O'Connor Simon: Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Simon: Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 25 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18921. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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.