Options to Manage
the Health and
Safety Risks from
High-power Laser
Pointers
2012
Consultation paper
Not Government Policy. Intended for public consultation purposes only.
Citation: Ministry of Health. 2012. Options to Manage the Health and Safety Risks from
High-Power Laser Pointers: Consultation paper. Wellington: Ministry of Health.
Published in November 2012 by the
Ministry of Health
PO Box 5013, Wellington 6145, New Zealand
ISBN 978-0-478-40213-1 (online)
HP 5586
This document is available at www.health.govt.nz
Not Government Policy. Intended for public consultation purposes only.
Contents
Part 1: Introduction
1
Part 2: Background
2
2.1
Types of laser pointers
2
2.2
Safety risks from high-power laser pointers
3
2.3
Availability and current controls
4
2.4
Uses of high-power laser pointers
5
Part 3: Potential new controls on high-power laser pointers
6
3.1
What are the new controls intended to achieve?
6
3.2
What types of laser pointers are covered by the proposals?
6
3.3
What options have been identified?
7
3.4
Other laws
11
3.5
Member’s Bill on laser pointers – a ‘possession’ offence
11
Part 4: The Ministry’s preferred approach
12
Part 5: A summary of the likely impacts of each option
13
Part 6: Your feedback
16
How to make a submission
16
Questions
16
List of Tables
Table 1:
Relationship between laser pointer power and health risk
2
Table 2:
Laser incidents reported to the Civil Aviation Authority
4
Options to manage the health and safety risks from high-power laser pointers
iii
Not Government Policy. Intended for public consultation purposes only.
Part 1: Introduction
Hand-held laser pointers have been sold for many years. The first pointers were
expensive and of sufficiently low power that they did not pose any serious risk. In the
past five years, however, much more powerful laser pointers have become readily
available. These more powerful pointers have a far greater potential to harm the user
and others. For example, people have been shining them at aircraft and other vehicles.
This paper seeks feedback on possible new controls to manage the health and safety
risks from high-power, hand-held laser pointers.
The proposals do not extend to all lasers, or even to all types of laser pointers. They
apply only to the higher-power classes of laser pointers.
No decisions have been made on the options described in Part 3 of this paper and this
paper does not reflect formal Government policy.
Options to manage the health and safety risks from high-power laser pointers
1
Not Government Policy. Intended for public consultation purposes only.
Part 2: Background
Laser pointers emit a tightly focused beam of light that can be concentrated onto a very
small area even over long distances. The total power in the beam may be low (a few
milliwatts, mW) but it can be focused into a small spot of very high intensity.
2.1
Types of laser pointers
There is a joint Australia/New Zealand Standard for lasers (which includes laser
pointers).1 It defines classes for lasers depending on their potential to cause injury and
sets out manufacturing and labelling requirements for each class of laser. A second
Standard2 provides a user’s guide for the safe use of lasers.
The Laser Standard is voluntary. It is not compulsory for lasers manufactured or sold
in New Zealand to comply with it.
As a basic guide, laser pointers can be classified in terms of their risk as follows
(Table 1).
Table 1: Relationship between laser pointer power and health risk
Laser pointer output power
Classification
Health risk posed
Up to and including 1 milliwatt
1 or 2
Low risk
Greater than 1 and up to to 5 milliwatts
3R
Low risk
Greater than 5 and up to 500 milliwatts
3B
Risk of eye damage
Greater than 500 milliwatts
4
Can burn skin or damage eyes
1
AS/NZS IEC 60825.1:2011 Safety of laser products – Part 1: Equipment classification and
requirements (‘the Laser Standard’).
2
AS/NZS IEC 60825.14:2011 Safety of laser products – Part 14: A user’s guide (‘the User
Guide’).
2
Options to manage the health and safety risks from high-power laser pointers
