Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill

I seek leave for the clauses to be debated as one question.

Leave is sought for that purpose—that the clauses be taken as one question. Is there any objection? There is objection.

It is an extraordinary pleasure to stand and take a call on the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill in this, the Committee stage. I am told that I can actually take—

💬 Hon Amy Adams: As many as you like.

—as many calls as I want, and I cannot believe this, because rarely does one have that honour in this House.

💬 Simon O’Connor: In these final days.

Indeed. As you know, my time here is coming to an end, so I am delighted to take this opportunity to speak on the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. I have to say that this was something that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee changed the title of. It changed the title of the bill. Many of the members of the committee are here today, and I have to acknowledge the extraordinarily fine chairmanship of David Bennett and the remarkable support of Chris Auchinvole, Simon O’Connor, and other members of the committee, who looked at this bill long and hard. There was no withdrawal from the scrutiny they gave this bill. What they decided—for very good reason—was that the name of the bill should be changed from the Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill to the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. I would like to go into some of the reasons why.

💬 Phil Twyford: Don’t feel you have to.

Some of the reasons can be found on the internet, Mr Twyford. I know, Mr Twyford, that you are a habitué of the internet. You, yourself, were you to peruse the entry for high-power lasers, would be surprised at what you found. What he would find is the extraordinary power of these devices. I noted in the speech I made on the second reading how easy it was to purchase high-power laser pointers for a relatively small price. I am pleased to say that now if one goes on to the internet, one finds warnings to prospective customers from the Ministry of Health and the New Zealand Customs Service outlining to potential buyers of these devices our new customs and health regulations, which cover the importation and supply of these dangerous goods. These new controls on the importation, supply, and acquisition of high-power laser pointers are reinforced in this legislation that we are debating in the Committee of the whole House today.

As I said, the title of this bill has been changed to purposefully bring in the definition of “high-power laser pointer” because what we found at the select committee—and I am sure members of the committee may bring this out, draw it out, and expand upon it a little bit more in their own contribution to the debate—and what we heard was that there was a body of opinion that suggested that devices of 1 milliwatt and less in power were highly unlikely to cause problems. I have to put up my hand and say that when I drafted this bill I personally wanted to include all laser pointers because I was of the opinion that one could still be distracted by a laser beam in one’s eye at whatever strength. But the committee looked at the various arguments for and against this—and I am sure one of my colleagues may bring this out to a greater degree later—and the committee made the decision that it would apply to laser pointers of over 1 milliwatt in power. This is the reason we changed the title of the bill, which we have alluded to before—to make it clear that this Summary Offences (Possession of High-Power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill applies to the possession of high-power laser pointers and makes it an offence to carry such a device in a public place without reasonable excuse.

This bill is another strand in this Government’s efforts to reduce the very real danger—very real—posed by these devices. So just to recap, it is not just this bill; this bill is an adjunct to some excellent legislation that the Government has brought to the scene. The Government has brought in Minister Jo Goodhew and some extraordinarily good legislation. When I get the opportunity I will speak more on that later in this debate.

I rise to speak in support of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. As my colleague Cam Calder, fellow member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, has said, this bill has had a change of name to limit it, because previously it was too broad.

Essentially, the bill aims to introduce law to govern the possession of hand-held lasers in public places—to have a preventative impact and make it an offence for a person to have in his or her possession a hand-held laser in a public place without a reasonable excuse. This is a safety matter, and that is why we support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill, which I do think is very important. I would like to congratulate Cam Calder on bringing this through. I know that it is part of a much bigger piece of work that has been done on hand-held lasers, particularly those with high velocity, and the dangers of them. I have actually been on a plane when a laser was pointed at the plane. I was flying—not actually flying the plane myself, but I was a passenger on a plane going into Invercargill. People saw a laser and the pilot came on to say that it was disturbing. I did think that only in New Zealand would it be that other passengers on the plane actually identified the street, right down to the house where the laser had come from. Is that not the beautiful thing about New Zealand—that you actually know—

💬 Hon Amy Adams: And probably who it was as well.

