Bennett David: Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBennett David: Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 25 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18907. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID 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.