From regulation to interpretation: unpacking uncertainty in child safety compliance

National child safety reforms are reshaping expectations across early childhood education and care (ECEC). While annual third-party outdoor audits are not universally mandated, regulatory direction suggests that minimum compliance may no longer be sufficient.
While annual third-party outdoor audits are not yet universally mandated, regulatory direction increasingly suggests that minimum compliance may no longer be sufficient.

The passage of the Early Childhood Legislation Amendment (Child Safety) Act 2025 signals a nationally coordinated shift in how child safety obligations are interpreted, governed and enforced across states and territories.

Although many reforms focus on governance, reportable conduct and cultural safeguarding, their practical implications extend to their practical implications extend directly to the physical environment, particularly outdoor learning spaces where risk exposure is higher.

For approved providers and nominated supervisors, the issue is evolving from whether compliance is achieved to whether due diligence can be demonstrably proven.
The question is shifting from whether compliance is technically achieved to whether due diligence can be demonstrably evidenced.

Under the Education and Care Services National Law and Regulations, services must ensure that premises, furniture and equipment are safe, clean and in good repair. These obligations sit within:

• Regulation 103 – premises, furniture and equipment to be safe, clean and in good repair
• Regulation 168 – policies and procedures
• Quality Area 2 – children’s health and safety
• Quality Area 7 – governance and leadership

Under the current National Quality Framework (NQF), there is no explicit mandate requiring all service types to conduct an annual independent outdoor audit. Instead, services are broadly expected to maintain outdoor safety by "complying with all relevant Australian standards"

However, the absence of a prescriptive mandate does not equate to the absence of regulatory requirements, as can be seen in the ACECQA conditions of approval when searching the various relevant standards (AS4685 for example), nor state based requirements.
The absence of an explicit mandate does not remove the presence of escalating regulatory expectation.

Assessment and rating processes increasingly examine how services evidence systematic risk management. Regulators are not only asking whether equipment appears safe, but whether a documented and defensible inspection regime exists.

This distinction is critical. In practice, the threshold for what constitutes “reasonable steps” continues to rise, and with it, the practical effect of the soft mandate.

Historically, many services have relied on daily visual inspections and reactive repairs. While essential, these practices may not detect:

• soft-fall degradation
• non-compliant equipment installations
• insufficient impact attenuation
• progressive structural wear

Australian Standards such as AS4685 (playground equipment and surfacing) and AS4422 (impact attenuation of playground surfacing) provide recognised technical benchmarks. While not embedded directly in the National Regulations, they are frequently referenced in incident investigations, insurance reviews and expert assessments.

Where serious incidents occur, the presence, or absence, of structured inspection documentation can materially influence regulatory response.

This is where the mandate discussion becomes unavoidable.

If services are expected to demonstrate structured, standard-aligned risk assessment, and if regulatory scrutiny increasingly examines evidence of independent oversight, the sector must consider whether clearly outlining the specific standards required will remove any confusion.

 

The sector must consider whether formal mandating via clear and specific requirements is not a question of ‘if’, but ‘when’.

Requirements relating to inspection frequency and certification vary depending on jurisdiction and service model. This inconsistency creates operational complexity, particularly for multi-site providers.

The absence of national uniformity raises a pressing policy question.

Should annual independent playground and yard audits be clearly stated and checking of documentation mandated across all ECEC service types to create consistency, clarity and child safety assurance?

While no universal mandate currently exists, enforcement patterns indicate regulators are applying heightened expectations that increasingly resemble mandated practice.

The regulatory trajectory favours demonstrable oversight over informal assurance, a hallmark of maturing mandate.

The 2025 child safety reforms reinforce that safeguarding is a governance responsibility, not solely an operational one.

Approved providers must demonstrate:

• active oversight of physical risk management
• documented inspection frameworks
• transparent corrective action processes
• evidence-based reporting to governing bodies

For nominated supervisors, this translates into practical compliance considerations:

• Is there a documented inspection schedule beyond daily visual checks?
• Are impact testing intervals aligned with recognised standards?
• Is there evidence of independent verification where appropriate?
• Can compliance documentation withstand regulatory scrutiny?

In an environment of increasing accountability, documentation shifts from administrative record to protective safeguard.

The sector has experienced similar regulatory progressions before. Practices that begin as best practice often evolve into baseline expectation and ultimately become formal requirements.

The strengthening of child safety reforms, combined with heightened regulatory interpretation of “reasonable steps”, suggests that physical environment auditing is moving closer to formal mandate.

The prudent approach for services is not to wait for explicit legislative direction, but to evaluate whether current systems would withstand both regulatory and public scrutiny in a future mandated environment.

Child safety reform is an ongoing process. As expectations mature, services benefit from reviewing physical environment risk frameworks alongside broader safeguarding obligations.

In anticipation of strengthened or formalised mandate, key actions may include:

• reviewing and formalising inspection schedules
• aligning maintenance processes with relevant Australian Standards
• embedding regular compliance reporting to governing bodies
• strengthening documentation systems to ensure defensible oversight

Whether formally mandated today or tomorrow, the direction of reform is clear: physical environment safety is shifting from reactive maintenance toward structured, evidence-based governance that mirrors mandated practice.

Services that act ahead of mandate will be better positioned to demonstrate compliance, governance maturity and sector leadership in child safety.

Co Author

Matt Ware is National Specialist Compliances and Business Manager at CCEP Group, supporting early childhood services with physical environment risk assessment and compliance advisory.