They knew who it was! So I am not kidding you—as we were landing, we were literally having the discussion as to where the house was and what the street was, and people were discussing whether they knew them or not. The pilot had already rung the police to go around there. That is kind of a nice anecdote, but it was a very serious matter, and the pilot took it very seriously. Just having had that rather small personal experience, I think that we do need to take the possession of hand-held lasers really seriously.

But I have a question for the member in the chair, Cam Calder. The member was saying something about how strong a laser is. As the member has identified, he is leaving Parliament this year. We will be very, very sad to see him go. I was wondering whether this would affect lasers being used by motivational speakers on whiteboards—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! When we are debating in Committee on clauses, we have to relate to the clause. We are on clause 1. I would like the honourable Minister to actually mention the title. We have been going for over 2 minutes. I would actually like to hear the title mentioned.

Sorry about that. I think I was getting the title wrong, and that is because I kept saying “the possession of hand-held lasers”. I acknowledge that you have changed the title to the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers” Amendment Bill. My question is related to the title, and it is most definitely related to the possession of high-power laser pointers. I note that the member himself said that there was discussion within the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee about how high-powered those laser pointers could be.

My question also relates to motivational speakers, because they use laser pointers. I am thinking that, after Parliament, the member might have a career on the speaking circuit—I find him incredibly motivational, I have to say—and I wonder whether he thinks that this legislation will affect the laser pointers that may be used in his motivational speaking as he goes around. [Interruption] This is most definitely about the title.

I accept that the title of the bill was changed at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee based on the fact that it should be just for high-power lasers. I would just like to know that this bill will not negatively affect what the member is doing when he is on his circuit—and I actually think the member would do a fantastic job—striding across the stage with his laser in his hand, and pointing to his presentation.

I would also be interested if the member would address a few other things around the title. It sounds like it was quite a discussion about lasers within the select committee. I do not understand completely what you mean about the strength of the laser and what that means. Is it about distance? Is it about how far the laser’s light actually shines light as to whether it is considered high powered? Who will actually be testing the lasers to see whether or not they come under the title of high-power laser pointers? Those were the sorts of questions that I had that I would really appreciate some sort of address on. Thank you.

I take a call in this debate on the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. It is nice to be speaking in a debate about a bill that will surely be the political epitaph of the member in the chair, Cam Calder. I think that is fair to say. I think of him as the Abe Lincoln of the New Zealand Parliament. Never has so much alliteration been delivered by one man in one House of Parliament with so little thanks—with so little thanks. Labour is supporting this bill. We would like to see it passed into law as quickly as possible. For that reason, I commend this bill to the Committee.

I am going to call—[Interruption] Hang on. This is how it works: if you want a call, you stand up and say “Mr Chairman”. All right?

Look, it is an extraordinarily, extraordinarily fine point that the honourable Minister Paula Bennett has made.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: But she didn’t make it with a pointer, though.

She did not make it with a laser pointer—agreed. But with a laser pointer at 1 milliwatt or less, she could have made it. She could have been addressing her adoring electorate in the west of Auckland—and they are going to be mortified, Minister, when you move on to another group of people who will similarly adore you, but should you be wanting to make a point in one of your debates, you could use a pointer of less than 1 milliwatt. That is what the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee decided, in its wisdom, was a reasonable strength. [Interruption] In fact, Mr Prosser has made a point about these 1 milliwatt lasers, and I am sure he will perhaps talk about this in a contribution that we are all very excited to hear very soon.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a short call to speak to this Committee of the whole House as we debate the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First has supported this bill from the outset and continues to do so. This is, as I have mentioned in earlier stages of this debate, a fine member’s bill from a fine member. It will be a fitting legacy for Dr Calder as he departs this House at the election and strides out in search of pastures new and, one would hope, in some ways greener.

💬 Hon Members: No!

There is nothing Freudian in that. Members will appreciate that time is against us as the election approaches—looming, one might say, like a colossus on the horizon and dominating the attention of members and hopefuls alike, not least because of the not inconsiderable degree of overlap between those two categories. That being the case, I do not intend to consume too much of the remainder of the 50th Parliament in arguing the self-evident merits of a bill that we are happy to support into law. Its passing is of greater import, and I do not believe that delay for its own sake is warranted. Other members who are also in support will agree, I am sure.

