At a crossroads: Child safety, educator burnout and the push to overhaul Australia’s ECEC sector

Australia’s early childhood education and care (ECEC) sector was the subject of renewed scrutiny at the Senate Education and Employment References Committee hearing on 24 February 2026, with witnesses raising concerns about child safety, workforce pressures and system design under the National Quality Framework (NQF).

Representatives from large corporate providers, unions, medical organisations, advocacy groups and remote community leaders gave evidence to the inquiry, outlining what they described as structural challenges requiring significant reform.

The inquiry follows serious child sexual abuse incidents within the sector in 2025, which prompted heightened public and political attention.

G8 Education, one of Australia’s largest approved providers, told the committee it had strengthened screening and safeguarding processes, including mandatory child-safe declarations and controls to ensure educators are not rostered without a valid Working With Children Check.

The provider also noted limitations within existing legislative frameworks, stating that services are often unable to share information about staff where concerns exist but allegations have not been substantiated. The issue of national information-sharing mechanisms was raised by multiple witnesses.

The Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) provided evidence of recent regulatory action against non-compliant training organisations. ASQA confirmed it had cancelled the registrations of 12 registered training organisations (RTOs) and cancelled or issued notices to cancel more than 4,500 ECEC qualifications following findings of insufficient training and assessment practices.

ASQA described the action as necessary to maintain training integrity and protect safety standards within services.

Workforce sustainability formed a significant part of the hearing.

Representatives from the Australian Services Union described what they characterised as unsustainable working conditions for some educators, including high workloads and missed breaks. Educator Evan Gray told the committee that some colleagues regularly leave shifts physically and emotionally exhausted.

The union also raised concerns regarding the interpretation of educator-to-child ratios, particularly the so-called “under the roof” approach, where educators undertaking non-direct tasks may still be counted toward minimum staffing requirements.

The ASU called for stricter ratio settings, including proposed minimums of 1:2 for babies and 1:3 for toddlers, arguing that tighter ratios would strengthen both safety and educator wellbeing.

Several witnesses advocated for the creation of a centralised National Early Childhood Services Commission to address fragmentation between funding and regulation.

Dr Amy Green from Thrive by Five told the committee that the current division of responsibilities, with the Commonwealth overseeing funding and states and territories responsible for regulation, creates what she described as a “fragmented system”.

A national commission, she argued, could align data, funding mechanisms and accountability structures.

Georgie Dent from The Parenthood also raised concerns about uneven service distribution, pointing to what she described as “childcare deserts” in some rural and lower-income communities.

The Productivity Commission was referenced during the hearing as having previously supported more integrated system stewardship to address access and long-term planning challenges.

Medical safety and inclusion arrangements were also examined.

Dr Peter Goss, representing the Australian Paediatric Society, told the committee that current arrangements for children with complex medical needs, including severe allergies and Type 1 Diabetes, require strengthening.

He raised concerns about educators administering insulin without accredited, nationally recognised training, and called for mandatory anaphylaxis training for all staff within services.

Educators also provided evidence regarding the Inclusion Support Program (ISP), describing delays in application processing and funding approvals that can affect timely access to additional support for children with higher needs.

The hearing also examined broader questions about service models.

The Centre for Independent Studies cited Department of Education data suggesting that outcomes for children under three in formal care settings warrant further examination. It proposed consideration of alternative funding approaches, including direct payments to families.

The Parenthood advocated for extending Paid Parental Leave to 52 weeks, arguing this would support infant wellbeing and reduce pressure on the ECEC system.

Family Day Care Australia cautioned against applying centre-based regulatory approaches to home-based education and care, noting workforce attrition within the family day care model.

The NPY Women's Council told the committee that culturally-led, flexible learning models are often more appropriate in remote Indigenous communities, and raised concerns about cross-jurisdictional regulatory barriers affecting local employment pathways.

The hearing highlighted a sector navigating complex and interrelated challenges, child safety, workforce sustainability, training integrity, medical risk management, inclusion funding and equitable access.

While no single reform pathway has been confirmed, the evidence presented suggests lawmakers are considering options ranging from strengthened staffing ratios and expanded Paid Parental Leave to structural governance reform.

As the inquiry continues, the direction of federal policy settings for early childhood education and care remains under close sector scrutiny.

References 

Senate Education and Employment References Committee, Public hearing, Early childhood education and care inquiry, Canberra, 24 February 2026 Youtube recording. 

Senate Education and Employment References Committee homepage