue and why it came to the result that we have here in front of us tonight. It is simply that there was as he said a desire for him to see the commencement date being immediate. Although we appreciated his intention to make sure that there were no more incidents that could be attributed to these hand-held lasers we were also mindful of the fact that we had received advice from the police and others that we potentially needed to give a bit more time for them to get themselves in a position to be able to enforce the law and also to educate and inform members of the public about what the change in the law would be. So that is why 28 days was settled upon as the appropriate balance.We were actually asked in the committee to go for an even longer date than 28 days but we felt that it would accommodate Dr Cam Calder’s wishes more if we went for 28 days rather than say a 3-month period. That was something that could well have been the case for this bill.Simon O’Connor: What about 26 weeks?DAVID BENNETT: Well you can go for any number you want really. And just remember that numbers are important today because the Labour Party has put out its tax rates and they are all going up. It chose 36 as the number for all those good hard-working New Zealanders—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! Come back to the bill.DAVID BENNETT: —who have to pay 36c in the dollar. Twenty-eight days is the one that was decided upon here today and that is why we are looking at clause 2 of this bill.Once again it is a very good bill in the name of Dr Cam Calder who has taken a great interest in making sure that it passes through this Committee. We look forward to its passage through the rest of the evening.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 Principal ActDr CAM CALDER (National):Clause 3 refers to the principal Act and clause 3 provides that the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill amends the principal Act. The principal Act is the Summary Offences Act 1981. It may come as no surprise to members of this Committee that actually no submissions were received on this clause because effectively it is what it is. There being no submissions received the Ministry of Transport which was our adviser unsurprisingly made no recommendations.Let us look at what the Summary Offences Act 1981 is. This is the principal Act and it is actually quite a solid body of work—a solid body of work. Its commencement date since we have been talking about commencement dates for some time was actually 1 February 1982. I just let you know in case anybody was wondering because we have been talking about commencements. But this is the principal Act we are talking about here the Summary Offences Act 1981. Those of you who have been listening to this debate—and it has been brought up by a number of speakers—will recall that the name of this bill is the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill so this legislation we are debating today amends this Act. This is the principal Act.So what does this Summary Offences Act do? It is actually quite a remarkable piece of legislation because it is brought into its own umbrella and deals with a lot of different legislation. It is pertinent to note that in itself it was an Act to reform and restate the law relating to summary offences—not surprisingly given the name of the legislation is the Summary Offences Act—and to replace the Police Offences Act 1927 and its amendments. So what we are seeing here when we are thinking of the principal Act is the fluidity and flux involved in legislation—how legislation evolves and is in turn superseded or amended. So what we have got in this piece of legislation in front of us today is actually amending this principal Act the Summary Offences Act 1981.So what actually does the Summary Offences Act do? It is actually as I said quite encyclopaedic in its scope. The first pages section 3 right through to section 8 deal with offences against public order—offences against public order. So what might we consider these offences to be? I could see Todd McClay coming up with a few ideas. These offences include disorderly behaviour—not that he would ever be associated with such an offence against public order himself being an upstanding Minister. They include offensive behaviour or language disorderly behaviour on private premises—I mean we all could have been guilty of that at some stage; we are only human. We are only human. I have met many good men and women in my life but I have never met a saint and I have never met an angel. All of us at some stage could have been guilty of disorderly behaviour on private premises. The offences include disorderly assembly.The next one—possibly Mr Sabin saw this in his previous role as a policeman—is associating with convicted thieves. This is definitely one that Mr Sabin would have seen—look at his broad shoulders. We are very lucky that he has been part of the thin blue line—the thin blue line. The offences include associating with violent offenders and—here we are because this could be describing Mr Sabin’s modus operandi and raison d’êtrê—associating with serious drug offenders. We know his stance on the evils of drugs. Proof of habitual association—goodness me you could be actually charged under a lot of this were you not a police officer. Fighting in a public place—that could apply to any member of the Parliamentary Rugby Team.I just want to get to my point which is coming up. The offences include fighting in a public place publishing a document or thing explaining the manufacture of explosives. I have to put my hand up and say I have been young and I experimented with—I will not say what it was. I will not say what it was.Chris Auchinvole: When were you young?Dr CAM CALDER: Well it was a long time ago. It was probably in the chemistry lab—we have all done this in the