Rapid Child Safety Review 2025

On 2 July 2025, the Victorian Government announced an urgent review into child safety in early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings.

The Rapid Child Safety Review (the Review) was announced following allegations of sexual assault against children in long day care services in Melbourne. The Review has been careful to not take any actions that could interfere with live police or regulatory investigations, in-line with its Terms of Reference (see Appendix 1).

While those investigations are underway, the Review was asked to look at immediate steps the Victorian Government could take itself, and advocate for nationally, to improve child safety in ECEC in Victoria.

The Review was led by Jay Weatherill AO and Pam White PSM.

In the 6-week period, the Review focused on what will make the most difference to safeguard children in ECEC settings.

The Review has done this by considering relevant data from Victoria and other jurisdictions, research and evidence, including previous inquiries.

The Review also met with and received information from:

• experts, peak bodies, unions, providers and service leaders in early childhood education and care, including Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations
• regulators in other sectors that work with vulnerable people; and
• groups representing parents and the rights and interests of children.

Introduction

This Review was commissioned to rapidly advise the Victorian Government on what needs to change in the ECEC system to protect very young children from sexual abuse.

It is difficult to imagine the horror of the families affected by the events that led to this Review and the deep anxieties of all families who use ECEC—they have been uppermost in our thoughts as we have approached this Review.

Our recommendations are directed at:

• the steps necessary to ensure predators do not get into the ECEC system
• that if they do, we quickly detect and exclude them; and
• finally, that we make sure that they never work with children again.

It is important to note that the circumstances that led to this review are not about the vast majority of early childhood educators who are committed professionals, dedicated to the wellbeing and development of the children in their care. They also feel betrayed by these events. The active cooperation of early educators and their representatives with our Review makes this clear.

The overwhelming conclusion we have reached is that while the current market-driven model for ECEC remains, the risks to quality and safety in early childhood education and care will persist.

Findings and recommendations

The Review has identified immediate actions the Victorian Government can take to close gaps in the national ECEC system that compromise the safety of children. But the actions of Victoria alone will not fix the quality and safety issues in ECEC. Significant national action is also required to drive a system of services that deliver safe and quality education and care to the nation’s youngest children. The ECEC market has rapidly expanded. It must now be actively managed.

The Review’s 22 recommendations are set out below.

Part 1: Governments to take greater responsibility for running the ECEC system

The ECEC system exists to teach, support and help children thrive—their safety, rights and best interests are paramount. Part 1 of the report calls for all Australian Governments to adopt a more assertive and directive approach to funding and managing the ECEC system to drive quality and safety for children.

Chapter 1: Rethink the national ECEC system

The safety, rights and best interests of children must underpin all decision making in the ECEC system, from staff on the floor, right up-to the boardrooms of service providers. The National Law for ECEC should require this.

Over the past decade, the ECEC system has undergone rapid growth. This growth has occurred without a coherent plan. Rather, the market has been left to respond to financial incentives that do not drive investment in quality, safety, or in a stable and well-supported workforce.

Since 2015 in Victoria, the number of long day care services has grown from 1,280 to 2,049, a 60 per cent increase. Of the 769 new long day care services in Victoria since 2015, 726 (94 per cent) are operated by for-profit providers. The rapid growth of for-profit providers in the sector has expanded the number of ECEC services, but it has also created a number of challenges for the operation and regulation of the system.

For-profit long day care services in Victoria are more likely to be rated as ‘Working Towards the National Quality Standard’ than not-for-profit long day care services, and less likely to exceed the National Quality Standard. They are also more likely to be working towards Quality Area 2 (child health and safety) and less likely to exceed Quality Area 2 than not-for-profit long day care services. There are now thousands of ECEC services in Australia run by providers with a complex array of business structures and priorities.

The sector faces significant workforce challenges including shortages, casualisation and the use of labour hire, and high turnover rates. In Victoria, 66.8 per cent of long day care and standalone kindergarten service staff have worked at their service for 3 or fewer years, including 22.7 per cent for less than one year. Analysis of large providers nationally by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission showed not-for-profit long day care services had a 27 per cent turnover rate, and for-profit services had a 41 per cent turnover rate.

Ultimately, the workforce is core to the delivery of high quality and safe services for children. Proper planning for workforce growth linked to a funding model that invests in quality, professional development, and proper conditions is essential.

The Commonwealth Government must lead an urgent rethink of the ECEC system. This needs to prioritise quality and safety, reconsider the current funding model and reliance on the market, plan for the workforce children need, and set a 10-year strategy to fundamentally reform the system.

A new, time-limited, Early Childhood Reform Commission should be established and tasked by the Commonwealth and state and territory governments to support the fundamental reset of the sector. The Commission should be supported by a parent advisory group, so that the people who know what children need most inform the direction of the whole system.

Removing bad actors from the system cannot wait for this longer-term work to occur. In addition to state regulatory powers, the Commonwealth Government has established new powers to stop child care subsidy funding for providers with safety or quality concerns. However, closing a service suddenly can significantly disrupt the lives of families and children who rely on it. Commonwealth and state and territory governments should establish a process in advance, to allow trusted, high-quality providers to step-in and take over a service, similar to the way an administrator can be appointed in other settings. This would maintain the continuity of a service’s operation and allow the new provider to make the necessary quality and safety improvements. Any necessary changes to the National Law to facilitate this should be made.

Part 1, Chapter 1 calls for governments to take greater responsibility and rethink the national early childhood education and care system.

Chapter 1: Rethink the national ECEC system

This chapter recommends making the safety, rights and best interests of children the paramount consideration for decision making in ECEC services and a fundamental rethink of the system by governments.

1.1 Child safety needs to underpin the ECEC system

The safety, rights and best interests of children must underpin all decision making in the ECEC system, from staff on the floor in centres right up to the boardrooms of service providers.

Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child requires the best interests of the child to be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children undertaken by public or private social welfare organisations. Under the ECEC system’s National Law, the rights and best interests of the child is one of 6 ‘guiding principles of the National Quality Framework’. However, it does not stipulate how this principle must be applied.

While it is clear to the Review that the majority of services across the system care deeply about the children in their care and prioritise their safety, there are tensions in the system that lead some providers to prioritise other things, including profit in some instances. The current mix of legislative and regulatory obligations for providers can create potential conflicts between the best interests of children and other duties.

The Review heard that the rapid expansion of the sector has created perverse incentives for shortcuts in education and training and that some for-profit providers may feel pressure to maximise value to shareholders.

Current legal frameworks are often interpreted as prioritising procedural fairness for employees, which can act as a brake on employers taking early or decisive action to protect children, for fear of industrial or legal challenges. Privacy laws can be seen as a barrier to proactive information sharing relating to individuals of concern. All these factors can divert focus from what is truly in the best interests of children.

These broader concerns filter down and inform decisions within services and can stifle reporting and important information being passed on to those who need it. Queensland’s Review of System Responses to Child Sexual Abuse reported that fear of reputational risks, or defamation and other legal risks to both organisations and individual staff may deter staff from raising concerns about a person and sharing that information with those who need to know, particularly where allegations have not been substantiated.

The Wheeler Review in New South Wales recognised these challenges in ECEC services, saying:

Making the safety, rights, and best interests of children a ‘paramount consideration’ in the National Law is needed to unequivocally place children’s needs and interests above all other considerations. As Anne Hollonds, the National Children’s Commissioner, has said:

Chapter 2: Establish a new National Early Childhood Worker Register

This chapter recommends establishment of a National Early Childhood Worker Register and legislative powers for regulators to remove unsuitable people from the register. It also recommends that the Victorian Early Childhood Workforce Register that is being developed takes account of this Review’s findings and is built to be compatible with the National Register.

