Davis Kelvin: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Davis Kelvin: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16335. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 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 
14APrincipal Act amended 
This Part amends the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992. 
14BInterpretation 
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”. 
14CPurpose 
The purpose of this Part is to ensure that only suitable people are employed to supervise children in limited child care centres. 
14DNew 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 
“13ALimited 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. 
“13BPolice 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. 
“13CPolice 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. 
“13DPolice 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. 
“13EProcedures 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.