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

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thinking of the principal Act is the fluidity and flux involved in legislation—how legislation evolves and is, in turn, superseded or amended.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?

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—

I am pleased to take a call on clause 3 of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill, which refers to the principal Act, the Summary Offences Act. In many ways this comes down to a lot of what Dr Calder has noted. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee considered whether we needed to replicate a number of elements out of the Summary Offences Act 1981 in order to integrate them into the bill here. That would, of course, have made it substantially longer. It would have made this debate, consequentially, substantially longer as well. But we felt—and we took a lot of advice from officials and made our own considerations—that we could actually rely on the Summary Offences Act 1981.

I think Dr Calder, in his address just earlier, noted in particular the impact on police and turned to two of my colleagues, Mark Mitchell and Mike Sabin, who, I have just learnt, was a police officer. I would also want to note actually that I am very fortunate to have my father here in Parliament as well. I mention that because as a former police officer himself, he would be very familiar with elements of the Summary Offences Act of 1981, of course—effective, if I recall correctly, in the last years of his service to the Crown.

The really important thing for us—and it is around the principle of good law—is that we do not need to replicate. We are relying quite heavily on the Summary Offences Act 1981. Cam went through it quite well. I am looking at my notes beside me here. The Summary Offences Act really does look at the behaviour and conduct of New Zealanders, citizens, residents, and so forth in the community—so everything from the possession of spray-cans, to knives, to how one conducts oneself in public and in private.

The Summary Offences Act is quite a critical piece of legislation, and, again, we have seen how that has been applied, particularly through our police force. The best advice that we were getting from officials, including from the police, was that actually the thing that we needed to do in clause 3 was point towards the Summary Offences Act. It provided enough context for us to move forward.

During the course of the debate, it has been raised with me, by a constituent, actually, concerned perhaps that legitimate uses of hand-held or high-power lasers may be excluded. The constituent, I think quite rightly, pointed towards laser devices that are used for astronomical observation and for navigation, and colleagues have gone further to discuss military applications, and so forth. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee did consider this. It does form part of clause 3. The fact that we look towards the Summary Offences Act means intent becomes quite important. So if you are an engineer, an astronomer, a captain in terms of the merchant navy or on the seas, or an academic, of course, you can rightly have a hand-held laser and be able to use it in the same way that someone may actually have items that we have heard about in the Summary Offences Act. They may be in possession of what could well be described—I mean, I can think of chefs who walk around with knives. They are often initially concealed as they take them to work. We are not expecting fine police officers to be detaining them, or if they are stopped, questions will be asked. In fact, I think of myself—and this does fit within clause 3 and the Summary Offences Act—as a fencer and as a fan of that sport of l’escrime, to use a bit of French, Dr Calder. As we were colleagues and friends, we would often be walking to and from the university gym carrying what were effectively seen as weapons at times. They are swords. There are three different types: foil, épée, and sabre.

💬 Dr Cam Calder: You’re a bit of a swordsman?

A swordsman—somewhat accomplished, we could say, but that is by my own assertion. Others would argue against it. But what I am trying to draw is that we can have objects—in this case, a sword, a piece of sporting equipment—that could be seen as offensive.

💬 Paul Foster-Bell: What about lightsabers?

No—no lightsabers, Paul Foster-Bell. That is another generation to come.

What I am trying to illustrate is the purpose or the intent. If I were to ever be stopped, of course, by a police officer, I would respond and explain the intent of what I was carrying—in this case, a fencing foil—and I think this is analogous, therefore, to how the Summary Offences Act here in clause 3 would work with high-power lasers. If a person is able to explain why they have this high-power laser, why they have this item of over 1 milliwatt in their possession, and why they need to use it, that could be explained to the constabulary.

I am very pleased to take a call on clause 3 of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill to talk about what really is the bread and butter of front-line police officers’ work, and that is the Summary Offences Act. This bill amends the Summary Offences Act 1981—

💬 Alfred Ngaro: Were you a policeman?

Yes, I was a policeman. It is a fact less often known, but I am happy to get it on the table for this particular purpose to help elucidate the importance of the Summary Offences Act 1981, which received Royal assent on 23 October 1981. The Summary Offences Act typically contains—Mr Calder did allude to some of them—offences that we would constitute as being at the minor end of the scale. They are what you could often refer to as the rats and mice type of offences. The penalties are commensurate. Is that the word, Mr Calder? You are a scholar.

💬 Dr Cam Calder: Oh, an excellent word!

Thank you. I learnt that one at Police College. They are commensurate—commensurate—with the offences.

If we look at the detail in terms of the Summary Offences Act and the framework that it is set in, first and foremost, a summary offence is an offence that is trialled by judge only, so there is no option for a jury trial. A jury trial matter would be something that is an indictable matter. A purely indictable matter is a high-end High Court matter, if you like, and receives penalties that have the most significant consequences. Summary offences deal with the lower end, and they are a judge-only matter.

The second point to note is the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations refers to the time between the offence and the offender being placed before the court and charged. For summary offences, it is 6 months. When we talk about amending the Summary Offences Act, what we are discussing is amending a piece of legislation that typically deals with lower-end offences, where the penalties are of less consequence, where we are dealing with a judge-only trial, and where we have a statute of limitations of 6 months.