2.1 Establishing a National Register of early childhood education and care workers

The Review heard repeatedly from service leaders, approved providers, and peak bodies that it is difficult for employers and regulators to get an accurate picture of a person’s credentials and work history. The onus is on each individual employer to assess and verify a person’s qualifications and prior employment, which often hinges on individuals being honest. While most educators do the right thing, the absence of a register creates opportunities for bad actors to abuse the system, by lying about their work experience or omitting information about past complaints, investigations or terminations. It can also make it difficult for authorities to identify which centres or families may be affected when an alleged perpetrator is charged.

In Victoria, 17.1 per cent of ECEC workers have a bachelor degree or higher qualification in a teaching field. Many of these workers are likely registered with the Victorian Institute of Teaching. These registered ECEC teachers are subject to a rigorous registration process with ongoing obligations to prove their continued suitability to teach and maintain a minimum standard of practice and learning requirements.

The best way to protect children from abuse and harm is to prevent an unsuitable person from entering an ECEC service. This chapter makes recommendations to require best practice in recruitment, screening and induction, including through rigorous and proactive reference checks.

3.1 Ensuring staff are safe and suitable: Improving screening and recruitment practices

Appropriate staff screening and recruitment practices are crucial in ensuring that the workers that care for, and are in contact with, children are safe and suitable.

These practices need to be urgently improved in the sector.

Hiring managers need to undertake due diligence when assessing candidates for positions. They need to verify a person’s credentials and work history. They should include child safety requirements in position descriptions and staff contracts, as well as child safety focused questions as part of key selection criteria and interviews. Hiring managers should also undertake proactive checks and child safety screening by speaking with previous employers. These principles also need to apply to agency or casual relief staff. Services should, for example, ask their casual staff agencies about their onboarding and screening processes and seek past references. The Review’s recommendation for a National Early Childhood Worker Register (discussed in Chapter 2) will make it easier than it currently is for employers to meet these responsibilities. Everyone has a role to play to safeguard and ensure a suitable workforce – both employers and authorities.

The Review heard that providers and services are unsure of their ability to share information about current or past employees, particularly when there is an unsubstantiated allegation or complaint, for privacy reasons. Providers are concerned about speaking inappropriately about a person or sharing information they are not permitted to share. This can mean that patterns of behaviour may be missed, and other providers unwittingly employ a person who poses a risk to children. There is a need for clearer guidance to providers and service managers on this.

There should be no barrier to providers or services proactively contacting current or previous employers of applicants to conduct reference checks, even where the employer is not listed as a referee. The applicant should provide their consent, but this can be included as a condition of applying. Verbal reference checks can elicit more information than a written response and allows the hiring manager to ask follow-up questions if more information is needed. Current or previous employer responses should be factual and should share their view on the employee’s character and suitability to work with children, and whether there have been any conduct complaints, concerns or investigations regarding the employee. Hiring managers should take notes of the conversation.

The Review heard about evidence-based psychometric testing used as part of recruitment processes for workers in other social service and care sectors. There is value in examining whether this could be adopted in the ECEC sector, using high-quality providers.

3.1.1 Induction and child safe culture

Once recruited, new staff, including temporary or agency-based staff, need to be provided with appropriate induction training into the service’s specific policies, procedures and risk management strategies. Induction should ensure new starters are aware of their responsibilities to keep children safe, including staff codes of conduct, expected behaviours, and how to report or raise concerns. A new staff member’s adherence to child safety requirements should also be considered as part of staff probation processes.

Like any workplace, the culture of ECEC settings relies on the people in them. This is especially true for creating and maintaining a child safe culture. High turnover and casualisation of the ECEC workforce can lead to a weaker child safe culture, as staff members or behaviours that are out of step with the service’s existing or desired culture or values are less visible. ECEC services with a strong child safe culture put child safety and wellbeing first, at all levels of the organisation. This Review recommends increased regulatory focus on the aspects of the Child Safe Standards that support this through clear, committed and strong leadership, governance and codes of conduct.

Guidance to staff needs to support early protective actions when there are departures from established practice. If staff wait until a suspicion or concern becomes undeniable, it can allow abuse to continue and worsen and place other children at risk. However, it is also important to recognise staff members can make minor mistakes due to inexperience or being overwhelmed, which can be resolved through conversation and education. Reporting a concern should not be viewed as an accusation, rather as a protective action. Managers need to be alive to the possibility that early warning signs (in the form of boundary breaches) may indicate a bigger problem that requires more serious and careful intervention.

This chapter outlines major reforms to the Working with Children Check, an improved Reportable Conduct Scheme and the establishment of a new Shared Intelligence and Risk Assessment Capability. Currently the Working with Children Check and Reportable Conduct schemes sit in 2 separate entities. The Review recommends that they be brought together (along with the Child Safe Standards) into a single entity with a new Shared Intelligence and Risk Assessment Capability. Together, these changes will significantly strengthen the safety net around children.

4.1 Limitations of Victoria’s Working with Children Check legislative framework

The Worker Screening Act 2020 (Vic) requires that anyone undertaking child-related work in Victoria (including ECEC professionals) must have a valid Working with Children Check unless an exemption applies.

However, Victoria’s Working with Children Check laws are not fit-for-purpose and must be rebalanced in favour of child safety.

Compared to other states and territories, Victoria’s Working with Children Check framework is among the least flexible in the country. This is because the triggers for action in Victoria’s legislation require a ‘formal’ criminal charge, conviction, finding of guilt or substantiated disciplinary or regulatory finding. The Review notes that regulation changes have recently been made to allow the Working with Children Check screening authority to recognise prohibition notices that are issued by the ECEC Regulator in relation to an individual. This was a necessary change but more needs to be done.

Figure 4.1 below shows the limitations of Victoria’s framework, also highlighted by the 2022 Victorian Ombudsman report.

This over-reliance on ‘above the line’ information—that is, criminal history (charge, conviction or finding of guilt) or substantiated disciplinary or regulatory findings—means that ‘red flags’ are missed, and an incomplete picture of risk is formed.

This approach is problematic because it is often in the pattern of behaviour or repetition of incidents (which on their own may not be considered sufficiently serious or evidenced for substantiation) that risks to children become evident.

The rigid nature of Victoria’s Working with Children Check assessment and outcomes framework is further illustrated in the Table 4.1 below.

Specifically, the following areas must be improved:

• Below the line matters: Most other child-safety screening authorities across Australia can consider and refuse a person’s Working with Children Check application based on information that falls below the threshold of charge, conviction, finding of guilt, or regulatory or disciplinary finding. This should also be the case in Victoria for individuals who pose a genuine risk to child safety.
• Triggers for a reassessment: In Victoria, the triggers for a Working with Children Check re-assessment are relatively limited and include where the screening unit is notified that a person, since receiving their clearance, has been: charged, convicted or found guilty of a Category A, B or C offence; subject to a relevant disciplinary or regulatory finding including a substantiated finding of reportable conduct; or excluded from child-related work by an interstate child-safety screening authority. By contrast, other interstate screening authorities have greater scope to re-assess a person’s suitability to work with children (for example, when there are unsubstantiated allegations but credible information).
• Suspension: In addition, Victoria’s worker screening legislation does not permit immediate suspension of a person’s clearance pending a re-assessment (for example, while an investigation is underway), except in limited circumstances involving very serious offending. Again, this is less protective than legislation in New South Wales, which allows an interim bar to take effect immediately where there is a real and appreciable risk of harm to children pending a re-assessment or completion of an investigation.

Taken together, the rigid parameters of Victoria’s Working with Children Check legislative framework mean that unsubstantiated but credible information or intelligence that point to child safety risks cannot trigger a re-assessment, nor can these ‘red flags’ provide a statutory basis for immediately suspending or revoking a person’s Working with Children Check clearance.

Victoria’s Working with Children Check framework needs to be re-calibrated to better protect child safety.

The Victorian Government will need to ensure that the threshold for refusing or revoking someone’s Working with Children Check clearance complements the threshold for removing someone from the Early Childhood Worker Register, as both these thresholds need to work together as part of a graduated continuum.

