10. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
to the Minister of Education
When she said in her reply to question 11 yesterday “the Education Act is not the appropriate place for these types of regulations”, had she considered which legislation would be appropriate to ensure that carers in gyms and shopping mall creches have had a police check; if so, what is that legislation?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) Link to this
Yes, but there is already a variety of legislation covering gym and shopping centre creches, including normal health and safety requirements, which require all practicable steps be taken to ensure that no action or inaction of any employee harms another person. We are also aware that providers are working to develop good-practice guidelines, and that the best approach is to work with them to ensure that they have the flexibility to provide the best and safest service.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Does she think that convicted paedophiles should be given access to children through employment in gym and shopping centre creches?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I suggest that the member, if she is going to be offensive, looks at a dictionary, which shows alternative spellings—[ Interruption]
Mr SPEAKERI say all around the House that those interjections will stop. I think the question was in order. It asked for an opinion, and the Minister perhaps should come to the question.
I think the member asking the question is getting a bit hysterical, because there are large numbers of situations where parents make the choice to leave their children where it is not required under law to have police checks. Some examples are Sunday schools, which the previous Government exempted. Guides, Scouts, Cubs, Brownies, swimming lessons, pony clubs, rugby practice, netball practice, soccer practice, hockey practice, athletics clubs, au pairs, school camps—the list goes on and on.
The information is very interesting, but the member asked a very simple question about what the Minister believed. There is no specific answer for what the member believes, but that was a very roundabout way to answer a very simple question. I think we have heard enough.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Can she remember reading in a briefing to her before introducing the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) that an effect of it was to remove police checks from staff at limited-attendance early childhood education centres; if so, why did she then tell the House during the first reading of the bill that that was not her intention?
I have had a great deal of advice on this issue. The crux of the issue is, though, whether those centres are educational centres or whether they are part-time babysitting creches. So, having received advice from a variety of places, including from the Ministry of Education, this Government has made the decision that those centres are part-time, temporary, babysitting creches, and, therefore, it is not appropriate to have them covered under the Education Act. That means that they are not covered by the regulations. There is no opportunity, then, to regulate them.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The core of my question was why she told the House in the first reading of the bill that it was not her intention to do what she has done. She did not address that.
The dilemma was that that was not the full extent of the question. The question started out about advice to the Minister, if I recollect correctly. The Minister responded to that part of the question, and I do not believe I can, therefore, specifically ask her to respond to the second part of the question.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
In light of her answer to the previous question, why did she tell the House during the first reading of the bill that that was not her intention?
Originally, it was not. The crux of the matter is that those centres are not providing education. They are not education centres, and, therefore, it is not appropriate for them to be covered by the Education Act. But there is legislation that covers them, and the requirements of the Health and Safety in Employment Act mean that providers are obliged to provide a safe environment for children.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
How could the Minister say that it originally was not her intention, when she has received advice from her ministry that said that that would be an effect of the change?
As I said in this House to that member, there has been a great deal of discussion, and we have looked at where to draw the line in making provisions for the safety of children. I read out to the House a great long list of times when parents make a choice about where they leave their children for various activities. Those centres are places in gyms, and in shopping centres. They are so defined that parents have to be close at hand and able to be recalled. As the member said himself in the first reading of the bill in this House, more often than not, parents are within sight of those children. So the decision was made to take those centres out of the Education Act, because they are not providing education.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Will she support a minor amendment to the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) to keep police checks in place for carers in gymnasia and shopping centre creches, until such time as an alternative system for ensuring such checks to ensure that paedophiles do not have access to those children is legislated for?