However, there are two aspects of the bill on which I wish to make very brief comment. The first is the definition of a hand-held laser and the recommendation by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that this be changed to “high-power laser pointers”, along with changing the name of the bill to the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. That will bring the bill into line with other legislation, such as the Health (High-power Laser Pointers) Regulations 2013 and the Customs Import Prohibition (High-power Laser Pointers) Order 2013.

This makes a distinction, and it is an important one. The definition limits the power output of permissible laser points to less than 1 milliwatt, but also specifies that such pointers be designed or intended to be operated while held in the hand. If this distinction were not made, the prohibition could well be made to apply to certain laser devices with a power output greater than 1 milliwatt but which are not designed to be operated while held in one hand, including certain laser sighting devices fitted to certain firearms and perhaps even including one or more such devices owned by myself. I am most satisfied, therefore, by the distinction so made. I am very pleased to report that the New Zealand First Party is also most satisfied and is pleased to be able to support the committee’s recommendation.

The second aspect is the commencement date for the bill, which, as I have alluded to earlier, we do not agree with.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, no. We are on clause 1. We do not talk about the commencement date; that is in clause 2. When we are doing the bill clause by clause, we can talk only about what is in the clauses. It is not a bill where we are coming back to the clauses, which is what we do when we are doing the bill part by part. When we are doing a clause by clause debate, we talk only about the clause—nothing else. We are on the title.

That being the case, I will wrap up what was going to be a fairly short speech anyway by reassuring the Minister Paula Bennett that laser pointers as used by motivational speakers and others such as lecturers usually have a power output of round about 0.05 of a milliwatt, so they fall well into that category of under 1 milliwatt, and neither the Minister nor the sponsor of the bill, Cam Calder, has any cause to be concerned. On that note, I thank you. We support this bill.

I am pleased to take a short call on this stage of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. May I begin by just congratulating Dr Calder on his success in bringing the bill thus far. I would hope, sincerely, that his colleagues do not delay matters to an extent that he is unable to see this bill through all stages before his unfortunate departure from this House in a few weeks’ time.

This bill came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in an imperfect condition. As I said at the earlier reading, the select committee did its job well. It made the necessary amendments. In its original form, this bill was inadequate for the task. It has been much improved. Given the improvements that have been made, we are now able graciously to support this bill through further readings. Thank you.

I would like to join with colleagues across the Chamber—it appears to be, to put not too fine a point on it—to acknowledge Cam and the work that he has done to put the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill in the House.

As we begin to look at clause 1 and around the title, I think it is appropriate to thank you again, Cam, for the work that you did. I think it is an honour to come through this House and to be able to put your name to a piece of legislation. As things change, just like clause 1 has changed, you have brought about changes through this bill, and others in the Committee have acknowledged the work that has happened around this bill. It came in with a variety of intentions, and through the process has been refined down. The best and foremost example is clause 1, the title. As it notes, “this Act is the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Act 2012.”

What people at home may not know is there has been a simple change. It may initially seem semantic, but what we have changed in clause 1 are the words “hand-held lasers” to “high-power laser pointers”. The member in the chair, Dr Cam Calder, has noted this was not necessarily his preference, first and foremost. I think for most of us in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, working under the tutelage and support of David Bennett, we all sort of just went with that colloquial notion of a hand-held laser.

💬 Phil Twyford: Tutelage?

Tutelage. Well, newer members have to accept the tutelage of older members; some would also say “wiser”. What we are drawing out here around clause 1 is that we did start with the title. We started with a title that reflected a colloquial understanding. We all would accept it is a hand-held laser—something that we would point. I am thinking my colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson would be right into the technology. No, he is not so sure. But the key was that we were working within that colloquial expression of a hand-held laser, and we have moved now to a high-power laser pointer. There is still some concern, and there has been, even though we have reported back to the House around this clause 1, that we may have missed some elements, but what we wanted to do by redefining the title, moving into this clause 1, was to point towards—no pun intended—the Customs Import Prohibition (High-power Laser Pointers) Order of 2013. This customs import prohibition around the high-power laser pointers is, I suppose, the mechanism, the conduit, and the basis of understanding of why we made this titular change.

💬 David Bennett: Titular!

It may help the Committee. It certainly has helped me to understand a little bit. Titular change—yes, that is right: a good Latin derivative there, but we will not get into that, and into declensions and conjugations, even though it is to do with titles.