Another shortcoming with Victoria’s Working with Children Check scheme that was raised with the Review is the need to change legislation to require organisations to verify that they have engaged a Working with Children Check clearance holder either on a professional or volunteer basis. Currently, the onus is on the Working with Children Check holder to inform the screening authority that they are working or volunteering with an organisation to ‘link’ that organisation to their Working with Children Check. If a change is made to a person’s Working with Children Check status—for example, if it is suspended or revoked—only ‘linked’ organisations are informed. If an individual has not ‘linked’ an organisation, there is a risk that the individual could continue working or volunteering and presenting an ongoing risk to children. Victoria’s Working with Children Check legislation should be changed to require organisations to verify or validate when they have engaged someone to undertake child-related work. This will help provide accurate historical and current information of volunteer or worker movements across different organisations. This change should be considered in the work to create the National Register as it may provide efficiencies in the identity verification and entry of data about individuals.

4.1.1 Closing review loopholes in relation to Working with Children Check decision-making

Currently, a person who has had their Working with Children Check refused or revoked can generally seek a review of that decision via the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. There is a limitation on the right to review a Working with Children Check decision where a person has been charged, convicted or found guilty of a Category A offence.

New South Wales has recently introduced legislation removing external pathways of appeal to its equivalent civil and administrative tribunal on the basis that its Office of the Children’s Guardian is best placed as a child safety specialist body to review and assess risk.

Victoria should look at how it can close any review loopholes that undermine child safety. People who have been subject to an adverse decision relating to a Working with Children Check should be able to have another person check that decision. However, this should be done by people who have specialist expertise in child safety. Like New South Wales, Victoria should create an internal review process, involving decision-makers who have the specialist skills and knowledge to approach these important decisions through a child safety lens. This should replace the current review pathway to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

All of the changes recommended above will likely require much more manual intervention by Victoria’s Working with Children Check screening authority compared to the largely automated Working with Children Check assessment framework that currently exists. At present, Victoria’s Working with Children Check screening authority is approximately one-third the size of its New South Wales equivalent (which has 85 assessors plus a separate compliance team), and around half the size of Queensland’s screening authority (60 assessors). While Victoria’s staffing numbers may have been appropriate under existing Working with Children Check settings (given the largely automated nature of the current rigid Working with Children Check assessment framework), there will need to be an uplift in staffing to support the new ways of working envisaged by this Review.

4.1.2 Mandatory training and testing as part of the Working with Children Check application process

No Australian jurisdiction currently requires mandatory training or testing as part of their Working with Children Check application process. This is a missed opportunity, given it is everybody’s responsibility to know the signs, listen, believe, and act in response to child abuse. In 2023-24, there were approximately 350,000 Working with Children Check applications in Victoria—this presents a useful window to raise awareness of child abuse, and support community-wide prevention and early intervention efforts.

The Review heard that the broader community still lacks the required understanding to recognise, identify, and adequately act to protect children from abuse and neglect. Research into community attitudes confirms this.

In the same way other industries require mandatory training and assessment (for example, those wanting to serve alcohol in the hospitality industry must undertake training to hold a Responsible Service of Alcohol Certificate), incorporating mandatory online training and testing as part of the application process would improve the competence of those holding a Working with Children Check. This training and testing need not be onerous. It could be delivered online and informed by contemporary best practice and evidence. Importantly, it is a practical way to empower every adult working with children to play their part in keeping children safe from harm.

4.1.3 National harmonisation

The Review heard strong support for a national approach to Working with Children Check to close gaps in the various systems across the country. While national standards for Working with Children Checks were endorsed by the Commonwealth Government and all states and territories in 2019, these standards only reflect minimum features of Working with Children Check schemes. They do not address the absence of national information sharing and a database to enable continuous monitoring of clearance holders against police information, disciplinary findings and other information nationally.

To address these issues, the Review recommends national advocacy by the Victorian Government for the Commonwealth Government to, and other state and territory governments to prioritise information sharing reforms including investment in a national database to support continuous monitoring of Working with Children Check clearance holders and exclusions.

4.2 Improving the Reportable Conduct Scheme

The Reportable Conduct Scheme and Working with Children Check are intended to work together to protect children from abuse and harm.

The overarching intent of Victoria’s Reportable Conduct Scheme is to make organisations safer for children by improving the way organisations respond to allegations of child abuse and misconduct by its employees. This is known as reportable conduct and includes: sexual offences; sexual misconduct; physical violence against a child; any behaviour that causes significant emotional and psychological harm to a child; and significant neglect of a child. Reportable conduct is aimed at capturing a broad range of conduct including those behaviours that fall below a criminal threshold.

The Commission for Children and Young People currently administers the scheme in Victoria. Under the Reportable Conduct Scheme, heads of organisations must: notify the Commission for Children and Young People within 3 days of becoming aware of a reportable allegation; investigate the allegation; and at the conclusion of the investigation, submit findings and actions taken to the Commission for Children and Young People.

The Commission for Children and Young People’s role is to independently oversee how the organisation responds to the allegation. It also has statutory powers to share information with other regulators and the Working with Children Check screening unit. While the Commission for Children and Young People does have an ‘own motion’ power to investigate reportable allegations, this power is rarely exercised.

As primary administrator of the Reportable Conduct Scheme with a remit over approximately 12,000 organisations, the Commission for Children and Young People is in a unique position to identify concerning patterns of behaviour through Reportable Conduct Scheme notifications. Between 2017 and 2024, the Commission for Children and Young People received 8,122 mandatory notifications of reportable allegations containing over 20,137 allegations.[1]

Mandatory notifications to the Commission under the Reportable Conduct Scheme increased by 30 per cent between 2022–23 and 2023–24 but its base funding has not increased since 2018. The Commission for Children and Young People reports that 85 per cent of child abuse and harm investigations receive low or minimal oversight by the Commission.

The Review identified a number of ways the Reportable Conduct Scheme could be improved. Under current legislative settings:

• The Commission for Children and Young People has limited ability to share unsubstantiated reportable conduct allegations with the Working with Children Check scheme as a result of narrowly drafted provisions in the Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005 that constrain information sharing and the overarching restrictions placed on the Commission under the Commission of Children and Young People Act 2012. Limiting assessable information to substantiated findings enables ‘red flags’ to be missed leading to a piecemeal and incomplete picture of risk. This does not support child safety, and the Review recommends this be changed.
• Where a matter is substantiated, the Commission for Children and Young People can exercise its legislative discretion to not notify the Working with Children Check area. The Review was advised that this discretion has been applied in around 5 per cent of substantiated matters, which are not referred to the Working with Children Check area.

The Review recommends that this discretion to not notify the Working with Children Check area of a substantiated matter be removed. What can look like a minor incident when viewed in isolation can reveal a very different risk profile when considered in the context of other information.

4.3 National harmonisation

Victoria alongside New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania and Western Australia have all implemented Reportable Conduct Schemes. Queensland’s scheme is commencing progressively from July 2026.

Like the Working with Children Check, it is vital for regulators in different states and territories to work together to achieve the shared overarching objective of protecting children from abuse, despite some variance in design.

In the interests of minimising unnecessary duplication and effort across borders, the Review supports substantiated allegations and investigations being recognised across state/territory borders, especially where that reportable conduct is also captured under the Victorian scheme.

4.4 Bringing information about child safety risk together in one place

The Review heard multiple times that the ‘breadcrumbs’ of information about a person—including information which does not meet the relatively high thresholds for substantiated conduct, but which is nevertheless still concerning—is rarely able to be seen and acted upon because no one can see the whole picture. Currently the Working with Children Check scheme and Reportable Conduct Scheme sit in 2 separate entities. Valuable intelligence from the Reportable Conduct Scheme—particularly in the form of unsubstantiated allegations—is often unable to be accessed by the Working with Children Check screening authority, which means that incidents are viewed in isolation rather than in aggregate.