Not Government Policy. Intended for public consultation purposes only.
2.2
Safety risks from high-power laser pointers
Generally the risks associated with the use of lasers pointers up to and including Class
3R are low. The power output and wavelength are such that the human eye blink and
aversion reflexes are enough to protect the retina from permanent damage.
In contrast, beams from Class 3B and Class 4 lasers pose a significant risk of eye
damage from even momentary exposures. Class 4 lasers can also burn skin and may
pose a fire hazard if shone on some objects. Apart from the direct risks of exposure of
eyes to Class 3B and Class 4 lasers, there are also indirect risks associated with the
malicious use of laser pointers. For example, a driver or pilot could be targeted with a
beam.
Although the beam intensity drops below harmful levels at a distance of a few tens or
hundreds of metres, it is still bright enough to dazzle and cause temporary flash
blindness. Distracting or dazzling a pilot in this way is a serious aviation safety risk,
particularly during critical phases of flight such as take-off and landing when the pilot’s
concentration must be at its highest. Car drivers and ship crews are also at risk. Even
Class 3R lasers can dazzle and distract but over shorter distances than higher-power
lasers.
The most serious consequence from the misuse of a high-power laser pointer is that a
person could cause a plane crash involving hundreds of people. While hard to quantify,
the likelihood of this kind of event is probably low. However, the number of laser
strikes reported to the Civil Aviation Authority involving high-power laser pointers is
growing by about 20 additional incidents every year (see Table 2).
Arguably the most likely risk of harm is from people playing around with the more
powerful lasers and inadvertently shining them at their own or other people’s eyes, and
causing injuries without fully understanding the danger or risks involved.
Incidents of misuse of high-power laser pointers
Over the past decade, there has been increasing concern about accidental injury and
the hazards posed by malicious use.
According to Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) records from 30 June 2001 to
31 May 2012, in all 131 claims were lodged for injury in relation to laser pointers. Of
this total, 100 were awarded compensation. The total cost of the 100 accepted claims
was minimal – around $9,438. More injuries may be sustained but not captured by
ACC data. In a serious incident in Auckland in August 2011, an 11-year-old suffered
damage to one eye after shining a laser pointer at a mirror. Overseas, there are medical
reports of serious eye damage caused by careless use of high-power laser pointers.
The number of reported incidents of aircraft being targeted by laser pointers in New
Zealand airspace is increasing. This trend is indicated by the number of laser incident
reports received by the Civil Aviation Authority from 2007 to 2012 (see Table 2).
Options to manage the health and safety risks from high-power laser pointers
3
Not Government Policy. Intended for public consultation purposes only.
Table 2: Laser incidents reported to the Civil Aviation Authority
Year
Number of incidents
2007
23
2008
52
2009
56
2010
78
2011
100
2012
44 (up to June 2012)
The New Zealand Defence Force advises that its aircraft have encountered 15 flight
safety events involving lasers since 2005 (the most recent being in July 2012).
Motor vehicles and vessels (such as the Interislander ferry) have also been targeted. So
far, ACC has received no claims of injury arising from traffic accidents that have been
associated with high-power laser pointers.
2.3
Availability and current controls
Historically, only low-power laser pointers have been readily available to the public.
Through technological advances over recent years, higher-risk laser pointers (eg,
Class 3B and Class 4) are now cheap and easy to obtain. They are freely available on
internet auction websites and, when sold, often:

are not classified according to the Laser Standard (or any other appropriate
standard)

are not sold with any warning labels or have inadequate labelling

do not comply with the manufacturing requirements of the Laser Standard

do not come with a user guide explaining their safe use.
There are no controls relating to the importation, sale and supply of high-power laser
pointers in New Zealand.
Malicious use can be prosecuted by the New Zealand Police if the offender can be
identified. Police can use powers under the Crimes Act 1961 or Civil Aviation Act 1990.
They have secured successful prosecutions for a small number of laser incidents (less
than 5 percent of aviation incidents to date) as well as a few prosecutions involving
other types of transport.
However, because incidents involving malicious use are brief and take place in
darkness, it is very difficult to observe and apprehend perpetrators. There are then
difficulties proving that a particular person was the user in question. Powers available
under current legislation do not prevent incidents in the first place.
4
Options to manage the health and safety risks from high-power laser pointers
Not Government Policy. Intended for public consultation purposes only.
A number of other countries have introduced controls on the sale and supply of laser
pointers. In Australia, controls were introduced under the Customs (Prohibited
Imports) Regulations 1956. These regulations make it a requirement that any person
seeking to import a hand-held laser into Australia must have written permission from
the Minister of Home Affairs or an authorised person prior to the arrival of goods in
Australia. Each state or territory then sets its own requirements, which are
administered by its police force.
In the United Kingdom, advice from the Health Protection Agency that lasers above
Class 2 should not be generally available to the public has been used to support the
prosecution of suppliers of laser pointers. The Health and Safety Executive has
convinced major British-based internet suppliers to remove high-power laser pointers
from their sites, but it cannot control availability from overseas websites.
In the United States of America, lasers are required by law to meet minimum safety
requirements. These requirements are similar to those in the voluntary Australia/New
Zealand Standard. In addition, the World Health Organization recommends that the:
sale of laser products to the general public should be restricted to Class 1 or
Class 2 devices and should be sold with sufficient accompanying information to
enable the user to operate the product in a safe manner. Laser pointers higher
than Class 2 are considered too powerful for general use as laser pointers and
present unacceptable risk in the hands of consumers because they may cause eye
injury.
2.4
Uses of high-power laser pointers
There are a number of uses for Class 3B and Class 4 lasers, but very few of them require
these lasers to be held in the hand like a pointer.
One of the few specific applications for Class 3B laser pointers is as a demonstration
aid for astronomers who use devices with powers of around 50 mW to point out objects
in the night sky. Other users are university or industrial researchers. The User Guide
recommends only using lasers up to Class 2 as pointers indoors, and these lasers are
quite adequate for this purpose.
Options to manage the health and safety risks from high-power laser pointers
5
Not Government Policy. Intended for public consultation purposes only.
Part 3: Potential new controls
on high-power laser pointers
3.1
What are the new controls intended to
achieve?
The objective of the proposed new controls is to ensure that appropriate safeguards are
in place to protect the health and safety of the public from high-power laser pointers.
Controls need to:

protect people from harm both through inadvertent or accidental use and
through the malicious use of such laser pointers

be risk-based, justified, fit for purpose, and consistent with good international
practice

still enable the sale of high-power laser pointers with reasonable checks and
balances on supply to prevent/reduce health and safety concerns

not impose any unnecessary or unjustified compliance costs, or unnecessarily
restrict access to products unless there is good reason.
3.2
What types of laser pointers are covered by
the proposals?
The proposals in this paper are only intended to cover the high-powered, and higherrisk, laser pointers. They do not cover low-risk laser pointers.
The Ministry is keen to hear feedback on what the cut-off power threshold should be.
We suggest it should be limited to laser pointers with a rated output power of either:

greater than 1 mW (Classes 3R, 3B, or 4), or

greater than 5 mW (Classes 3B or 4).
To avoid capturing other laser pointers (or more sophisticated lasers that are not the
problem here), devices will also need to:

