11. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
to the Minister of Education
Does she stand by her statement made during the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) that “it’s not intended” that the bill remove the requirement for carers at limited attendance centres to have police checks?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) Link to this
Yes. However, I am advised that it is not appropriate for these requirements to be in the Education Act, as these are not providers of early childhood education but simply creche or babysitting services, in places like gyms and malls, where parents choose to leave their children for an hour or two.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Is she suggesting that individual parents should ask the carers whether they are paedophiles, and does she seriously think they will get honest answers?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Whose responsibility is it, then, to ensure that these carers are not convicted sex offenders?
There are a number of legislative requirements that will continue to apply to this type of short-term child-minding. There is also an onus on the creche providers, via contractual obligations to parents, to ensure that they provide an environment suitable for the safety and well-being of children in their care.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Which parents sign a contractual obligation with a gym when they drop their kids off for 1 hour?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Will she take responsibility—to the parents—for the first case of a convicted sex offender being allowed to be a carer as a result of the changes that she has made in the Education Amendment Bill (No 2)?
I find the implication of that question absolutely offensive. The bill is making a distinction between an early childhood education centre and a creche or a babysitting service that is in a gym or in a shopping centre where a parent leaves their child for a small period of time. Often they have sight of that child—constantly. The parent has the responsibility to ensure that they are leaving their children—and this Government trusts parents to make those decisions—in a safe environment.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Does the Minister not understand that she is not trusting parents but she is trusting sex offenders, because they will no longer have to have police clearances, because of the changes she is making?
Mr Speaker, I seek your help. I find that question absolutely offensive. I am not trusting sex offenders.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It has been well established and accepted by the Minister that she is removing the protection that stops sex offenders from working as carers in gymnasia and shoppers’ creches. She is saying we should trust the parents, when in fact what she is saying is that we should trust the sex offenders.
Mr SPEAKERThat was not a point of order. I listened to the member because I know that the member is not satisfied with the Minister’s answer, and I was listening to try to assess the basis of the dissatisfaction. The question contained an element of accusation that the Minister found objectionable. If it were possible to frame questions that—forgive me; time has passed. I am not sure whether it was the question that started with: “Does the Minister not understand”, and forgive me if it was not the way this one started. But usually that kind of construction for a question is intended to make a statement, and previous Speakers have just ruled that kind of question out of order. But given the way the Minister has responded to the question, I think that, rather than ask the Minister to answer it further, the member could ask a supplementary question, as he has more available. Framing a question that is asking, rather than making a statement that the Minister finds offensive, would be a better way to proceed.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to be clear. Are you ruling my supplementary question out of order on the point of order from the Minister, or are you asking me to rephrase it?
No. I am ruling that I will not ask the Minister to answer it any further. Her answer was that she found it offensive, and that—
I thought the Minister was answering. I did not call the Minister on a point of order. I called her to answer the question. Let me come back to the Minister. Did the Minister take a point of order, or did she answer the question?
The Minister has indicated that she answered the question. [ Interruption] That member has been around the House for a while, and she will not interject when a point of order is being dealt with. If I remember the question correctly, it went along the lines of: “Does the Minister not understand” something and the Minister objected to that and said she found the question offensive. Under the circumstances I am accepting that as a reasonable answer. I am saying to the member that the subject area is certainly not out of order. As I understand the question, it appears that there might be an amendment, or it is intended that there be an amendment—or there is an Education Amendment Bill (No 2) that does something. The subject matter is a perfectly legitimate area to question a Minister on. But the questions should not be of that nature, especially with this kind of issue. By and large, questions that say: “Does the Minister not understand” something are not proper questions at all. They are simply a means to make a statement, and the Minister found that statement offensive, and that is why I am supporting the Minister in her answer. But the member has further supplementary questions to pursue the fundamental issue.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Does the Minister believe that it is desirable for a paedophile to be employed to care for children in a limited attendance centre; if not, why has she removed the primary protection against that happening?
Of course I do not support that. However, as I have said before, the Education Act is not the appropriate place for these types of regulations, because those are not providers of early childhood education. I note that the member has been looking at other jurisdictions, and I would always be very happy to discuss how other countries have addressed this issue. But in the meantime this is not an issue for the Education Act, because they are not providing early childhood education.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Why, then, if it is not appropriate for it to be in the Education Act, did she not promote an amendment to another Act where she thinks it is more appropriate, when she removed the protection of young children from paedophiles in gymnasia and in shopping centres?
First of all, we are dealing with an Education Amendment Act, so I am making changes. One of the difficulties was that the previous Government over-regulated to such an extent that we had to come in and make changes. These were creches. In fact, I visited one with the Minister of Māori Affairs—a room no bigger than an average living room, with a small section in the corner in full view of the parent, where their child was minded while they were exercising. The previous Government put in regulations that required a qualified teacher, an education plan, and a whole raft of requirements that were way over the top for a couple of hours of child-minding.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very long answer, but it did not go to the question, which asked why the Minister did not promote an amendment to another Act as she opened up the gap to paedophiles.
That last comment should not have been made under a point of order. I heard the question very clearly and I listened very carefully to the Minister’s answer. The question asked “Why did she not”, and the Minister explained why. It may not be the “why” the member might have expected, but it was certainly a reason why. The Minister talked about excessive regulation, etc., and that is certainly a reason. Whether it is exactly the reason that satisfies the member, I am not sure, but the member does have a further supplementary question if he wishes to pursue it further, I believe.