For this reason, there is benefit in consolidating the Reportable Conduct Scheme functions of the Commission for Children and Young People (which currently holds the most extensive information about individuals through reportable conduct notification) and the Working with Children Check screening authority (which has powers to assess, suspend or cancel a Working with Children Check and prevent a person from engaging in child-related work) into one place. The Review considers the administration of the Child Safe Standards should also be included in this consolidation.

The Review recommends that these functions be brought together in a single entity and considers the Social Services Regulator would be an appropriate entity to administer them.

To support the consolidation, a new Shared Intelligence and Risk Assessment Capability must be developed to ensure an effective child safety net is in place. This capability must be able to draw on multiple sources of information, and the safe use of Artificial Intelligence should be looked at to allow information to be quickly scanned and patterns of concerning behaviour identified. Immediate steps should be taken to design and establish the new Shared Intelligence and Risk Assessment Capability. Together, these changes will significantly strengthen the safety net around children.

Equally as important, beyond up-to-date information and intelligence, the assessors responsible for exercising professional judgement of someone’s suitability to work with children must be well equipped to piece together and understand how the ‘breadcrumbs’ add up using evidence-based risk assessment tools and resources. The Review understands that the Queensland and New South Wales Working with Children Check screening authorities have embedded sophisticated clinically developed risk assessment tools administered by workforces that are resourced and supported through regular training and supervision. The Review considers this to be a critical gap in the current Victorian landscape.

This more joined-up approach—backed in by fit-for-purpose intelligence and risk assessment enablers—will better unify resources and ultimately, lead to better and more timely decision-making.

If designed well, the new Shared Intelligence and Risk Assessment Capability also holds the potential to streamline effort, minimise overlap and ensure investigative efforts are aligned, instead of duplicating each other.

The Review heard it can be challenging for the ECEC workforce to understand how and where to report concerning information, leading to both under and over reporting. The consolidation of Working with Children Check and Commission for Children and Young People Reportable Conduct functions must be supported by a ‘no wrong door’ approach, so any reports or concerns relating to the ECEC sector are promptly brought to the attention of the ECEC Regulator.

Given the likely scale of these reforms, with multiple legislative schemes requiring amendment, careful sequencing will be necessary to manage implementation risks.

Because predators exploit system loopholes and administrative gaps to target vulnerable people, the Victorian Government should consider how it can set up the new Shared Intelligence and Risk Assessment Capability so in time it could support broader social services, disability services and aged care to offer the greatest protection to vulnerable Victorians.

This chapter recommends making the ECEC Regulator independent, increasing the intensity of its unannounced visits to services to at least annually, ensuring it has contemporary risk assessment capability and tools, and a change to National Law to increase the penalties it can apply to services that do the wrong thing.

5.1 An independent ECEC Regulator

Effective regulation is an important feature of monitoring, intervening and improving quality and safety in the sector.

The Review has taken care not to examine or jeopardise ongoing investigations into live criminal matters as well as regulatory investigations by the ECEC Regulator. However, the Review was asked to highlight priorities to support regulatory activity and reform and to identify improvements to interactions between regulatory schemes.

The current ECEC Regulator, Quality Assessment and Regulation Division (QARD) is located within the Department of Education. The Review heard that the department has measures and protocols in place to allow QARD to operate with independence from the broader department.

However, this year, the Department of Education is becoming a provider of early learning and childcare through the new Early Learning Victoria service that will run up to 50 centres. Through the Victorian Government’s Best Start, Best Life reforms, the department also funds kindergarten programs and services across the state, which are regulated by the ECEC Regulator. This increases the risk (or the perception) of conflicts of interest, as the ECEC Regulator will sit within a department it is required to regulate. The recent Wheeler Review of the New South Wales ECEC Regulator recommended that it be moved from the Department of Education to become an independent entity.

The Review considers it prudent that the ECEC Regulator be made independent of the Department of Education. There are a range of administrative and legislative models that can achieve this. The Review has not formed a view on which should be adopted; however, the model chosen should support the ECEC Regulator to take independent decisions regardless of the service provider they are dealing with—government, not-for-profit, or for-profit.

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.

This chapter recommends that quality and compliance information about ECEC services be made more accessible to parents. It also recommends improving resources on child sexual abuse prevention and clearer processes for parents who wish to report a complaint or concern.

7.1 Parents need better access to information about service quality

When parents and educators work together in partnership and have the right information, they can and will act decisively to identify risks, raise concerns and protect children.

Under the National Quality Framework, services are assessed and rated against the National Quality Standard. They are given a rating against each of the 7 quality areas and an overall rating based on these results (explained in further detail in Appendix 3).

Currently, services are required to clearly display their quality rating and ratings certificate. However, there is no requirement for services to include this information on their website, to notify parents of their quality rating prior to enrolment, or if their quality rating changes. Ratings are also published on the Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) National Registers and Starting Blocks websites. Both websites’ service search pages display minimal and high-level information about each Quality Area and what it covers. According to ACECQA’s 2023 family survey, up to one half of parents and families are not aware the quality ratings system exists.

The Review heard parents found the rating that a service was ‘Working Towards’ compliance with a Quality Area to be unclear. This language does not make it clear that a service has been found to not be meeting its minimum legal requirements.

Recent inquiries have found that parents often rely on word of mouth, the ‘feel’ of a centre, online ratings from other parents or their own impressions of educators and services based on a visit to the service. Decisions may also boil down to more practical factors, like the availability of places on desired days, or proximity to their home or workplace.

The current system assumes that parents can exercise judgements and make informed decisions as consumers and ‘vote with their feet’, which will create competition and drive demand for high quality and safety. The Review recognises the limits of a purely market-based approach to a service as essential as early education and care—noting parents in some areas (particularly rural and regional areas) may not have options. However, parents need to be in the best possible position to exercise the power they do have—either in deciding which service to use or to place pressure on a service they rely on to improve.

For this reason, the Review recommends greater transparency from services and regulators about their quality ratings and what they actually mean. This should be achieved by ensuring parents are proactively provided with information about quality ratings (and any changes to them) and supported by information and resources to help interpret and apply this information, in multiple languages, including Easy English. This should have a particular focus on the National Registers and Starting Blocks websites and include:

• clearer information about what is covered by each quality standard
• clearer information about which of the 40 elements the service is meeting or not meeting
• details of service and provider corporate ownership; and
• the compliance history of services.

Services should also have to disclose how long they have held a ‘Working Towards’ assessment.

7.2 Parents need more timely information about services’ compliance and enforcement activity

Under the National Law, a Regulatory Authority may publish information about enforcement actions they have taken. This includes information about compliance notices, prosecutions, enforceable undertakings, suspension or cancellation of approvals. Regulatory authorities have some restrictions on information they can make public about specific individuals subject to compliance or enforcement activity.

Victoria’s ECEC Regulator, Quality and Assessment Regulation Division (QARD), within the Department of Education currently publishes statutory sanctions on its website quarterly. Published information includes the name and address of the service, the service and provider name, the nature of enforcement, the reason for enforcement action and the details of action taken. The Review recommends the ECEC Regulator increase the frequency that this information is published to ensure the community can access information about enforcement activity in a timely manner.

This chapter recommends addressing poor quality Registered Training Organisations, making child safety training mandatory for all people involved in the provision of early childhood education and care and that there be investment in quality improvement programs. Workers should also be supported to raise concerns about child safety.

8.1 Qualifications that equip staff to support child safety

The ECEC workforce is made up of talented, committed people who want the best for children. However, qualifications, child safety knowledge, confidence and capability across the workforce are varied and training opportunities and requirements are inconsistent.

The ECEC workforce is made up of a range of professionals with different qualifications. The majority of the long day care and standalone kindergarten ECEC workforce in Victoria are certificate III and IV (19.8 per cent) and diploma qualified educators (48.8 per cent), with an increasing proportion being tertiary qualified early childhood teachers. About one in 5 ECEC workers in Victoria (20.1 per cent) are currently enrolled and studying for a qualification while working in the sector, including already qualified staff who are studying towards a higher qualification level.