💬 David Bennett: It’s not Spanish, then?

It is not Spanish.

So what we are saying here is around the title moving from hand-held to high-power lasers. That is linking us into the Customs Import Prohibition (High-power Laser Pointers) Order of 2013. It starts, first and foremost, with the fact that the Director-General of Health, in his or her opinion, understands that this device is commonly understood to be a laser pointer. It also refers—and there is an “and” here—that it is a battery-operated object. [Interruption] Well, you can immediately see why we are moving away from the hand-held nature. We are trying to be a little bit broader here with the title of the bill—that it is a high-power laser pointer. I mean, not for a moment am I suggesting that we are going to be taking a modern theodolite and shining it at a plane in the way that the Hon Paula Bennett experienced down in Invercargill, but we are trying to say that there are lasers that could be of detriment to aviation that are more than simply hand held.

Returning to the customs import prohibition, which clause 1 links to, eventually, it is intended to be used by the hand. That is another element within the customs import order. It has a coherent beam. I think this is something that the Minister Paula Bennett was referring to and had asked for clarification about from the member in the chair. I would welcome that as well, actually. It has to be a coherent beam. I suppose it is the nature of the laser, hand-held or high-power, that it has a coherent beam. We know about the milliwatts, Dr Calder, but we would also want to know whether there is an element of distance that is required here, and where the coherence begins to break up. It may be too much within the physical realms, but who knows? And 1 milliwatt—this is one of the critical reasons we did make the change there in clause 1 around the title to say it was a high-power laser. By referring to the customs order, we were referring to this 1 milliwatt of power.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am very pleased to be able to take my first call on this first clause of—

💬 Hon Member: It is.

—absolutely—the Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill. Can I just join others in acknowledging the work of Dr Cam Calder. There has been a degree of frivolity throughout the progress of the bill, Dr Calder, but of course we have all acknowledged the seriousness of offending or incidents that can occur as a result of people misusing these instruments. The Hon Paula Bennett has alluded to it. Certainly we have seen, even in warring nations, the use of hand-held lasers to attempt to take down aircraft and to successfully take down aircraft.

The crux of the title discussion throughout the course of this bill, and fundamental to this clause, was the change from it being simply a hand-held laser to a high-power laser of 1 milliwatt, which the previous speaker alluded to. There was much conjecture and discussion on this at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and, indeed, officials and the police provided some good advice. I think we have landed in the right space in terms of the redefinition of the title, but also the fact that we are talking about high-power lasers as opposed to simply hand-held lasers, which may be used in a completely inane domestic area and not present the same risk. I guess if we look at the difference between a hand-held laser and a high-power laser, one could argue—and I think that Dr Calder certainly did successfully bring this point of discussion to the table—that it is no different the summary offences possession of a knife. We do not talk about the knife being of a certain length; it is simply the fact that it is a knife, which, used inappropriately or in an offensive manner, can cause grievous harm. One can do that with a very short knife in the same way as one can do it with a very long knife. So one could argue, in terms of the redefining, and as it relates to the—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: What about a two-edged knife?

Sorry, what was that?

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: What about a two-edged knife?

Double-edged? It is a double-edged sword, indeed. But we jest. Coming back to the point that we arrived at the select committee, which is now obviously highly relevant to clause 1, in terms of the title, the decision was made—and it is probably, on balance, a wise decision—that high-power would be over 1 milliwatt, and that is, I guess, given where the substantive damage is likely to be done or the risk is actually arrived at, probably a fair landing place. Therefore, the Act, when it comes into force, will be known as the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Act. I think that, on balance, Dr Calder accepts that that is fair. It will still achieve its purpose and ultimately that is something that we can discuss later in the passage of this bill.

I think the title certainly reflects accurately what it is that this legislation aims to achieve—that it is high-powered lasers over 1 milliwatt that are likely to cause the most risk to those travelling in vehicles and by air that we are concerned about, if someone is stupid enough to use them in a malicious way. Of course, that will, I am sure, ensure that university lecturers all around the country will feel that they can go about their business without fear of being unfairly targeted by this legislation. The Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill will be amended as discussed to incorporate high-power laser pointers. In that, I think that Dr Calder should be congratulated on his pragmatic efforts to ensure that he did not lose the essence of what he was trying to achieve legislatively and that this bill will achieve its purpose in that sense.

