Macindoe Tim: Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMacindoe Tim: Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 25 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18925. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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—