In Victoria, there are 325 Registered Training Organisations that deliver training to ECEC students, including most of the TAFE network. The sector is diverse, comprising TAFE, community and private (for-profit) Registered Training Organisations. The National Quality Framework sets out the minimum qualifications required to be held by educators. Other regulators, such as the Australian Skills Quality Authority and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency accredit specific courses or qualifications or regulate Registered Training Organisations.

Current courses and qualifications are not always equipping ECEC workers with the skills and knowledge they need. The Review was told an increasing number of new graduates are entering services with very little knowledge of the basic tenets of early education, let alone knowledge around child safety.

ECEC services described having to invest significant time and effort to bring new recruits—even recent graduates of tertiary degrees—up to an appropriate standard. This was often frustrated by turnover, noting some people enter the sector as a ‘stepping stone’ to other career pathways or due to visa arrangements. Burnout also contributed to people leaving the sector.

The erosion of skills and knowledge is partly driven by some Registered Training Organisations delivering low-quality courses that emphasise speed and passing graduates, over quality and depth of knowledge. The Review heard that many people felt poor quality providers need to be regulated more strongly and exited from the system.

Some ECEC services are also Registered Training Organisations. While many deliver high quality training that seamlessly translates to working in the sector, the Review heard that some providers are using students in training to work in centres to help meet ratios, with little supervision or support.

The degree to which child safety issues (including recognising harm, reporting, and safeguarding practices) are covered in Vocational Education and Training and higher education qualifications for the sector varies across qualification levels and courses. The Review was told child safety education was not embedded enough in training and courses for educators. This meant people were entering the profession with a very limited understanding of even basic obligations, such as mandatory reporting. This undermined their confidence to identify, and report concerns or to promote child-safe practices with colleagues.

Child safety related course content in ECEC qualifications should be strengthened and expanded, at all levels. Registered Training Organisations and universities should deliver child safety core competencies earlier in the relevant course materials, so that important information is provided to students who are already working in the sector, or those who are completing work placements.

The Review recommends that the Australian Skills Quality Authority’s powers be strengthened to address poor quality ECEC training. This could be done through stronger legislation; a stronger regulatory focus on identifying key risk factors leading to poor quality training provision (including training provider characteristics, relationships and practice); and reviewing the key criteria that Registered Training Organisations must meet to ensure criteria focus sufficiently on quality.

8.2 Greater access to training on child safety

The ECEC workforce need greater access to training, as part of a broader strategy to ensure ECEC educators and staff are appropriately skilled, and their development is supported.

Child safety training needs to outline workers’ obligations and support their understanding of how to identify and appropriately respond to suspected child abuse, including by another educator or colleague. It also needs to be undertaken regularly to ensure that ECEC professionals remain up-to-date on any changes to their obligations, as well as emerging evidence and best practice.

8.2.1 Training for everyone involved in the sector

The Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) Review of Child Safety Arrangements recommended mandatory child safety training for all staff that work with children, as well as management and leadership in ECEC services. This recommendation recognises that child safety is a core competency for everyone in the sector—not just those working on the floor.

When board and committee members, senior leaders and managers have a strong understanding of child safety, they are more likely to invest in child-safe measures, role model best practice, and create a child-safe culture across their workforce.

ECEC services also have a range of other staff that should have a strong grounding in the dynamics of child safety, including human resources staff who may be called upon to oversee organisational responses to concerns about staff or volunteers. Non-educator staff such as administration support, cooks, cleaners, gardeners, and drivers also interact regularly with children and have a role to play.

The Review recommends making child safety training a mandatory requirement under the National Law to accelerate and be implemented with urgency.

8.2.2 A more sophisticated understanding of child safety is needed

The Review heard that current child safety training and capability building available isn't adequately addressing known risk factors of child sexual abuse, or reflecting the latest research regarding offender behaviour. The Review engaged with renowned experts in child abuse prevention, Professor Leah Bromfield, Professor Benoit Leclerc, and Distinguished Professor Ben Mathews. They relayed a wealth of knowledge about the dynamics of institutional child abuse but acknowledged that research into schools and other institutional settings is much more extensive than in ECEC services. The Review commissioned Professor Mathews to prepare a concise literature review, which has informed this report. A range of work is happening across the country to further knowledge and inform training and guidance for the sector, however, more targeted and rigorous research into child abuse in ECEC settings specifically would be beneficial.

Training should build capability in staff to respond to challenging behaviours in children (and what constitutes inappropriate physical discipline). It also should build understanding of the dynamics and signs of child sexual abuse, and other forms of inappropriate conduct, in line with proposed changes to make inappropriate conduct an offence under the National Law. Training should include how to recognise grooming behaviours and patterns, particularly the ‘grey areas’ of low-level but boundary crossing behaviours. These can be normalised or minimised but may suggest a pattern of risk-taking, inappropriate or abusive behaviours towards children.

Regulators told the Review that grooming behaviours and professional boundary breaches were a particularly challenging issue for staff in the sector. Distinguishing appropriate care (including physical comfort and warmth) from inappropriate behaviours that may be more sinister, requires nuanced judgement and skill. Staff need to understand inappropriate care may look like overstepping boundaries, regularly seeking unnecessary physical contact or creating opportunities to be alone with a child, showing favouritism, ignoring policies and rules or a general lack of respect for professional conduct.

Early childhood education and care staff also need more specific training on distinguishing harmful sexual behaviours between children from developmentally expected behaviour to keep the children they care for safe. Training should also recognise some children may be at higher risk of sexual abuse—including children with disability or who have experienced maltreatment (including family violence, neglect or other forms or abuse).

Even in ECEC settings where children are young and their ability to communicate is developing, age-appropriate education about what is okay (and not okay) in how adults behave around them is important and can empower children to disclose abuse. An evidence review commissioned by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse found that child sexual abuse prevention programs for pre-schoolers appear effective at increasing young children’s ability to identify inappropriate touch requests and increase their skills on how to respond, who to tell and what to report.

The Review recommends that the Victorian Department of Education provide training on these nuanced issues, either directly or through reputable third parties. This training should complement rather than duplicate training that will support the mandatory training requirement under the National Law.

The Protecting Children—Mandatory Reporting and Other Obligations (PROTECT) online eLearning provided by the Department of Education is available to all Victorian education workforce professionals, including ECEC staff. This is a good universal platform to build from and update to cover the key child safety issues and evidence outlined here.

8.2.3 Overcoming structural barriers to staff training and development

The Review heard that one barrier to providing appropriate child safety professional development and training to staff was that the Commonwealth Government child care subsidy is only payable on days where families pay a fee. This arrangement can operate as a disincentive to create opportunities for curriculum or professional development days for staff because doing so means that services need to ‘run at a loss’ that day, or charge parents fees. The Review heard that it was not fair to expect workers to undertake training after hours, particularly after a long workday.

The Review recommends the Commonwealth Government provide funding for time release or ‘child free days’ to help staff to come together for training and professional development on child safety. This could be done, for example, by changing the Commonwealth Government child care subsidy rules.

8.3 Professional support for best practice

The Review heard that there is a large amount of existing material available to ECEC services to guide their policies, procedures and practices, such as ACECQA’s Child Safe Culture Guide, the Victorian Department of Education’s PROTECT resources and guidance from the Commission for Children and Young People. However, service managers would benefit from more opportunities to hear from experts regarding best practice in child safety, child protection and safeguarding practices, as well as to learn from other services and providers. This could also include:

• referrals to and promotion of existing evidence-based guidance, resources (practice checklists, templates, sample policies and procedures), and training
• case study problems of practice and how to respond; and
• access to networks of other services and leadership staff to promote peer learning.

The Review observed that Early Childhood Australia’s Children’s Safety and Safeguarding in Early Childhood Settings professional support program of webinars and resources is high quality and effective for staff across services. This program provides useful resources but also an opportunity for ECEC educators to come together and hear from experts on child safety issues directly relevant to their practice. The Review recommends that the Department of Education partner with Early Childhood Australia to expand this offering so that service leaders and staff can access the latest evidence and best practice. This voluntary program should complement the mandatory training in Recommendation 20, focusing on practical tools, discussions and networking for educators.