produce a coherent beam of optical radiation (a laser beam) of low divergence

be battery powered

be conveniently used while held in the hand.
6
Options to manage the health and safety risks from high-power laser pointers
Not Government Policy. Intended for public consultation purposes only.
3.3
What options have been identified?
Government agencies have identified the following potential options to achieve the
objective stated in section 3.1. The options are not mutually exclusive – several options
or a combination of options could be implemented. While no decisions have been
made, at this stage the Ministry’s preferred approach is described in Part 4 below.
Option 1: Retain the current voluntary controls
Under the current approach, all types of laser pointers can be imported and sold
without any regulatory restrictions.
Option 2: Bolster the current voluntary controls
Option 2 would involve bolstering the current non-regulatory approach by raising
awareness of the risks of high-power laser pointers with importers, sellers and the
wider public. This could be done by a programme of communicating with stakeholders,
promoting voluntary compliance with the Laser Standard, making media
announcements and publishing guidelines. Another initiative would be to ask vendors
to request that their manufacturers/suppliers provide warning labels and product
safety information with their products.
The intent of such initiatives would be to encourage the sale and purchase of low-power
laser pointers (eg, Classes 1, 2 and possibly 3R) and to educate the public on the
potential dangers from the unsafe use of high-power lasers.
Option 3: A Customs Prohibition Order
A Customs Prohibition Order, similar to the order that currently restricts the
importation of knuckledusters and flick knives,3 could control the importation of highpower laser pointers at the border.
Such an Order can be made by the Governor-General under the Customs and Excise
Act 1996 if it can be demonstrated that it is in the ‘public interest’ to do so. An Order
could prohibit the importation of high-power laser pointers unless an authority it
names (eg, a Minister or a senior official of the department responsible for the control)
has issued an approval to import.
A Prohibition Order would be enforced by the New Zealand Customs Service at the
border, but another government agency would have to be designated as the ‘competent
authority’ for the controls including managing the policy issues and operating any
‘licence/approval to import’ regime. The competent authority would need to be readily
available for Customs to consult with if it is in doubt as to whether any given import
consignment is covered by the Order.
3
Customs Import Prohibition Order 2011, available at:
www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2011/0236/latest/DLM3812508.html?search=ts_
act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_Customs+import+prohibition+Order+2011_resel_
25_h&p=1
Options to manage the health and safety risks from high-power laser pointers
7
Not Government Policy. Intended for public consultation purposes only.
Prohibition Orders are not a guarantee that all imports of high-power laser pointers
will be identified and intercepted at the border. Their effectiveness will depend on a
range of factors such as how many are imported, how packages are labelled and how
many packages are inspected. As such, a Prohibition Order should not been seen as a
total solution in its own right. In addition, it only lasts for three years, but can be
extended.
Options 4.1–4.4: New regulations made under the Health Act 1956
Import controls would not manage the risks from high-power laser pointers already in
the country. Regulations under the Health Act 1956 appear to be the simplest
regulatory option to achieve this. Proposals would seek to reduce the risk of harm from
both accidental and malicious exposures.
Section 119(d) of the Health Act 1956 allows regulations to be made that provide for:
The prohibition, restriction, or regulation, of the use, sale, or supply of any
apparatus or equipment which may emit electromagnetic radiation (other than
X-rays or gamma rays), and the licensing or registration of persons, premises, or
things in relation to any such use, sale, or supply.
Under this section a number of new controls on high-power laser pointers could be
introduced. Possible options are summarised below.
Option 4.1: Restricting the supply of high-power laser pointers to certain
users
Under this option, the sale and supply of high-power lasers pointers could be restricted
to defined categories of ‘authorised users’. For example, such users could include
astronomers or researchers or other classes of people who can justify why they require
a high-power laser for a purpose that a lower-power laser pointer cannot achieve.
The intent would be to protect the health and safety of users and the wider public from
the accidental or malicious use of such laser pointers, but doing so in a way that is
reasonable and efficient to implement and does not unreasonably interfere with
people’s access to products.
This could be achieved in a number of ways. New regulations (made under the Health
Act 1956) could specifically list the categories of such users, although that would run
the risk of unintentionally omitting classes of people. Another option is to develop a set
of criteria that must be met before a person can purchase a high-power laser pointer.
Such criteria could include, for example, that a prospective purchaser must be able to:

explain why they want a high-power laser pointer and provide sufficient assurances
about the uses intended for the high-power laser pointer

demonstrate that they understand the health and safety risks from high-power laser
pointers
8
Options to manage the health and safety risks from high-power laser pointers
Not Government Policy. Intended for public consultation purposes only.

demonstrate that they will have appropriate safeguards in place to ensure no
improper use