I have been asked a couple of questions during the course of this debate that I would like to take the opportunity to answer, and one of them was from the honourable Minister to my right, Paula Bennett, who queried the distance that one of these laser pointers can reach.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: They’re high-powered.

Yes, well, let us just start with low power lasers—and I thought the honourable member Richard Prosser may address it—but even those of 1 milliwatt or less, which are by definition low-powered laser pointers, can actually go several hundred metres. I remember going to a market in a country from whence many of these laser pointers, both low and high-powered, come. Some of those laser pointers were low-powered, some were high-powered, but the majority, it has to be said, were of the nature of those that you would find on the end of a key ring, so they were not large, and they were not more than 1 milliwatt. They were extending beams across the night sky that were several hundred metres in length. That is why I was initially concerned by the fact that even these were in the public domain and were able to be used. But as we have alluded to, many perceptive and erudite members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, on both sides of the Chamber, have reflected upon the in-depth discussion that took place within the select committee walls to try to deal with it. I see that through doing that we have the support of the Greens. It has to be said that that support—

💬 Hon Amy Adams: That’s rare.

—is quite rare, but it is very much appreciated. In fact, I think I am right in assuming that we have support across the Committee on this particular bill. Let us face it: this bill—what will be titled the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill—actually makes all of us safer. It probably makes our wives, girlfriends, grandparents, and children significantly happier to think that the planes that we are travelling in, as we all have to do, to come to this House, are not going to be assailed by—or are less likely to be assailed by, it has to be said, because no legislation stops anything happening—the dangers of having a pilot blinded by these devices.

I would like to come back to a point that the honourable Minister Paula Bennett further asked. She asked how far some of these high-powered laser pointers can extend. It is absolutely staggering that you can go on the internet at the moment and you can purchase, for under US$300—and given our exchange rate, that is not a lot of money—high-powered laser pointers of over 2,000 milliwatts of power, which have a range of how far?

💬 David Bennett: Twenty kilometres.

Twenty kilometres?

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Fifty?

Fifty kilometres? They have a range of 60 miles. It is staggering—it is staggering. These are the devices that, under this bill, when you are walking along the road, you are not allowed to have in your pocket, because—why the hell would you need it? Nobody has got any reason—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I say this for the third time—when we are on clauses, we must relate the debate to the clause. We are on the title clause. I ask the member to come back to the title clause.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. The point I was making is that that is one mother of a high-power laser pointer—a high-power laser pointer, which is in the proposed amended title of this bill.

Just to recap, this bill is not just standing alone. The Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Act will be part of a basket or cable of measures to reduce the chances of these devices being misused. I mentioned Jo Goodhew, who is an excellent Minister. The honourable Associate Minister of Health brought in the Customs Import Prohibition (High-power Laser Pointers) Order 2013, which restricts the importation of these high-power laser pointers. This is an extraordinarily useful regulation because it means that one can import high-power laser pointers—which is in the title of this bill—only if a person has consent to do so. Anyone who commits an offence under this regulation is liable to be fined. How much do you think that fine is?

💬 Carol Beaumont: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I ask whether, under Standing Order 108, “Relevancy”, the issue to do with where the member in the chair is now going is relevant to this bill—and also Standing Order 108(2), about repetition.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member. Three times I have mentioned that when we are on clauses, you must relate the subject of the debate to the clause. This is not a peroration of what is in the total bill; this is specifically about the clause. I ask the member to come back to clause 1, which is the title.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. The title of this bill has been altered, as we have heard, by the select committee, and that was done for very good reason. I am actually trying to keep right on the topic of this because I think it is very important that we make this point, and please tell me, Mr Chairman, if I am straying. But, I mean, what we see with the possession of high-power laser pointers, as in the title of the bill, is how necessary the bill is, and I was bringing this point up. When you go on the net the fearsome nature of these high-power laser pointers becomes immediately obvious. Not only are they available but they are inexpensive. You could imagine a paper boy saving his money to purchase one of these things—one of these high-power laser pointers—which is in the title of this excellent bill that we are debating in the Chamber at the moment.