8.4 Invest in services to drive quality improvement

Child safe cultures and quality improvement comes from all levels of an organisation. While the Victorian Government operates a Kindergarten Quality Improvement Program that works with funded kindergarten services to improve their quality, this is only available to long day care services that have a funded kindergarten program.

Quality improvement cannot only be driven by regulation and compliance approaches, it is also reliant on supporting the leaders, managers and professionals working in services to embed best practice.

The Commonwealth Government should establish and fund a Child Care Quality Improvement program, for child care subsidy-approved services. The program should work with services and providers to improve quality. Such a program would complement the Commonwealth Government’s plans to stop or place conditions on child care subsidy approval for services with quality or safety concerns. This program could be delivered by states and territories (or other appropriate organisations). The Commonwealth Government should consider broadening it to also capture family day care and outside school hours care.

One of the most confronting elements of child abuse in ECEC settings is reconciling that staff offer the greatest protection to children in their care but can also pose the greatest risk to their safety. The overwhelming majority of educators care deeply about the children they care for and prioritise their safety. They are often best placed to report any suspected misconduct or child safety risks. Reporting incidents and complaints needs to be encouraged, and staff need the tools and confidence to do it. Noting the diversity of the ECEC workforce, information may need to be available in multiple languages.

The Review heard of a range of barriers to reporting child safety concerns. This includes:

• Reporting obligations for the sector can be confusing and, in some cases, management and staff can be unsure of which authority to direct their concerns to.
• The workplace culture is not child-centered and open to feedback and complaints.
• Staff may worry about reprisals for speaking up—either from colleagues or management—which is a particular risk factor for workers with less secure employment or who rely on their employment to meet visa conditions.
• A blurring of professional and personal relationships amongst staff can make people less inclined to report inappropriate behaviours of people they consider to be ‘friends’ rather than ‘colleagues’.

Many of these broader issues are best addressed by organisations upholding their obligations under mandatory reporting, Child Safe Standards and the Reportable Conduct Scheme. However, the Review recommends providing training and clear guidance to ECEC workers about speaking up if they have concerns. It is important that staff understand that they are able to (and in some cases, must) report directly to certain agencies to discharge their professional obligations. The Review also recommends ensuring that ECEC educators and other workers have avenues to report concerns to regulators and authorities anonymously.

As part of this work, the Department of Education should update the Four Critical Actions guidance, Identifying and Responding to All Forms of Abuse in Early Childhood Services guidance (PROTECT) and Protecting Children—Mandatory Reporting and Other Obligations (PROTECT) online training.

The various reporting obligations and requirements of ECEC providers and staff as outlined in Appendix 3 demonstrates the complicated set of overlapping requirements for workers to navigate, which can lead to confusion and a risk of both over and underreporting of child safety concerns.

The Victorian Government will undertake a rapid review to identify the immediate actions that can be taken to improve the safety of children in early childhood education and care settings.

The review will provide their report to the Victorian Government no later than 15 August 2025.

The review will be led by a two-person panel comprising Mr Jay Weatherill AO and Ms Pam White PSM. Mr Jay Weatherill AO will chair the review.

Scope of review

The review should:

1. identify the immediate actions the Victorian Government can take to improve the safety of children in early childhood education and care settings, including but not limited to:
   
   1. analyse the National child safety reform program to identify actions that can be fast tracked and/or strengthened in Victoria and identify any gaps.
   2. explore specific strategies that Victoria could advocate nationally to adopt or accelerate that would enhance child safety.
      
2. identify options to improve interactions between regulatory schemes, including information sharing between regulators and agencies, both within Victoria and across jurisdictions.
   
3. advise on opportunities to strengthen the Working with Children Check regulatory framework.
   
4. take into account recent reviews from other jurisdictions, international best practice and relevant inquiries, including but not limited to:
   1. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) Review of Child Safety Arrangements under the National Quality Framework Final Report (published, December 2023)
   2. Independent review into the NSW Early Childhood Education and Care Regulatory Authority (published, June 2025)
   3. System responses to child sexual abuse by the Queensland Family and Child Commission (underway)
   4. Victorian Ombudsman’s report Investigation into a former youth worker’s unauthorised access to private information about children (published,
      September 2022)
   5. Victorian Government Internal Review into Working with Children Check (April 2025).
      
5. consult with relevant experts as appropriate.
   
6. Outline timeframes and sequencing for recommended reforms.

Out of scope

7. There are ongoing investigations into alleged incidents at Victorian early childhood education and care settings. The review will not take any actions that could prejudice live Victoria Police investigations, criminal or civil proceedings, or any investigation underway by Victorian Regulatory authorities.
   
8. The review will highlight priorities to support regulatory activity and reform and is not intended to be a review of the performance or governance of the Victorian Regulatory Authority.

This appendix provides background on key aspects of the ECEC system in Victoria.

1. What is early childhood education and care?

The ECEC system performs 2 important functions.

The first function is to provide early childhood education to children. As any parent knows, young children are always learning, wherever they are—exploring the world around them, asking questions, and developing new skills and abilities. Skilled educators (and some teachers) support children to do this—they engage purposefully with children to support their learning and wellbeing.

The second function of ECEC is to provide a safe, supportive and nurturing environment for children that supports their education and development, while their parents do other things such as work or study. This is often considered the ‘care’ aspect of early childhood education and care.

2. Types of services

There are 3 main types of ECEC services in Victoria for children before they reach school age. These services are set out in Table A2.1 below. Outside school hours care is also a part of the early childhood education and care system and focusses on school-aged children.

Unless specified, the analysis in this appendix relates to long day care and standalone kindergarten services in Victoria, as this has been the focus of the Review’s work.

3. Children in ECEC services

In 2024, 69,802 children participated in three-year-old kindergarten (90.1 per cent of those were eligible), for an average of 13.8 hour per week, and 78,554 participated in the 15 hour per week four-year-old kindergarten program (96 per cent of those were eligible).

In the 3 months to March 2025, 219,020 children from 178,650 families attended a long day care service as part of the child care subsidy system in Victoria, for an average of 34.1 hours per week.

In the same period, 21,910 children from 14,510 families attended a family day care service.

4. Service quality

Child safety is an essential aspect of service quality and is regulated under the National Quality Framework (see Appendix 3). Each ECEC service in Australia is rated against a consistent National Quality Standard. Services can be assessed as: Significant Improvement Required; Working Towards the National Quality Standard; Meeting the National Quality Standard or Exceeding the National Quality Standard. Services that Exceed the National Quality Standard in all areas can apply to be rated by the Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority as ‘Excellent’, which recognises exceptional education and care, leadership and commitment to sustained excellent practice.

Figure A2.1 below provides an overview of the current rating of services in Victoria, separated into stand-alone kindergartens, for-profit long day care and not-for-profit long day care. It shows the proportion of each service type that is rated at each level, with the vast majority of services at least ‘Meeting’ the National Quality Standard. It shows that for-profit long day care services in Victoria are more likely to be Working Towards the National Quality Standard than not-for-profit long day care services (5.3 per cent compared to 2.9 per cent), and less likely to exceed the National Quality Standard (14.6 per cent compared to 38.7 per cent). Only one long day care service in Victoria is rated ‘Significant Improvement Required’.

_{Note: ‘KGN’ is stand-alone Kindergarten; ‘LDC FP’ is long day care for-profit; ‘LDC NFP’ is long day care not-for-profit; ‘SIP’ is Significant Improvement Required; ‘WT’ is Working Towards; ‘Exceed’ is Exceeding and ‘Excel’ is Excellent.}

Nationally, the proportion of services at least ‘Meeting’ the National Quality Standard has grown steadily over time and has risen from 53 per cent in 2013 to 90 per cent in 2023. A similar trend is observable in Victoria.

