Mallard Trevor: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mallard Trevor: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16334. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 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 11December. 
Chris Tremain 
: We’re still on the 9th aren’t we? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: 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after children in that situation have to have police checks—as it currently does—the idea that those checks will be withdrawn is not acceptable.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.