This chapter recommends staffing arrangements be reviewed to improve the number of qualified eyes on children, improve lines of sight in ECEC services through physical changes, and a national trial of Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV).
6.1 Improve staffing arrangements in services
The ECEC centre environment is the key setting the Review examined—a place of play and learning for children, a community focal point for parents, and a workplace for staff. The Review heard an overwhelming message from stakeholders—that having enough staff, with enough training, experience, and confidence is the number one factor that supports safety within a centre. Physical features such as building design and CCTV can play a role, but not at the expense of adequate staffing.
The National Quality Framework currently sets out requirements for staffing arrangements, including the number and qualifications of teachers and educators for a given number and age of children (the ‘staffing ratio’). Further detail on these arrangements is in Appendix 3.
6.1.1‘Four eyes’ around children rule
The Review heard repeatedly that ‘four eyes’ staffing practices are the most effective safety measure in an ECEC centre—that 2 adults should be in view of each other when with children. In effect, this would mean no adult in a service should be alone with a child. It is not a specific rule in the National Law, but quality services said that it was the policy they adopted in practice. It not only protects children, but also staff who can work as a team.
The ‘four eyes’ principle should be the standard for the centre environment. However, stakeholders did say that even the best staffing practices can never guarantee this at all times. Small centres, particularly rural or regional areas, simply don’t have the number of staff to make this work at all hours. Some stakeholders were concerned about how this rule might operate in sensitive areas, such as nappy change and bathroom areas, while still preserving children’s dignity and privacy.
Recognising this nuance, the Review recommends that the ‘four eyes’ principle be the top element considered as part of National Law reforms reviewing staffing arrangements and ratios. This should also consider any funding implications. The ‘four eyes’ principle should be recognised and promoted as better practice, even without a change to the National Law.
6.1.2 ‘Under the roofline’ rule
The National Regulations require services to meet specific educator to child ratios. Compliance with these rules is calculated across a whole service (commonly referred to as the ‘under the roofline’ rule) rather than in individual rooms or groups of children, giving a degree of flexibility in how educators are allocated. This rule intended to allow services reasonable flexibility to deal with real operational challenges, such as children moving between age groups or indoor and outdoor areas, or where a child needs to be escorted to the bathroom, away from a larger group.
The Review heard reports of some providers taking advantage of this to save on staffing costs rather than to provide reasonable operational flexibility. The Review heard this could be addressed by amending the ‘under the roofline’ rule to avoid misuse and require stricter application of the ratio requirements.
Again, services and stakeholders said that abolishing the roofline rule could risk removing needed flexibility for even the highest quality services. This needs further review, including considering implications for the operation of services, additional costs, and pressure on workforce supply. This should be reviewed as part of a package of potential National Law reforms about improving staffing arrangements.
6.1.3 ‘Working towards’ qualifications
The National Quality Framework outlines educator to child staffing ratios, including the mix of qualifications required within a service to ensure there are appropriately skilled educators present within a service. The National Quality Framework also makes some allowance for staff who are studying for a qualification to be counted in the ratios as if they had obtained that qualification. There is no general limit on the number or proportion of staff that can be ‘actively working towards’ in any service.
The intent of these rules is to provide valuable experience for an individual, and income while they study. It can encourage people to join the early childhood workforce, and to upskill while they are in it. In areas with particularly acute staffing challenges, it can allow a service to keep operating while providing a local employment pathway.
However, the Review heard concerns that some services were using these ratio allowances to hire lower qualified staff as a cheaper structural staffing arrangement. If too many staff in a service are working towards their qualification, it is reasonable to ask whether the service is committed to employing a full complement of qualified staff in line with their obligations.
This is another issue that requires further analysis to understand its use, and the expected costs, benefits and risks of tightening arrangements.