May I mention a quote about these high-power laser pointers in this debate, because what one can read on the internet is that one could purchase the Arctic, which is a model of high-power laser pointer that is outlined and is covered by the title of this bill. “A real life lightsaber”, was the quote from CNN, and another one was “The perfect gift for the supervillain”—we are talking about these high-power laser pointers. This is the type of device that this bill, as its title denotes, is designed to make it extraordinarily difficult for anybody in our country, in New Zealand, to purchase over the internet.

These are high-power laser pointers and, as a result of the select committee’s work on the bill it now covers these particular devices. I think it is extraordinarily important that we do that because until now anybody could have brought them into the country. With the work that has been done by the Minister, as I said, in the supporting legislation about importation and sales and acquisition, this will be an extraordinarily useful addition to our legislative armamentarium to keep New Zealanders safer. They will be safer from the high-power laser pointers, which hitherto have been so readily available, by this legislation’s passage. It will make that fact that you cannot walk down the road, the boardwalk, the sidewalk, or the beach with one of these stuffed down your boardshorts. Why would you want to do that? I do not know. I do not know, myself, but the high-power laser pointer amendment bill will stop that from happening without reasonable excuse.

It is possible that some people will be able to have a reason to have one. University lecturers have been mentioned in this debate. So, presumably, if a university lecturer wanted to stuff one down his boardshorts and go to a lecture, he could, but only with permission. Without permission—without reasonable excuse—the title of this bill, the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Lasers Pointers) Amendment Bill, would make it impossible for anybody, without reasonable excuse, to walk down the road with one. They might be going out in their dressing gown at night, and they might have it in the pocket of their dressing gown, but they cannot do that under this bill. The high-power laser pointer amendment bill means that you cannot walk around in a public place, whether you are in your boardshorts or in your dressing gown, with a high-power laser pointer in your possession without reasonable excuse.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be now put—

💬 David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member has moved that the question be now put, but that member has already done that previously in this debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, that is not a point of order. The question is that the question be now put—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: She did the closure already.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): She can move a closure motion—

💬 Mike Sabin: But she has already done it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I know, and she can do it again.

The debate on clause 1 will continue, but I want to make it very clear—or I will terminate speeches in future—that when we are on the clauses, we will stick to the clauses, or I will terminate the speaker’s call. [Interruption] I am still on my feet.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: It’s hard to tell.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, I am standing. The other thing is that with closure motions, a member can move more than one closure motion. They can, but that is treated as a call. They cannot take more than four calls in a debate. So the member from the Labour Party who moved the closure motion was quite proper, and that is why I accepted the closure motion.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

Basically, I have one point to make, concentrating very much on the title of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill, as you have made it very plain we must do so, and that is all I want to do, so I might not even take the full time.

But if we have a look at the title—I have had a careful look at it—there are, I think, 15 words in it, although one of them is hyphenated, so I do not know whether a hyphenated word is one word or two words. But of the 15, most of them make sense. Most of them follow, and we have heard the reasons for the change and everything else. So I take it, and really it is a question for the author of the bill, that it is agreed to change the title of the bill, and it was unanimously agreed, to “high-power laser pointers” from “hand-held lasers”, as the Minister for the Environment, the Hon Amy Adams, has just been speaking about. The thing we did not change, though, and this is my question to the author—it might be a technical point, but we still have it described in clause 1 as “Amendment Act 2012”. Is it to remain like that, or is that a change we should make at this stage? Because it was not an Act in 2012 at all. We have passed 2012; we are into 2014.

I had hoped that Mr Twyford might spot this, because, you know, when we were in Opposition, it was sort of our part of the contribution to get things absolutely right. But, no—complete disregard for correctness other than in pronunciation, where he makes a fuss. So I could say that as far as the title is concerned, I was disappointed in the lack of diligence on the part of the Opposition. I am glad to have noticed it myself. I think every member on this side is aware of it. So it is something that we would invite the author of the bill, Dr Cam Calder, who we all agree has done a really good job on this particular one, to address and to give us some form of reassurance and technical explanation. To make sure that there is time for that, I think I will just make that particular point in the hope that the bill’s author will be able to guide us appropriately. Thank you.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement