Calder Cam: Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCalder Cam: Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 25 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18919. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr 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thinking of the principal Act is the fluidity and flux involved in legislation—how legislation evolves and is in turn superseded or amended.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—