Adams Amy: Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAdams Amy: Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 25 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18905. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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.