Recommendation 14: Improve staffing arrangements in services Call for a national review of staffing arrangements in early childhood education and care centres, including consideration of: a ‘four eyes’ rule of 2 adults visible to each other while with children; removing or amending the ‘roofline rule’; and tightening rules permitting ‘working towards qualification’ staff so that there are more qualified eyes on children at any one time. The Review has focused on the ‘four eyes’, ‘roofline rule’ and ‘working towards’ qualification aspects of staff to child ratios as key priorities to examine to support child safety. Broader ratio changes that just increase the number of educators and teachers, without changing how they are arranged, distributed and supervise children, would not necessarily increase safety and could exacerbate workforce supply challenges. However, overall ratio changes could have other benefits for educational experiences and outcomes for children, and governments may wish to consider the reform in that context. |
6.1.4 The employment of male educators and teachers
Experts repeatedly told the Review that banning or restricting male educators is not the right way to address safety concerns. The Review heard that recent commentary has deeply affected many male educators in the sector, who already faced unhelpful judgement and unjustified suspicion from some. Many people told the Review that reinforcing the idea that caring for children is inherently ‘women’s work’ is wrong, unhelpful and offensive. All people, men included, should be encouraged to join the ECEC workforce, and contribute to educating and caring for children. Young children should have the experience of forming strong, positive relationships with a range of positive adult role models, including men.
6.1.5 Banning use of personal devices
Prior to this Review commencing, the Victorian Government introduced a ban on the use of personal devices in ECEC services to be implemented by 26 September 2025, ahead of national changes that would enshrine this in the National Law. Approved providers that don't comply with the ban may face consequences, including license conditions and potential fines. Since then, other states and territories have made similar commitments.
Given this clear policy, the Review has not examined the use of personal devices in detail and instead focused on other matters in this chapter.
6.2 Lines of sight in ECEC centres
While much of this report focusses on the people in a centre, there can also be physical features of a service building that promote or create a risk to child safety.
The National Quality Framework has extensive requirements about the physical construction and layout of an ECEC service, and all services must be inspected and approved before they open. The Review heard that, where the physical layout of the service demands it, the ECEC Regulator will impose additional conditions on a service to manage risks in the built environment.
The Review heard the design and configuration of services is varied, and that sometimes older buildings were not constructed with lines of sight and other safety features front of mind, or may be subject to heritage restrictions.
Adjusting design and physical features (such as fixtures or fittings) to increase lines of sight between staff would improve child safety. This could include simple changes to move furniture to improve visibility—for example, changing the orientation of tables in a nappy change room or moving a display that blocks a line of sight. However, many changes involve costs, such as the installation of glass doors or panels.
Services could make a significant improvement with financial support to help them replace equipment or undertake minor construction works. The Review recommends the Commonwealth Government funds a Child Safe Building Grants Program to encourage works that address sightlines. States and territories may be well placed to administer it on the ground, alongside programs such as Victoria’s Building Block Grants – Improvement program which provides funding for upgrades, refurbishments and renovations in certain kindergarten settings. Providers and/or landlords could be expected to make a co-contribution, based on their financial resources.
Recommendation 15: Improve lines of sight in ECEC centres Call for the Commonwealth Government to fund a Child Safe Buildings Grants Program for fixtures and fittings or minor construction works that address physical barriers to clear lines of sight in existing centres. This should be funded by the Commonwealth Government but could be delivered through the state and territory jurisdictions. Service and building owners should make a co-contribution, based on their level of financial resources. |
6.3 Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) in services
The use of CCTV in ECEC services was recently considered by 2 other reviews.
The Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) Review of Child Safety Arrangements considered the possible use of CCTV, and noted that:
Recent research undertaken in Israel on the implications of CCTV cameras in an early childhood context considered whether they are an effective means of maintaining a secure environment. [This research] supported early findings of other researchers of CCTVs in educational institutions that found they provide the perception of preventing harm to children but, in reality, they do not stop harm, and educators and parents were concerned about the violation of children’s and their own privacy. Furthermore, in Australia the Quality and Safeguards Commission in their guide of practice considerations and safeguards when using surveillance technology of people with disability, identified that “while CCTV may ‘capture’ abuse and neglect; it does not prevent it”.