In more recent years, the trend in quality improvement has changed. While more of the system meets the National Quality Standard and fewer services are working towards the National Quality Standard, the proportion of the system that exceeds the National Quality Standard has fallen. This is illustrated in Figure A2.2 below.

_{Note: Excludes ‘Significant Improved Required’ and ‘Excellent’ ratings}

Figure A2.3 below shows this trend in quality rating for the for-profit and not-for-profit long day care services by total number of places.

Children’s health and safety

Quality Area 2 of the National Quality Standard focusses on children’s health and safety. As shown in Figure A2.4 below, all service types are less likely to be ‘Working Towards’ Quality Area 2 than the National Quality Standard overall, and less likely to ‘Exceed’ Quality Area 2 than the National Quality Standard overall. It shows for-profit long day care services are more likely to be working towards Quality Area 2 than not-for-profit long day care services (3.4 per cent compared to 2.2 per cent), and less likely to exceed Quality Area 2 (8.8 per cent compared to 23.4 per cent). No service in Victoria was rated ‘significant improvement required’ for Quality Area 2.

_{Note: ‘KGN’ is stand-alone Kindergarten; ‘LDC FP’ is long day care for-profit; ‘LDC NFP’ is long day care not-for-profit; ‘QA2’ is Quality Area 2.}

5. System growth and composition

The system has expanded significantly over the past decade. About 90 per cent of the growth in services and 80 per cent in the growth in places has come from for-profit long day care services. Growth in not-for-profit long day care and standalone kindergarten services has been lower, as shown in Tables A2.2 and A2.3 below.

Figure A2.5 below shows the annual growth in places, by provider type, noting that the 2025 data is for the first quarter only, and new standalone kindergartens are more likely to open at the start of the school year.

_{Note: ‘LDC FP’ is long day care for-profit; ‘LDC NFP’ is long day care not-for-profit; ‘KGN’ is standalone kindergarten.}

Provider scale

In Victoria the 2,049 long day care services and 1,236 standalone kindergartens are operated by 1,424 different Approved Providers.

Of the 1,424 Approved Providers operating long day care or standalone kindergartens, 1,128 operate only one service in Victoria. 42 providers operate 10 or more services, and these providers operate more than half of all standalone kindergartens and 40 per cent of all long day care services, shown in Table A2.4 below.

In Victoria, many standalone kindergarten services are operated by an Early Years Manager as the Approved Provider. In 2024, 1,083 services were part of an Early Years Manager.

This analysis only considers a provider’s Victorian services; many providers operate nationally. It is based on Approved Providers as listed in the National Register, which may not capture relationships between individual Approved Providers.

6. Workforce

In Victoria, about 39,000 people work in long day care and 8,500 work in standalone kindergarten services. Of these staff:

• 96.1 per cent are female
• 82.4 per cent are permanent and 14.4 per cent are casual
• 62.7 per cent work part time (less than 35 hours a week).

The sector is characterised by high levels of staff turnover. 67.1 per cent of contact staff have 3 or fewer years of experience with their current service, including 22.7 per cent with less than one year. The Review heard of forthcoming Australian research that shows, in the toddler rooms that were studied, children had a new educator every 7 weeks, on average, but the study considered this is likely to be an underestimate.

In some areas, there are differences in the workforce between long day care and standalone kindergartens services:

• Long day care staff are more likely to be casual (15.7 per cent compared to 8.4 per cent in standalone kindergarten services).
• Long day care staff are more likely to work full time hours (35 or more hours in a week, 42.1 per cent compared to 15.2 per cent).
• Long day care staff have fewer years of experience in the sector (40 per cent have 3 or fewer years, compared to 18.8 per cent for kindergartens, and 48.6 per cent of kindergarten staff have more than 10 years of experience, compared to 25.3 per cent of long day care staff).
• Staff in a standalone kindergarten service are more likely to have a bachelor’s degree (41.7 per cent compared to 15 per cent of long day care staff). Long day care staff are more likely to have a diploma or certificate level qualification. 21 per cent of long day care staff are studying (this data includes staff upskilling from an existing qualification and is not available for standalone kindergarten service staff).
• The age profile of the 2 service types is also different (42.3 per cent of long day care contact staff are under 35, compared to 16.8 per cent of standalone kindergarten staff).

Workforce challenges in the ECEC system have become more acute and prominent in recent years, when many services had to cap enrolments or close rooms because they could not find sufficient staff to operate.

Following a multi-employer bargaining process, the Commonwealth Government has instituted a Worker Retention Payment that funds long day care services to increase pay by 15 per cent over 2 years. Figure A2.6 below shows that vacancies have declined from their recent peaks.

In Victoria, by some measures, workforce challenges have been less severe.

Victoria has the lowest proportion of services with a staffing waiver: 1.2 per cent at 1 April 2025, compared to a national average of 7.9 per cent of services.

The long day care workforce

In 2023, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission collected and analysed a set of data from childcare services, including data related to pay and conditions. While there are some important caveats to its analysis, it provides insight into some aspects of the system.

In looking at large providers, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found that labour costs were a higher proportion of total costs in not-for-profit providers (77 per cent) than for-profit providers (63 per cent). These not-for-profit staff were more likely to be higher paid, with 94.5 per cent of not-for-profit staff paid above award rate, compared to 64.3 per cent of for-profit staff.

Small and medium not-for-profit providers were also more likely to pay staff above the award wage, with 75.3 per cent of staff at these services paid above award, compared to 45.9 per cent for small and medium for-profit providers.

Analysis of the 2024 Early Childhood Education and Care Workforce Census, undertaken for this Review by the Commonwealth Government Department of Education, found that long day care services where more than 50 per cent of paid contact workers were paid above the award rate were more likely to be rated as ‘Exceeding the National Quality Standard’, and less likely to be rated as ‘Working Towards the National Quality Standard’, than services where fewer than 50 per cent of paid contact workers were paid above the award rate.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission also found large not-for-profit providers had:

• a higher proportion of full-time contact staff than for-profits (47 per cent compared to 25 per cent)
• lower vacancies (9.7 per cent compared to 22 per cent)
• lower turnover (27 per cent compared to 41 per cent).

However, for small and medium providers, not-for-profits had higher rates of casual employment than for-profit providers (28.9 per cent compared to 13.5 per cent).

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found that, based on their large provider data, services with higher quality ratings paid educators and teachers higher wages. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission also found that, on average, large not-for-profit providers have lower land costs (for example, rent) than for-profit providers (10.2 per cent of total costs compared to 17.1 per cent) and many not-for-profit providers receive payroll tax concessions.

7. Governments’ roles and responsibilities

The Commonwealth Government and state and territory governments all play a role in the ECEC system. The current split of roles and responsibilities can be explained by the historical split between ‘education’ (which the states and territories were responsible for) and ‘care’ (which the Commonwealth Government was responsible for). This split is largely in place today, with the Commonwealth Government responsible for the child care subsidy that operates in long day care and family day care, and the states and territories responsible for kindergarten provision and kindergarten services.

In Victoria, local governments’ role varies, but all have important roles in planning issues, and provide related services such as Maternal and Child Health (which can often be co-located with ECEC services). Many local governments also operate kindergartens and/or long day care services as approved providers, provide access to buildings for ECEC services to operate from, or operate central enrolment systems for families.

The Productivity Commission summarised the current allocation of roles and responsibilities between Commonwealth Government and state and territory governments as follows:

This appendix outlines the regulatory framework that applies to ECEC services.

1. The National Quality Framework

The ECEC system is regulated through a national cooperative scheme known as the National Quality Framework, involving both the Commonwealth and state and territory governments.

The National Quality Framework commenced in 2012, recognising the important role that ECEC plays in children’s learning and development. It provides a national approach to regulation, assessment and continuous improvement of early childhood education and care in long day care, family day care, kindergartens and outside school hours care services in Australia.

