Education Amendment Bill (No 2)

This is the path that I think we have finally come to, and if we had come to the agreement earlier than we have come to now, we probably would have come to it on 9 December rather than 11 December.

💬 Chris Tremain: We’re still on the 9th, aren’t we?

We might be on 9 December on the wall, and the member might be living in the past, but outside it is Saturday. I think it is fair to say that we are here today unnecessarily, as a result of the failure on the part of the Government to reach a compromise on this bill. I think all members in the Committee know that it has been my strong personal view, and the view of Labour, that the removal of police checks for adults looking after children in gymnasium and shop creches, was an error. There was a lot of debate about whether that removal was intended. The Minister, on the first reading of the bill, indicated that that was not the intention, but it then became clear that the papers she had received earlier had made the fact clear that that was occurring.

The fact is that wiser heads have intervened, and we have reached a point now where we are reinstating police checks, through the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992. I frankly do not care what the legislative vehicle is. The key thing, as far as I am concerned, is that the law of New Zealand is the law of New Zealand. If the law of New Zealand says that people who are looking after children in that situation have to have police checks—as it currently does—the idea that those checks will be withdrawn is not acceptable. I do not mind, at all, which vehicle is used to ensure that children are protected.

I emphasise that this is not a total protection. I think all of us know from the cases that go before the Teachers Council that a lot of people who have been vetted, end up offending against children. In fact, some of the most sickening conversations I have had in my life have been with chairs and directors of the Teachers Council, and have related to cases where people in positions of trust have abused children. This bill will not stop that happening. It will not stop it happening in limited-attendance centres, but it will give the opportunity for the police to indicate the times in the past when there has been a conviction, or even when there has been an investigation or a suspicion. The police, quite often in these situations, deal with a lot of cases that do not go close to prosecution because of the age of the child or the quality of the evidence. But a flag is still kept on an individual’s record, which would mean they would fail when getting a check. I also say that a lot of people will not have been caught. There is a possibility of their getting through the system, so people should be very careful about relying on it.

My view is that it is always better, whatever sort of early childhood centre it is, for it to have a lot of glass in its walls. I think there is a very big protection in having children and adults being able to be viewed from other rooms at all times, so that there is no temptation, and so that kids cannot be in corners or in cupboards. Unfortunately, the sorts of creches that are set up too often in gymnasia and shopping areas do not have that sort of openness. They are more likely to have ad hoc arrangements. I do not want to describe them as cupboards, but I have seen converted storerooms, which I think are not good places in which to keep kids.

Although we covered the issue in Part 1, I am sure the Chair will not mind if I go back and say I accept that some of the regulation in that area went too far; we have removed that. But with the removal of police checks we went further than we should have. In particular, I thank Gerry Brownlee and Simon Power for their work in this area, because I think we have now got to a reasonable situation. It shows that we as a Parliament are determined not to weaken the law around the protection of children.

I agree entirely that it is sensible that police checks have been put back in the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). The fact is that police vetting has to occur for employees working in creches. I doubt that there is a parent who would go off to do their shopping with their child in hand and, wanting to leave their child at a limited-attendance centre, who would ask employees whether they had been police vetted and whether they had any convictions for child abuse, because nobody would say yes. So I think that is a necessary protection.

As has been mentioned, it will not totally eliminate untoward things happening to little kiddies in those limited attendance centres, but it is a measure of protection. It will give parents a lot more confidence in leaving their children in places such as in shopping malls. So I am grateful that this has occurred and that there has been some sort of compromise, so that this protection has been given back to these kids.

I also agree that there needs to be the type of protections that the Hon Trevor Mallard spoke about, such as for glassed-in areas. As a former principal I used to instruct staff, male staff in particular, not to put themselves in compromising situations or be left in a room with girls on their own. It is an unfortunate fact, but we had to provide those protections for our male staff to make sure that there would be no opportunity for anything untoward to happen and no opportunity for any accusations to be made about them. It is good that this measure has been reversed so the parents of these kiddies in the limited-attendance centres in malls will have confidence that their kids will be looked after.