The other interesting point to note is that those who are arrested for matters in the Summary Offences Act typically do not have to provide their fingerprints, which is a fact lesser known, and they are bailable as of right. Typically, they will be in a position where they can receive police bail to go about their lives and be summonsed to court at the next sitting day, generally speaking, if they have been charged and processed through a police station. That gives the context of the Summary Offences Act 1981 and gives us a sense of—[Interruption] I hope my colleagues are all paying attention.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: Yes, I’m taking notes.

Absolutely—taking notes. There is another former police officer behind me, of course, Mike Mitchell, but as a dog handler, he did not often deal with the Summary Offences Act as much as the “101 My Dog Bit Someone Act”.

I just want to allude to a couple of specific features that I think draw absolute comparison with Dr Calder’s bill here. The first deals with graffiti. That is section—can I borrow your glasses? No, I am only kidding. It is very, very small print. That section deals with graffiti. Can you bring section 11A and 11B on the big screen? Section 11A of the Summary Offences Act deals with graffiti and section 11B talks about being in possession of items that may be—there it is, right there. That is the next one I will be talking about. Section 11B deals with the instruments that may be used for graffiti purposes, and then there is a subsequent offence in section 11A that actually makes it an offence to then commit the graffiti. If we draw the analogy between that and the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill, what we are actually saying is having possession of them is one thing, but then there is a second step before it becomes an offence.

I apologise for jumping in before my colleagues, but I seek leave to correct a vote that I cast on the procedural motion earlier.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that?

It appears that I cast a vote of 2 for the Māori Party; it should have been 3. I was not aware that I had said that. That was why I questioned the arithmetic, and I do apologise to the Committee for my error.

So what that means is that the vote will be 60-60, and it takes an outright majority to win a vote. Leave is sought to correct the record of the Māori Party vote from two in favour to three in favour. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.

I am particularly pleased to have been able to offer a token of technical assistance to my colleague Mike Sabin, who was in the police force. I think that needs to be established. We need that established. Not only that, but we have another colleague, Mark Mitchell, who was in the police force, and now I am a little bit nervous, because we also have the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections, Anne Tolley, with us in the Committee. So I do hope that I get this completely right.

We are talking about clause 3 of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. Clause 3, as we have already heard, amends the principal Act, which is the Summary Offences Act 1981. I have always understood that a summary offence is a crime in common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded against summarily—

💬 Mike Sabin: “Sum-air-ily”.

—oh, “sum-air-ily”, you would say; he also says “Wang-ana-why”, as well—without the right to a jury trial or indictment. It is governed by the statute of limitations for 6 months, arrest is bailable as of right, and no fingerprints are taken. Is that right?

💬 Mike Sabin: That’s correct.

That is correct. We have got that bit covered. When one has a look at the Summary Offences Act—and I will just bring it up on my little screen. For a layperson such as myself, who is not overly familiar with the law beyond the level required to be a—

💬 Dr Cam Calder: JP.

A justice of the peace. It is interesting, if one has a moment, to look at the summary of the Summary Offences Act. It covers offences against public order, persons, or property, and spray cans. I can remember when we brought that one through Parliament. It was necessary to introduce legislation to control spray cans. I am old enough to remember—and I am sure that there are members on the other side of the Chamber who are too—when graffiti was simply “Kilroy was here.”, and that was about it; you did not see anything much else. Then spray cans came along.

Summary offences also include offences resembling forgery or fraud; offences against official information; intimidation; obstruction and hindering police; indecency; loitering and trespass; offences resembling nuisance; infringement offences; search, arrest, and jurisdiction; and amendments and appeals. It is an interesting chapter in history and is all meat and potatoes to the boys in blue—the thin blue line. I remember that I worked with a colleague who had been a policeman—

💬 Mike Sabin: This is the meat and three veg.

This is three vegetables, yes. Some of these laws were, of course, quite convenient from the point of view of apprehending people.

💬 Mike Sabin: Possession of a knife.

Possession of a knife is a particularly significant one, and that is the one that we have alluded to quite frequently in discussing the principal Act. [Interruption] Thank you. Perhaps I can just refer to section 13A of the Summary Offences Act, subsection (1): “Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000 who, in any public place, without reasonable excuse, has any knife in his or her possession.” This is tricky if you are a Scottish gentleman wearing a kilt with a sgian-dubh in your sock, but it is also tricky for some Sikhs, I think—where is Kanwal when you need him—because I believe they carry knives. The similarity of section 13A—

💬 Hon Maryan Street: You are making a fool of yourself, Mr Auchinvole. Just cut the crap and get to the business.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chair. It is amazing that what we object to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Just come to the point of order.

—is what we least like about ourselves. It was an indictment of that member Maryan Street to speak like that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! The member cannot use a point of order to attack another member. With the way in which the member raised that point, he transgressed into that. But I say to the member Maryan Street who called out the interjection that it was inappropriate and it is not the sort of decorum we like to see in the Committee. Members can express their dissatisfaction by using higher-grade language.

💬 Hon Maryan Street: I’ll try to ramp it up.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am on my feet. The member will be trying somewhere else, if she is not very careful. Mr Auchinvole has about half a minute to go.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am so sorry to see my parliamentary colleague so deeply upset. I do not know where she has been or what the cause of this is.

💬 Mike Sabin: Offensive language is in the Summary Offences Act.

Offensive language is in the Summary Offences Act. I do not know what it was and I do not know who it was that has upset Maryan Street, but I am sorry to see her behave in the way that she is behaving, because this is a very important bill. It might appear not to be so to that member, but it is to us.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 New section 13B inserted (Possession of high-power laser pointers)