chemistry lab. It led to a satisfying little explosion but under carefully controlled conditions of course. Offences against personal property—this is the point that I am very pleased that we have come to. We have got another member formerly of the police force here a very able former member of the police force who in the past actually made his contribution in the thin blue line with the aid of a large dog. I am talking about Mark Mitchell here who has gone on to carry his abilities in security into some of the world’s hottest trouble spots and now brings it to bear on the rugby field for the Parliamentary Rugby Team as the co-captain. Sitting next to him is the vice-captain Alfie Ngaro. They are two rather large gentlemen with extraordinarily broad shoulders who are part of the potency of the team it has to be said—part of the potency of the team.Section 10 of the Summary Offences Act 1981—which is of course the principal Act that we are debating—talks about assault on police prison or traffic officers. So were anyone to be so foolish as to offer violence to Mr Sabin or Mr Mitchell they probably would regret it quite quickly but after that assault had been offered they would have been able to be prosecuted under this principal Act here. The next is something that there is no excuse for and this is something that we do not want to see in New Zealand. We see it too often. We see it on hot days when mum or dad nips into the supermarket and leaves their child in a car without reasonable care or supervision. This is a very serious issue. This is covered by the Summary Offences Act as well as wilful damage graffiti vandalism tagging and defacing—all things not quite on the same level. The Act covers the possession of graffiti implements acts endangering safety things endangering safety and here we are the possession of knives.I have to pay credit to Todd McClay because when we were backbenchers together and I said to him that I had got this idea for a member’s bill he said he would look for and find the Act for me because he thought he knew where it was—and he did. He was a very very helpful man. I want to pay credit to him in this Committee stage. It was about the possession of knives—section 13A. Section 13A of this principal Act is what I based this bill on—section 13A of the principal Act is what I based this bill on. It just seemed to me to make sense. Why is it that we cannot walk around in our country with a knife in our possession? It seems perfectly sensible that we should not be able to but I posed a question to myself. With a knife you can be dangerous and cause harm of course to somebody who is quite close; with these high-power laser pointers that this bill is about—and this is the principal Act on which we are talking—the damage you can cause is grievous and huge. “Catastrophic” is the word that police have used in public statements when they are talking about the misuse of these devices. They have got more powerful.Coming back to section 13A of the principal Act here which is based on the carriage of a knife why should you be able to carry in a public place a device in the form of a high-power laser pointer which is actually far more dangerous than a knife? If I had the time and it was relevant to clause 3 of this bill which it is not I could mention military applications which other members of the Committee have brought up. They have pointed out how these are not toys; they are weapons. A high-power laser pointer I would submit is far more dangerous than a knife. That is the reason a knife—SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki):I am pleased to take a call on clause 3 of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill which refers to the principal Act the Summary Offences Act. In many ways this comes down to a lot of what Dr Calder has noted. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee considered whether we needed to replicate a number of elements out of the Summary Offences Act 1981 in order to integrate them into the bill here. That would of course have made it substantially longer. It would have made this debate consequentially substantially longer as well. But we felt—and we took a lot of advice from officials and made our own considerations—that we could actually rely on the Summary Offences Act 1981.I think Dr Calder in his address just earlier noted in particular the impact on police and turned to two of my colleagues Mark Mitchell and Mike Sabin who I have just learnt was a police officer. I would also want to note actually that I am very fortunate to have my father here in Parliament as well. I mention that because as a former police officer himself he would be very familiar with elements of the Summary Offences Act of 1981 of course—effective if I recall correctly in the last years of his service to the Crown.The really important thing for us—and it is around the principle of good law—is that we do not need to replicate. We are relying quite heavily on the Summary Offences Act 1981. Cam went through it quite well. I am looking at my notes beside me here. The Summary Offences Act really does look at the behaviour and conduct of New Zealanders citizens residents and so forth in the community—so everything from the possession of spray-cans to knives to how one conducts oneself in public and in private.The Summary Offences Act is quite a critical piece of legislation and again we have seen how that has been applied particularly through our police force. The best advice that we were getting from officials including from the police was that actually the thing that we needed to do in clause 3 was point towards the Summary Offences Act. It provided enough context for us to move forward.During the course of the debate it has been raised with me by a constituent actually concerned perhaps that legitimate uses of hand-held or high-power lasers may be excluded. The constituent I think quite rightly pointed towards laser devices that are used for astronomical observation and for navigation and colleagues have gone further to discuss military applications and so forth. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee did consider this. It does form part of clause 3. The fact that we look towards the Summary Offences Act means intent becomes quite important. So if you are an engineer an astronomer a captain in terms of the merchant navy or on the seas or an academic of course you can rightly have a hand-held laser and be able to use it in the same way that someone may actually have items that we have heard about in the Summary Offences Act. They may be in possession of what could well be described—I mean I can think of chefs who walk around with knives. They are often initially concealed as they take them to work. We are not expecting fine police officers to be detaining them or if they are stopped questions will be asked. In fact I think of myself—and this does fit within clause 3 and the Summary Offences Act—as a fencer and as a fan of that sport of l’escrime to use a bit of French Dr Calder. As we were colleagues and friends we would often be walking to and from the university gym carrying what were effectively seen as weapons at times. They are swords. There are three different types: foil épée and sabre.Dr Cam Calder: You’re a bit of a swordsman?SIMON O’CONNOR: A swordsman—somewhat accomplished we could say but that is by my own assertion. Others would argue against it. But what I am trying to draw is that we can have objects—in this case a sword a piece of sporting equipment—that could be seen as offensive.Paul Foster-Bell: What about lightsabers?SIMON O’CONNOR: No—no lightsabers Paul Foster-Bell. That is another generation to come.What I am trying to illustrate is the purpose or the intent. If I were to ever be stopped of course by a police officer I would respond and explain the intent of what I was carrying—in this case a fencing foil—and I think this is analogous therefore to how the Summary Offences Act here in clause 3 would work with high-power lasers. If a person is able to explain why they have this high-power laser why they have this item of over 1 milliwatt in their possession and why they need to use it that could be explained to the constabulary.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I am very pleased to take a call on clause 3 of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill to talk about what really is the bread and butter of front-line police officers’ work and that is the Summary Offences Act. This bill amends the Summary Offences Act 1981—Alfred Ngaro: Were you a policeman?MIKE SABIN: Yes I was a policeman. It is a fact less often known but I am happy to get it on the table for this particular purpose to help elucidate the importance of the Summary Offences Act 1981 which received Royal assent on 23 October 1981. The Summary Offences Act typically contains—Mr Calder did allude to some of them—offences that we would constitute as being at the minor end of the scale. They are what you could often refer to as the rats and mice type of offences. The penalties are commensurate. Is that the word Mr Calder? You are a scholar.Dr Cam Calder: Oh an excellent word!MIKE SABIN: Thank you. I learnt that one at Police College. They are commensurate—commensurate—with the offences.If we look at the detail in terms of the Summary Offences Act and the framework that it is set in first and foremost a summary offence is an offence that is trialled by judge only so there is no option for a jury trial. A jury trial matter would be something that is an indictable matter. A purely indictable matter is a high-end High Court matter if you like and receives penalties that have the most significant consequences. Summary offences deal with the lower end and they are a judge-only matter.The second point to note is the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations refers to the time between the offence and the offender being placed before the court and charged. For summary offences it is 6 months. When we talk about amending the Summary Offences Act what we are discussing is amending a piece of legislation that typically deals with lower-end offences where the penalties are of less consequence where we are dealing with a judge-only trial and where we have a statute of limitations of 6 months.The other interesting point to note is that those who are arrested for matters in the Summary Offences Act typically do not have to provide their fingerprints which is a fact lesser known and they are bailable as of right. Typically they will be in a position where they can receive police bail to go about their lives and be summonsed to court at the next sitting day generally speaking if they have been charged and processed through a police station. That gives the context of the Summary Offences Act 1981 and gives us a sense of—[Interruption] I hope my colleagues are all paying attention.Chris Auchinvole: Yes I’m taking notes.MIKE SABIN: Absolutely—taking notes. There is another former police officer behind me of course Mike Mitchell but as a dog handler he did not often deal with the Summary Offences Act as much as the “101 My Dog Bit Someone Act”.I just want to allude to a couple of specific features that I think draw absolute comparison with Dr Calder’s bill here. The first deals with graffiti. That is section—can I borrow your glasses? No I am only kidding. It is very very small print. That section deals with graffiti. Can you bring section 11A and 11B on the big screen? Section 11A of the Summary Offences Act deals with graffiti and section 11B talks about being in possession of items that may be—there it is right there. That is the next one I will be talking about. Section 11B deals with the instruments that may be used for graffiti purposes and then there is a subsequent offence in section 11A that actually makes it an offence to then commit the graffiti. If we draw the analogy between that and the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill what we are actually saying is having possession of them is one thing but then there is a second step before it becomes an offence.TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National):I apologise for jumping in before my colleagues but I seek leave to correct a vote that I cast on the procedural motion earlier.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that?TIM MACINDOE: It appears that I cast a vote of 2 for the Māori Party; it should have been 3. I was not aware that I had said that. That was why I questioned the arithmetic and I do apologise to the Committee for my error.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): So what that means is that the vote will be 60-60 and it takes an outright majority to win a vote. Leave is sought to correct the record of the Māori Party vote from two in favour to three in favour. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National):I am particularly pleased to have been able to offer a token of technical assistance to my colleague Mike Sabin who was in the police force. I think that needs to be established. We need that established. Not only that but we have another colleague Mark Mitchell who was in the police force and now I am a little bit nervous because we also have the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections Anne Tolley with us in the Committee. So I do hope that I get this completely right.We are talking about clause 3 of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. Clause 3 as we have already heard amends the principal Act which is the Summary Offences Act 1981. I have always understood that a summary offence is a crime in common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded against summarily—Mike Sabin: “Sum-air-ily”.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: —oh “sum-air-ily” you would say; he also says “Wang-ana-why” as well—without the right to a jury trial or indictment. It is governed by the statute of limitations for 6 months arrest is bailable as of right and no fingerprints are taken. Is that right?Mike Sabin: That’s correct.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: That is correct. We have got that bit covered. When one has a look at the Summary Offences Act—and I will just bring it up on my little screen. For a layperson such as myself who is not overly familiar with the law beyond the level required to be a—Dr Cam Calder: JP.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: A justice of the peace. It is interesting if one has a moment to look at the summary of the Summary Offences Act. It covers offences against public order persons or property and spray cans. I can remember when we brought that one through Parliament. It was necessary to introduce legislation to control spray cans. I am old enough to remember—and I am sure that there are members on the other side of the Chamber who are too—when graffiti was simply “Kilroy was here.” and that was about it; you did not see anything much else. Then spray cans came along.Summary offences also include offences resembling forgery or fraud; offences against official information; intimidation; obstruction and hindering police; indecency; loitering and trespass; offences resembling nuisance; infringement offences; search arrest and jurisdiction; and amendments and appeals. It is an interesting chapter in history and is all meat and potatoes to the boys in blue—the thin blue line. I remember that I worked with a colleague who had been a policeman—Mike Sabin: This is the meat and three veg.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: This is three vegetables yes. Some of these laws were of course quite convenient from the point of view of apprehending people.Mike Sabin: Possession of a knife.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Possession of a knife is a particularly significant one and that is the one that we have alluded to quite frequently in discussing the principal Act. [Interruption] Thank you. Perhaps I can just refer to section 13A of the Summary Offences Act subsection (1): “Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2000 who in any public place without reasonable excuse has any knife in his or her possession.” This is tricky if you are a Scottish gentleman wearing a kilt with a sgian-dubh in your sock but it is also tricky for some Sikhs I think—where is Kanwal when you need him—because I believe they carry knives. The similarity of section 13A—Hon Maryan Street: You are making a fool of yourself Mr Auchinvole. Just cut the crap and get to the business.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: I raise a point of order Mr Chair. It is amazing that what we object to—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Just come to the point of order.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: —is what we least like about ourselves. It was an indictment of that member Maryan Street to speak like that.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! The member cannot use a point of order to attack another member. With the way in which the member raised that point he transgressed into that. But I say to the member Maryan Street who called out the interjection that it was inappropriate and it is not the sort of decorum we like to see in the Committee. Members can express their dissatisfaction by using higher-grade language.Hon Maryan Street: I’ll try to ramp it up.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am on my feet. The member will be trying somewhere else if she is not very careful. Mr Auchinvole has about half a minute to go.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Thank you Mr Chairman. I am so sorry to see my parliamentary colleague so deeply upset. I do not know where she has been or what the cause of this is.Mike Sabin: Offensive language is in the Summary Offences Act.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Offensive language is in the Summary Offences Act. I do not know what it was and I do not know who it was that has upset Maryan Street but I am sorry to see her behave in the way that she is behaving because this is a very important bill. It might appear not to be so to that member but it is to us.MOANA MACKEY (Labour):I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.Clause 4 New section 13B inserted (Possession of high-power laser pointers)TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West):This is the first time I have spoken in this debate and clause 4 is of course the weighty clause of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. I hope the Committee will indulge me if for just a few seconds I pay tribute to the retiring member in charge of the bill my very good friend Dr Cam Calder who is a man who served as deputy chair when I was chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee and who was a very loyal and hard-working deputy chair. In recent times the roles have been reversed and I have had the pleasure of serving on the Education and Science Committee which he has chaired admirably as it has dealt with some very important legislation. So I want to thank him for being such a collegial and congenial member of this Parliament congratulate him on his achievement in bringing this bill to this point and wish him all the very best in what I know will be a long and illustrious retirement. I have no doubt at all that he will reflect with great pride on his achievement in getting this bill through the House.I would just like to put a few questions to the member on this particular clause of the bill clause 4. As I said it is the clause that deals with all the substantive issues that arise from this important bill. Let us not be under any doubt despite the humour that has at times prevailed in this debate: this is a very serious matter. It is a matter that enjoys considerable support from our law enforcement agencies from civil aviation authorities from health authorities and from others in the community because the real risk to public safety from these particular weapons or lasers being in the wrong hands and misused is very very serious indeed.I would like to ask the member and perhaps he might be good enough to jot down some of the questions that I raise to see whether he could answer them why the change was made in the bill that he initially introduced as it has come back to the Committee from the term “hand-held lasers” to “high-power laser pointers”. As a layman I am sort of left wondering what the difference is but in particular I am wondering whether there is some potential for legal ambiguity here in that not everybody would necessarily need to hold a laser in their hand for it to be able to be used in a dangerous way. It might for instance be held in the mouth or even between the toes.Sue Moroney: Where are the women of the National Party? Why aren’t they down here taking this hit? They don’t want be involved in this because it’s ugly.TIM MACINDOE: So I would be interested to know whether that is going to be sufficiently watertight in order to stand up should there be a need for this matter to go to court. Although the Opposition member Sue Moroney is in some way questioning the basis behind this I would suggest that that is a very serious issue. One never wishes to have legislation that is ambiguous and therefore subject to some sort of judicial ambiguity because that can be the reason that people who are otherwise as guilty as sin get off on a technicality in court. If the Opposition members think that that is not serious they are misguided.The other question I would like to put to the member in charge of the bill is whether it is to emphasise that possession is sufficiently worrying without having to demonstrate an intention to use because obviously in criminal law normally it is both actus reus and mens rea that are required. As I read new section 13B I am just wondering what the particular emphasis is on that issue. In an earlier contribution the member in charge of the bill made the point that these are not toys and he was absolutely right in saying that. So my question would be—as one who has not sat on the select committee and who therefore has not had the opportunity to hear the submissions on the bill—what submissions were made on the specific issue of the definition by the police by the Civil Aviation Authority and by other submitters.Could I also ask him what the motivation was of other submitters on this clause in the bill. Clearly there are certain people for whom the danger of hand-held lasers being misused in aviation is very obvious. It is extraordinarily dangerous. There is also a danger of lasers being used as one of my colleagues mentioned during a rugby game. Potentially blinding somebody is obviously very very serious and for that reason we understand why both the police and health authorities would be concerned. But I wonder what the motivation of other submitters was and indeed what backgrounds and experience they brought to their submissions on the bill. It would help us all to understand what this particular clause is driving at I think if we understood what in particular it was that other submitters had in mind when they submitted on the bill. I was also interested in view of the fact that the member drew our attention to the fact that this bill amends the Summary Offences Act—SUE MORONEY (Labour):I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have heard only one speech. [Interruption] I have heard only one.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):Yes there has been only one call as I recall. The Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill—Hon Maryan Street: Oh this is going to stretch your brain. This will stretch your brain Mike. Come on get into it. Come on I’m looking forward to the argument.MIKE SABIN: I think what the member is suggesting there is that she would also like to take a call and so I will be very very interested to hear the member’s call. Clause 4—and I just want to pick up where Tim Macindoe the previous speaker left off because clause 4 is the meat of this bill. It shows us that new section 13B will be inserted after section 13A of the Summary Offences Act right after “Possession of knives”.There are distinct similarities between what this bill sets out to achieve and what the possession of a knife does and the crux of it rests on having a reasonable excuse and why it is that someone would be in possession of that. So it is not so much—Hon Maryan Street: Struggling struggling Mr Sabin. Struggling.MIKE SABIN: She is good is she not? It is not so much that—[Interruption] Well that is right. It is not so much that just having possession would constitute an offence but it is the context in which a person may then go on to use it. If we look at say possession of a knife what we know is that the length of the knife has no bearing on whether or not the person is in unlawful possession of it.One part of the clause we are dealing with was an area of contention which the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee dealt with at some length about the difference between a high-power laser or a hand-held high-power laser as the bill’s title has been amended to and the possession of a—what was it Dr Calder?Dr Cam Calder: There were a number of definitions I can touch upon in my answer.MIKE SABIN: That is right you can touch upon that. What the committee determined was that the possession of a high-power laser was where that line should be drawn. Although there are a number of low-power lasers that can still project laser light if you like for a significant distance the decision of the committee was that 1 milliwatt was the line that needed to be crossed. So when we look at the possession of a knife and the similarities of this section to that section if someone is to be in possession of a knife for an unlawful purpose the length of the knife has no bearing on whether or not that would constitute satisfying the ingredients of the offence. However in this particular bill when we are dealing with hand-held lasers there is a distinct difference and that difference is that it must be 1 milliwatt or higher.Dr Calder will be able to inform interested members of the Committee and I believe that Maryan Street in particular would be very interested to hear Dr Calder explain just how far some of these laser lights can project and the dangers they present—Chris Auchinvole: 1-1.MIKE SABIN: Sure. We have heard my colleague Chris Auchinvole here talk about rugby players. I do not know but it was 60 miles. I know he trifled with us here and asked us how many kilometres that could be and then gave us the answer that it was 60 miles which of course trumped us all because we just were not expecting that to come out. But the reality is that if we look at 60 miles it would be somewhere in the order of 100 kilometres?Chris Auchinvole: 100 kilometres.MIKE SABIN: Is it about that?Chris Auchinvole: Yeah yeah.MIKE SABIN: That is a long way up in the air in terms of the ability for someone to sit near an airport and project a hand-held laser at an aircraft. When it hits the inside of the aircraft it reflects. When it hits the windshield—if we can call it a windshield on an aircraft. I am not sure what it is called but it certainly stops a lot of wind coming in and you do not have to be an ex - police officer to know that. [Interruption] That is right—that is right; I am an ex - police officer. But one thing is for sure: it basically completely blinds the pilot or the driver or in some cases a sportsman on a rugby field. But if a high-power laser can reach up to 100 kilometres into the sky that is a dangerous weapon when used in the wrong context. One thing is for sure: what this bill is ultimately dealing with is those who would take something that has a legitimate use and purpose and use it for an illicit purpose that is dangerous. If we look—Scott Simpson: Nefarious.MIKE SABIN: Nefarious—is that Latin? I am not sure. Sounds good; I will go with it.Dr Cam Calder: Furry edges?MIKE SABIN: Furry edges—absolutely. But the point is that in foreign lands we have seen these things actually being used in a war context and one thing is for sure—Dr CAM CALDER (National):I will take a call. I have been asked questions by my colleagues about some of the thinking behind this. I want to commend the ex - police officer Mike Sabin who has shared the benefit of his experience in law enforcement and who understands how dangerous these devices are. As we know clause 4 is the meat of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. There were no submissions on any other clause. All the submissions that we got were on clause 4 which is not surprising. This is the meat of the bill. We have heard that when I drafted this bill I modelled it on section 13A of the Summary Offences Act which deals with the possession of knives. Section 13B in clause 4 is a new section. When clause 4 was initially drafted it inserted new section 13B which not only made it an offence for a person to have a hand-held laser in his or her possession without reasonable excuse but provided the police with the warrantless power to seize and detain that hand-held laser. In our debate in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee it was pointed out that it