For this reason, the ACECQA Review of Child Safety Arrangements did not recommend greater uptake or mandating of CCTV. However, it identified that some services already had CCTV and were navigating a complex range of privacy, legal and other issues. As a result, it recommended amending the National Law so that if services use CCTV, they must have a policy and procedure in place to inform families of it; explain how data is stored, accessed and kept secure; and provide timely access to regulatory authorities and police.
The Wheeler Review in New South Wales noted that CCTV had been used in a number of the New South Wales Regulatory Authority’s investigations. It recommended further consideration of requiring CCTV in all new services, and that the Regulatory Authority have the discretion to require CCTV in existing services where the Regulatory Authority has specific concerns.
Some services in Victoria already have CCTV, and some providers have announced plans to expand this coverage.
The Review heard a range of views about CCTV—many passionately held. Some people pointed to the value of CCTV as a tool that can aide in police and regulatory investigations where the time of an incident can be reasonably pinpointed (noting how time consuming and laborious it can be to comb through footage where this is less clear). Some also pointed to CCTV as a way to support anonymous ‘whistle-blower’ complaints, as the availability of footage to substantiate concerns could reduce the need for people to identify themselves and provide an independent source of evidence.
However, service leaders, staff, unions and parent groups raised strong concerns about the implementation of CCTV during our consultations. These included:
- Data security and access – greater use of CCTV means more hours of footage of children being generated, which could be vulnerable to malicious actors and hacking. Some stakeholders expressed concern that no data is ever 100 per cent secure, pointing to high profile corporate data breaches as examples and asking how a small private or community-run centre could be expected to have more reliable data security than a large airline or telecommunication company.
- Privacy of children – concerns about the risk of CCTV capturing children inappropriately, particularly in nappy changing areas or toilets, and in general risking the privacy of children, particularly if footage was not securely stored.
- Cost, and trade off – CCTV can be expensive to install and maintain. The Review heard consistent concerns that investment in CCTV would come at the expense of investment in adequate staffing arrangements.
- Efficacy – a common view was that predators will work around CCTV and offend in blind spot areas. Many stakeholders expressed concern that CCTV may give a false sense of security and may lead to complacency and inadvertently discourage vigilance or speaking up.
Many stakeholders considered that other reforms and investments, particularly to support the workforce, should be a higher priority for governments and were more likely to deliver a child safety benefit. Many reported that CCTV was not something many parents were pushing for, and some parents had raised significant privacy and data security concerns about its use.
It is apparent to the Review that there is not settled consensus on CCTV. The Review considers that investment in staffing and workforce capabilities should be prioritised over CCTV.
Given the range of views and complexity, the Review sees value in a nationwide trial of CCTV to evaluate its use and address the concerns stakeholders have raised. The design of a trial should be informed by expert advice, including on technical, legal and child safety aspects.
The trial should:
- focus on the use of CCTV as a regulatory and investigative tool, and address any current barriers to regulators or police accessing data held by services
- consider the views of peak bodies, service leaders, staff, and importantly parents
- address data security, storage and access, and inform practical rules about this; and
- be at appropriate scale to test CCTV in a variety of contexts, service types and communities, and over a long enough time to ensure its contribution to regulatory and other investigations can be fully understood.
The Review notes that the New South Wales Government has announced a trial of CCTV cameras in services, to be installed at the direction of its ECEC Regulatory Authority, and able to be used by the Regulatory Authority to investigate complaints or concerns. If a national trial does not proceed, Victoria could consider joining with New South Wales in a CCTV trial.
Recommendation 16: Trial the use of Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) Call for a national trial of CCTV in early childhood education and care settings that focuses on its use as a regulatory and investigative tool. The trial should address data security and access concerns and gauge the views of regulators, providers, staff and families. The trial should also address any current barriers to regulators accessing existing CCTV evidence for investigations. |
Note: The discussion and recommendations in this chapter relate to long day care services and standalone kindergarten services. While some elements of this chapter may be relevant in other contexts, such as family day care and outside school hours care, the Review recognises those services are different, and much of the analysis here would generally not apply to them. Government may wish to consider other improvements that could be made in those specific contexts in further detail.
Updated