demonstrate that he/she is a fit and proper person to be entrusted with a highpower laser pointer.
Prospective purchasers could be required to provide sellers with reasonable
documentation or proof to justify the sale. For example, a researcher could provide a
letter on university or company letterhead, or an astronomer could include a letter
from their astronomical society. Other people could provide a statutory declaration in
which they declare that they are aware of the risks and will do all that is reasonable to
ensure the lasers are not used in a way that endangers the health and safety of the user
or other people.
Another option would be to set up a process for explicitly defining an ‘authorised user’;
for example, enabling the Director-General of Health to define the categories of users
by notice in the Gazette.
The regulations could impose a duty on suppliers to take reasonable care so that they
only sell/supply high-power laser pointers to people whom they reasonably believe are
authorised users. It would be an offence to sell or supply high-power laser pointers to
someone who is not an authorised user without taking reasonable care.
Such controls would essentially require sellers to confirm that purchasers are aware of
the risks and regulatory controls, will have appropriate health and safety safeguards in
place, and will undertake not to use the laser pointers in a way that puts the safety of
others at risk. This will mean that people could still have access to high-power laser
pointers but would need to provide suppliers with credible evidence of why they need
them and how they will use them.
Another offence could be created for purchasers who obtain or seek to obtain highpower laser pointers by misleading or deceitful means (eg, by lying about their
credentials or intended use).
This control may not affect purchases made on overseas websites, unless such sales
were also contrary to that country’s laws or the pointers were detected by Customs
when coming into New Zealand.
Option 4.2: Requiring warning labels and user safety information
High-power laser pointers could be required to bear appropriate warning labels and be
accompanied by a user safety guide when they are sold. Regulations could make it an
offence to sell or supply high-power laser pointers that do not satisfy these
requirements.
Options to manage the health and safety risks from high-power laser pointers
9
Not Government Policy. Intended for public consultation purposes only.
Under the Laser Standard, the labelling requirements for lasers depend on their class.
For example, Class 3B lasers require a warning label, a label indicating the laser
aperture, and labels specifying the laser class, maximum output, wavelength, and
details of the standard against which it was classified. The Laser Standard also requires
that a user safety guide be supplied with lasers, outlining the recommended procedures
for minimising risks to the user and others. Recommended precautions for Class 3B
lasers include appointing a designated safety officer responsible for the safe use of the
device, using safety glasses if appropriate, and posting warning signs in the area where
the laser is being used.
Option 4.3: Require compliance with manufacturing requirements in the
Laser Standard
Under this option, any high-power laser pointers sold or supplied in New Zealand
would have to comply with manufacturing requirements in the Laser Standard.
This Laser Standard is currently voluntary and specifies manufacturing requirements
for lasers, which vary according to their class. Under the Laser Standard, Class 3B and
Class 4 lasers, for example, should have a removable key locking device and provision
to connect to a remote interlock (eg, which would disable the laser when a door is
opened).
This option would make selling or supplying a high-power laser pointer that did not
satisfy these requirements an offence.
Option 4.4: License sellers and require them to maintain a sales register
This option would require sellers to be licensed and to maintain a register of sales and
information about purchasers. This requirement could provide a mechanism for
government to confirm that the rules on purchase are being followed.
Any person who sells high-power laser pointers could be made responsible for
obtaining information from potential purchasers about how the laser pointer will be
used, and the purchaser’s awareness of regulatory controls and risks. The vendor would
also maintain a register of sales. This register could be subject to audit.
Sellers would be expected to take reasonable care in checking purchasers’ credentials
and follow up in cases of doubt. For example, astronomers wishing to purchase a highpower laser pointer could supply a letter confirming their membership of an
astronomical society (on society letterhead). University researchers could supply a
letter on university or departmental letterhead. Failure to keep proper records, or
selling high-power laser pointers to people without taking reasonable care to check the
credentials of the user, could be made an offence. Sellers could also have their licence
revoked.
10
Options to manage the health and safety risks from high-power laser pointers
Not Government Policy. Intended for public consultation purposes only.
3.4
Other laws
Other legislative options for controlling the supply of high-power laser pointers have
been considered, including through the Fair Trading Act 1986, the Civil Aviation Act
1990 and the Arms Act 1983. These options are not preferred because they either do
not enable the range of controls proposed in this document to be made, or only enable
a partial response.

The thrust of controls under the Fair Trading Act is on goods that are inherently
unsafe (eg, a choking hazard, made of hazardous materials), not goods that are
unsafe through misuse.

The Civil Aviation Act makes it an offence to do anything that may endanger aircraft,
but contains no provisions to enable controls over the supply of items that could be
used to endanger aircraft.

The purpose of the Arms Act is to control firearms and other restricted weapons,
and it would not be appropriate for high-power laser pointers, which are not
intended to be used as weapons. Users of firearms need to obtain a firearms licence.
For any of these Acts to be used to control high-power lasers, it is likely that Parliament
would need to widen their scope so that they allow regulations to be made. This would
take much longer than if the current Health Act were used to make regulations.
3.5
Member’s Bill on laser pointers – a
‘possession’ offence
Dr Cam Calder MP has drafted a Member’s Bill, the Summary Offences (Possession of
Hand-held Lasers) Amendment Bill, which would amend the Summary Offences Act
1981 to make it an offence to be in possession of any ‘hand-held laser’ in public without
having a reasonable excuse.4
At the time of writing, the Summary Offences (Possession of Hand-held Lasers)
Amendment Bill has not been drawn from the ballot and is therefore not part of the
Parliament’s current work programme.
The potential controls identified in this paper involve only new regulations, not
changes to Acts. As such, this consultation document notes the Member’s Bill and
recognises that if it is drawn from the ballot it will become an issue of Parliamentary
business. This would be a parallel process to the regulatory options considered in this
paper.
4
The Member’s Bill is available at:
www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/ProposedBills/Default.htm?p=2
Options to manage the health and safety risks from high-power laser pointers
11
Not Government Policy. Intended for public consultation purposes only.
Part 4: The Ministry’s
preferred approach
At this stage the Ministry’s preference is to use a combination of Options 3 and 4.1,
namely to:

make a Customs Prohibition Order, under the Customs and Excise Act 1996, to
control the importation of high-power laser pointers at the border

pass regulations under the Health Act 1956 to restrict the supply of high-power laser
pointers to certain users.
The Ministry considers that, together, these two options are reasonable controls to help
protect the health and safety of the public from high-power laser pointers. They reflect
a pragmatic approach that seeks to prevent harm in the first place by limiting supply,
while recognising the existing enforcement capacities.
These responses are also reasonable in terms of compliance costs to all parties, while
still enabling access to higher-power laser pointers but not restricting the supply of
lower-power laser pointers to the general public.
The Ministry wishes to test this preliminary view by a public consultation process and
reiterates that no final policy decisions have been made.
12
Options to manage the health and safety risks from high-power laser pointers
Not Government Policy. Intended for public consultation purposes only.
Part 5: A summary of the likely
impacts of each option
This part summarises the likely impacts of each of the options identified. The
Ministry’s preferred option (a combination of Options 3 and 4.1) is highlighted.
Option
Positive impacts
Negative impacts
Option 1: Retain
the current
voluntary controls

Minimal cost to government to
implement and enforce.


No compliance cost for industry,
importers or suppliers.
Will not stop an increase in supply or
in the incidents of laser strikes in line
with current trends.

No preventive controls.

Does not reduce the risk to health
and safety (through laser strikes and
accidental harm).

Potential for criticism of government
for not doing enough if something
goes wrong.

Inconsistent with moves to regulate
internationally.

No restrictions on consumers who
want to purchase products.

Avoids potential criticism of
government ‘over-reaction’.

Option 2: Bolster
the current
voluntary controls
Does not affect the availability of lowpower laser pointers.

Similar to Option 1 plus the following
positive impacts.

Similar to Option 1 plus the following
negative impacts.

No costs for government to develop
a new regulatory scheme.

Resource intensive for government
to maintain and implement over time.

Minimal compliance cost for industry. 

Avoids potential criticism of
government ‘over-reaction’.

Consumers might be provided with
more comprehensive safety
information and guidance.

Does not affect the availability of low- 
power laser pointers.

Uncertain it will actually work (no
guarantee of behaviour change).
Industry has been reluctant to selfpolice (without explicit regulation
being in place), so continued
voluntary approach may not work.
Greater awareness might encourage
others to use lasers unsafely (laser
strikes).
Options to manage the health and safety risks from high-power laser pointers
13
Not Government Policy. Intended for public consultation purposes only.
Option
Positive impacts
Preferred option: a
combination of:



Option 3:
Prohibit imports 
using a
Customs

Prohibition
Order
Option 4.1:
Restrict supply
to certain users



Multiple imports of small amounts are
unlikely to be detected.

Permission to import and purchase
can be given to authorised users.
Potential loss of business for New
Zealand importers and suppliers.

Cost to government to develop
regulations and to implement/
enforce.

Broadly consistent with controls
recently introduced by other
countries.
Some will see it as an infringement
on their rights to import high-power
lasers.

Reduces supply and limits sales to
groups of users, so less likelihood of
harm to wider public.
Does not cover high-power lasers
that are already owned by people
and can continue to be used.

No mandatory requirement for the
provision of comprehensive safety
information and guidance.

Awareness raising without supporting
initiatives is unlikely to change
behaviour. Uncertain if it would
actually work.

Does not give government the ability
to control the supply chain (eg,
overseas-hosted websites selling
non-complying products).

Compliance cost on industry to
develop warnings and safety
information (largely a one-off cost
though). This may see some
suppliers exiting the New Zealand
market.
Not overly resource intensive for
government to implement compared
with some other options (eg,
Option 4.4).

Does not affect the availability of lowpower laser pointers.
Helps raise awareness of hazards
and risk.
Consistent with safety requirements
for many other goods and products
on the market.