was not necessary to have that seizure provision and the committee came to the conclusion that we should omit that seizure provision in section 13B(2) in clause 4 because it is not necessary as seizure powers became available to the police under the Search and Surveillance Act in 2012.We had a number of submissions and I will put the eyes on a couple of them to give you a flavour. The Director of Public Health Dr Darren Hunt stated that the current definition of “hand-held laser” that I had originally drafted in the bill was too broad and would inadvertently capture many devices that actually posed minimal risk to public health or safety. So he made the point which was picked up by the committee and I think echoed by some other submitters that we should use the definition in the Health (High-power Laser Pointers) Regulations 2013 and the Customs Import Prohibition (High-power Laser Pointers) Order 2013 which we have touched upon previously in this debate. He felt—and the committee agreed—that adopting this definition would restrict the application of the bill to laser pointers with a power output greater than 1milliwatt. This of course reduces the broad scope of the bill but the feeling of that submitter the Director of Public Health was that the risk posed by small lasers of 1 milliwatt or less was extremely low. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists noted the same point—that generally the risks associated with using low-power lasers up to class 3 which is up to and including 1 milliwatt power output are very low. That was expert advice from the people whom we respected and we as a committee took that on board.In respect of new section 13B inserted by clause 4 we altered it from possession of “hand-held lasers” to “high-power laser pointers” to make it clear what the definition was and that what we were talking about was the same device as used in the health and customs input regulations. What we have in new section 13B(1) now is that “Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2000 who in any public place without reasonable excuse has any high-power laser pointer in his or her possession.” That was a significant change but a particularly meaty “beaty” big and bouncy change because it made the scope of this bill directly on high-power laser pointers which are the subject of those regulations and the order hitherto mentioned.As you may recall I have to acknowledge here the presence in the Chamber of the Hon Jo Goodhew whose hard work endeavour and assiduous attention to detail meant that those regulations and orders came through. It has been a pleasure working with the Minister and I think that together with the regulations and orders that she has brought through and when this bill hopefully gets through to its final reading and is enacted we will have a much safer country because the availability of these devices will be severely restricted.The hope that I had when I first drafted the bill was that bearing in mind the position a policeman such as Mike Sabin—who we have heard in the Committee today has been a police officer and Mark Mitchell who himself has been in the thin blue line. Well I thought that we should give the police the chance without a warrant to seize these things if they find a miscreant lurking with intent with one of these in their possession. We discussed this at the committee but as I think I briefly alluded to before we deleted that seizure position because from the time of drafting the bill the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 was brought into law so that actual provision was superfluous. What we did keep of course was that on conviction of any person of an offence under section 13B(1)—that is being in a public place without reasonable excuse—then that court may order that the high-power laser pointer be forfeited to the Crown.I will summarise briefly if I may. What we have then is a change as has been brought out by some of the previous speakers in the definition in subsections 4(a) 4(b) 4(c) 4(d) and 4(e) in section 13B as inserted by clause 4. The definition is: “In this section high-power laser pointer means a device that (a) in the Director-General of Health’s opinion is of the kind commonly known as a laser pointer; and (b) is battery operated; and (c) is designed or intended to be operated while held in the hand; and (d) produces a coherent beam”—that was the word that Mr Sabin was looking for before—“of optical radiation of low divergence; and (e) has a power output of greater than 1 milliwatt.” That is the definition of the high-power laser pointers. That is clear to all concerned. The police are happy with that. We debated it at some length at the select committee. Indeed as well as talking about the actual appropriate title and the commencement date we did spend a significant amount of time on clause 4 of the bill because we wanted to get it right. We wanted to make it simple to understand. We wanted to have coherence between the regulations and the order governing the importation and supply and I think the committee achieved that.I have to once again acknowledge the collegiality on the committee with members of all sides of the House agreeing that this was a worthy bill. It will make New Zealand a safer place. It is a good bill and I am very pleased that it has got to this stage. My only regret is it appears that unless things change I will not have a chance to speak on the third reading of this bill which I believe is timetabled for after I have given my valedictory speech. But I know that I have got some excellent colleagues who will carry this bill through hopefully on Wednesday 23 July. It would be wonderful to see that bill enacted and subsequently get Royal asset and become law 28 days after receiving Royal assent. Thank you.Clause 4 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.