This is a short call just to say that I think it is good. It is appropriate. It was a silly part to overlook in the original bill, and it is great that this has been remedied. As I said, parents can take their kids to those limited-attendance day-care centres and have just that extra measure of faith that their kids will be well looked after. Kia ora.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to insert new Part 1A be agreed to:

Part 1A

Amendments to the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992

14A Principal Act amended

This Part amends the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992.

14B Interpretation

Section 2(1) is amended by inserting the following definitions in their appropriate alphabetical order:

“limited child care centre means any premises used regularly for the care of 3 or more children (not being children of the persons providing the care, or children enrolled at a school being provided with care before or after school) under the age of 6, none of whom attends for any period exceeding 2 hours per day, in circumstances where the children’s parents or caregivers are—

“(a) in close proximity to the children and are able to be contacted; and

“(b) able to resume responsibility for the children at short notice

“limited child care service provider means the body, agency, or person who or that operates a limited child care centre”.

14C Purpose

The purpose of this Part is to ensure that only suitable people are employed to supervise children in limited child care centres.

14D New sections 13A to 13E

The following new heading and sections are inserted after section 13:

“Education Amendment Bill (No 2)

“Duties of employers in relation to Police vetting of employees at limited child care centres

“13A Limited child care centre employees must be suitable

A limited child care service provider must take all practicable steps to ensure every employee employed to care for children in a limited child care centre is suitable for that role.

“13B Police vetting of employees at limited child care centres

The service provider of a limited child care centre must obtain a Police vet of every person—

“(a) whom the service provider employs, or intends to employ, in a position at the limited child care centre; and

“(b) who is to work at the service during normal opening hours; and

“(c) who is not a registered teacher or holder of a limited authority to teach.

“13C Police vetting of contractors and their employees who work at limited child care centres

“(1) The service provider of a limited child care centre must obtain a Police vet of every contractor, or the employee of a contractor, who has, or is likely to have, unsupervised access to children at the centre during normal opening hours.

“(2) In this section, contractor means a person who, under contract (other than an employment contract), works at a limited child care centre.

“13D Police vet must be obtained before person has unsupervised access to children

“(1) A Police vet required under section 13B or 13C must be obtained before the person has, or is likely to have, unsupervised access to children at the centre during normal opening hours.

“(2) The service provider of a limited child care centre that is required under section 13B or 13C to obtain a Police vet of a person must apply for the vet no later than 2 weeks after the person begins work at the centre.

“13E Procedures relating to Police vets under section 13B or 13C

The service provider of a limited child care centre that applies for a Police vet of a person under section 13B or 13C—

“(a) must ensure that strict confidentiality is observed for Police vets; and

“(b) must not take adverse action in relation to a person who is the subject of a Police vet until—

“(i) the person has validated the information contained in the vet; or

“(ii) the person has been given a reasonable opportunity to validate the information, but has failed to do so within a reasonable period.”

New Part 1A agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Anne Tolley be agreed to:

to cause the enacting words, clauses 1, 2, and 3, and Parts 1 and 2 to be a separate bill, to omit the Part 2 heading, and to substitute for the enacting words, clauses 1, 2, and 3, and Part 1 heading the following enacting words and clauses:

Education Amendment Bill (No 2)

The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows:

1 Title

This Act is the Education Amendment Act (No 2) 2010.

2 Commencement

(1) Sections 15 to 17 come into force 6 months after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent.

(2) The rest of this Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.

3 Principal Act amended

This Act amends the Education Act 1989.; and

to cause Part 1A to be a separate bill, and to substitute for the Part 1A heading the following enacting words and clauses:

The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows:

1 Title

This Act is the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act 2010.

2 Commencement

This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.

Amendment agreed to.

The Committee divided the bill into the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill, pursuant to the amendment in the name of the Hon Anne Tolley.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.