Not overly resource intensive for
government to enforce.

Introduces some form of preventive
control.

Likely to be seen as less invasive of
consumers’ right to purchase than
some other options.

Does not affect the availability of lowpower laser pointers.

Would assist border control to
distinguish between high-risk and

low-risk laser pointers.

Not all imports are checked
(especially small personal imports).
Introduces preventive controls that
are lacking now.
Ensures awareness of hazards.

14
Controls/restricts imports (though this 
is not foolproof) and enables supply
chain controls.


Option 4.2: Require 
warning labels and
safety information

Negative impacts
Would encourage importers to use
responsible manufacturers.
Cost on government to develop
regulations and enforce.
Does not cover high-power lasers
that are already owned by people
and do not comply.
Options to manage the health and safety risks from high-power laser pointers
Not Government Policy. Intended for public consultation purposes only.
Option
Positive impacts
Option 4.3: Require 
compliance with
manufacturing

standards

Negative impacts

Introduces some form of preventive
control (lasers can be locked so
reduced potential for accidental
harm).
Likely high compliance cost on
industry to meet standards if they
have to change product design. This
would probably see some suppliers
exiting the New Zealand market.

Likely to be seen as less invasive of
consumers’ rights to purchase than
some other options (eg, outright ban
or checks on sales).
Some cost on government to develop
regulations and enforce (but the
technical standards have already
been developed).

Most products are manufactured
overseas: it is hard to stop sales from
overseas-hosted websites selling
non-complying products.
Not overly resource intensive for
government to enforce.

Does not affect the availability of lowpower laser pointers.

Encourages importers to use
responsible manufacturers.

Does not cover high-power lasers
that are already owned by people
and do not comply.
Option 4.4: Require 
sellers to be

licensed and keep

a sales register
Introduces preventive controls.

Compliance cost would fall on
domestic sellers/suppliers (which
could be passed on to consumers).


Would still enable suppliers to
continue to operate in the New
Zealand market if they obtain a
licence.
Does not really target the main
supply chain. Some products are
sourced from overseas websites, and
it is hard to stop sales from
overseas-hosted websites selling
non-complying products.

Does not affect the availability of low- 
power laser pointers.
Introduces supply chain controls.
Enables the tracking of sales, which
could assist enforcement.

Greater regulatory development
costs and greater ongoing
enforcement costs for government
(compared with some other options;
eg, Option 3).
May be seen as an over-reaction.
Options to manage the health and safety risks from high-power laser pointers
15
Not Government Policy. Intended for public consultation purposes only.
Part 6: Your feedback
The Ministry is keen to hear your views about laser pointers. The following questions
are intended to help guide your feedback, but are not intended to limit its scope.
How to make a submission
To help us consider your views, we encourage you to use the submission form provided
at www.health.govt.nz
The closing date for submissions is 5 pm, Friday 14 December 2012.
You can download the submission form and email it to laserpointers@moh.govt.nz
You can post your submission to:
High-power Laser Pointers Consultation
Environmental and Border Health Protection Team
Clinical Leadership, Protection and Regulation
Ministry of Health
PO Box 5013, WELLINGTON 6011
Questions
Question 1:
Do you think that there is a problem with the use of high-power laser
pointers that makes it necessary to introduce new controls?
Question 2:
What do you think are reasonable uses for high-power laser pointers
and who do you think should be allowed to use them?
Question 3:
Do you agree with the policy objective stated in section 3.1 of the
paper?
Question 4:
Which of the options (or combination of options) for new controls do
you support? Do you want to suggest any other option?
Question 5:
What do you think the power threshold should be for any potential
new controls? Should it be set greater than 1 mW (this would include
Classes 3R, 3B and 4), or greater than 5 mW (including only Classes
3B and 4), or another level?
Question 6:
Do the features listed in section 3.2 describe the essential features of a
high-power laser pointer? Do these features also avoid inadvertently
capturing other lasers that are not intended to be covered by these
proposals?
Question 7:
What impact would each option have on you? Please provide any
evidence to help the Ministry gauge the size of any potential cost or
benefit to you. For example, if you believe there would be a cost for
you (for instance, to comply with any of the options or from lost
business), please provide an estimate of this cost.
16
Options to manage the health and safety risks from high-power laser pointers