The National Quality Framework replaced a patchwork of regulatory and compliance frameworks with the aim of driving national consistency in regulation, assessment and quality improvement, and to reduce the regulatory burden for providers operating across different jurisdictions. It created consistent requirements on educator to child ratios, skills and qualifications and more transparent information on workforce, providers and services. It also supports children’s learning and development through approved learning frameworks.

The National Quality Framework is implemented and overseen in each state and territory by individual regulatory authorities. These are the organisations that assess and rate each service, undertake inspections, and investigate breaches. In Victoria, this is the ECEC Regulator—the Quality Assessment and Regulation Division (QARD) located within the Department of Education.

Nationally, the Framework is monitored and promoted by the Australian Children’s Education Care Quality Authority (ACECQA), which promotes the consistent application of the National Law and maintains some central systems (such as the IT system that all regulatory authorities use).

Governance of the National Quality Framework

Figure A3.1 below outlines the key governance arrangements that oversee and implement the National Quality Framework at the national level and in Victoria.

National Law and Regulations

The National Quality Framework is underpinned by a national legislative framework: the Education and Care Services National Law Act 2010 (National Law) and the Education and Care Services National Regulations (National Regulations).

The National Law and National Regulations were designed to create consistency and reduce regulatory burden for providers operating across different states and territories. Taken together, the National Law and National Regulations establish and regulate:

• the National Quality Framework
• minimum standards for the health, safety and wellbeing of children
• approval of new providers and services that wish to provide ECEC services
• qualifications and staff to child ratios
• the National Quality Standard (discussed below), including assessment and ratings processes; and
• the Australian Children’s Education Care Quality Authority and the role of state and territory regulatory authorities.

National Quality Standard

The National Quality Standard was introduced in 2012 to set a high standard for ECEC services. It is jointly governed by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments.

_{Source: Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority, < https://www.acecqa.gov.au/nqf/national-quality-standard>.}

Assessment against the National Quality Standard

ECEC services are assessed and rated against each of the 7 quality areas and given an overall rating based on the results. Each of the quality areas have 2 or 3 standards embedded within them, to give more specific direction on how the desired measure can be achieved. The assessment process happens at least once every 3 years, but this timeframe can vary based on risk and service performance. New services are typically assessed within their first year or 2 of operation.

Ratings fall into 5 categories: ‘Excellent’, ‘Exceeding National Quality Standard’, ‘Meeting National Quality Standard’, ‘Working Towards National Quality Standard’ and ‘Significant Improvement Required’. A rating of ‘Excellent’ can only be awarded by the Australian Children’s Education and Quality Authority.

Quality ratings are published on national online registers, which are available to the public.

Review of Child Safety Arrangements under the National Quality Framework

The overarching National Quality Framework was reviewed in 2014 and 2019. These reviews have resulted in refinements and improvements, including in relation to safety and wellbeing of children.

In addition, the Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority conducted a specific review of child safety arrangements under the National Quality Framework, which was published in December 2023 (the ACECQA Review of Child Safety Arrangements).

The ACECQA Review of Child Safety Arrangements made 16 recommendations to improve child safety under the National Quality Framework.

In February 2024, Education Ministers broadly agreed to implement the recommendations, subject to consultation, advice and a regulatory impact assessment. A Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement was made available for public consultation in April 2025. The consultation period closed in June 2025.

The Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement explored a range of reforms relating to:

• management of inappropriate conduct by individuals
• working with children checks and information sharing
• child safety training
• management of personal devices
• approaches to improve safety of the physical environments within ECEC settings; and
• powers of entry and enforcement powers.

Education Ministers will make decisions on reform options based on this feedback, which will be followed by a Decision Regulation Impact Statement, which is expected to be released later in 2025.

In the meantime, progress has been made against certain recommendations. For example,

• The Australian Children’s Education Care Quality Authority has developed guides on embedding child safe cultures and online safety, including the National Quality Framework Online Safety Guide (2025), and released the National Model Code and Guidelines on child safe practices for the use of electronic devices when providing education and care on 1 July 2024. The Victorian Government has introduced a ban on use of personal devices to be implemented by 26 September 2025.
  
• The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership has published materials for early childhood teachers, leaders and employers on applying the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers in non-school settings.

• Education Ministers have agreed to changes to the National Regulations, which commence on 1 September 2025. Changes relevant to this Review include amendments to:

  - Require services to have policies and procedures on the use of digital devices and online environments—particularly on the taking and management of photos or videos of children (including parental consent), use of CCTV, and the use of devices by both staff and children.

  - Reducing timeframes for the notification of incidents of physical or sexual abuse to the relevant regulatory authority from 7 days to 24 hours.

From 1 January 2026, the National Quality Standard will be refined to create a more explicit focus on child safety in Quality Areas 2 (Children’s Health and Safety) and 7 (Governance and Leadership).

2. Child Safe Standards

Child Safe Standards are a set of requirements designed to create child safe cultures within organisations that provide services or facilities for use by children or engage a child in providing services or facilities. Child Safe Standards work to build an organisational culture in which children’s safety is embedded in everyday thinking and practice across all levels of the organisation.

The Child Safe Standards commenced in Victoria in January 2016 as a key response to the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Non-government Organisations, often referred to as Betrayal of Trust inquiry.

Since their introduction, the Standards have been reviewed and updated. Most recently, they were updated in 2022 to more closely align with the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations.

_{Source: Commission for Children and Young People, <The 11 Child Safe Standards>.}

The Child Safe Standards in ECEC services

ECEC services are required to comply with the Child Safe Standards. In Victoria, the ECEC Regulator is the integrated sector regulator of the Child Safe Standards in the ECEC sector.

The ECEC Regulator works with ECEC services to help them understand and comply with the Child Safe Standards, which includes:

• supporting providers and services to comply
• monitoring services’ compliance
• encouraging continuous improvement; and
• taking action against organisations that are breaching their requirements to comply with the Child Safe Standards (as an integrated sector regulator, the ECEC Regulator can take enforcement action for non-compliance with the Child Safe Standards using powers under the National Law or the Children’s Service Act).

The ECEC Regulator takes a risk-based approach to enforcement of the Standards. It will analyse each case, and decide on the appropriate enforcement action based on:

• the risk to children’s safety, health and wellbeing
• the type of non-compliance found; and
• the number of non-compliances at the service.

The ECEC Regulator will take stronger enforcement action if the non-compliance(s) are more serious, or the service continues to fail to comply.

In 2023–24, the ECEC Regulator considered the Child Safe Standards as part of 4,192 broader regulatory visits to ECEC services and identified 46 non-compliances. The overwhelming majority of non-compliances related to Standard 2 (33) followed by Standard 8 (5) and Standard 11 (3).

In March 2024, the ECEC Regulator commenced a themed program of visits through the Focused Child Safe Standards Visits Program, in which Authorised Officers considered compliance with all 11 Standards across 41 ECEC services. Where non-compliance is identified, services will receive a letter detailing the non-compliance with a requirement to address the matter within a particular timeframe and will sometimes be guided by advice by the ECEC Regulator on how to do so.

3. Reportable Conduct Scheme

A reportable conduct scheme is a legal framework that requires certain organisations to report and respond appropriately to allegations of child-related misconduct by staff and volunteers. It allows a regulator to independently oversee how the organisation responds to the allegation and share information with other regulators and organisations, such as police, about individuals who work in organisations with direct contact with children.

Victoria’s Reportable Conduct Scheme commenced in July 2017. Like the Child Safe Standards, it was also recommended by the Betrayal of Trust inquiry to give greater scrutiny and oversight over how organisations managed child safety concerns. It applies to a smaller subset of organisations than the Child Safe Standards—focused on organisations that have more direct contact with children and young people.

The Reportable Conduct Scheme imposes obligations on heads of certain organisations to notify the Commission for Children and Young People about any reportable allegations relating to adult staff or volunteers within 3 days of becoming aware of it.

Reportable conduct includes:

• sexual offences committed against, with or in the presence of a child
• sexual misconduct committed against, with or in the presence of a child
• physical violence against, with or in the presence of a child
• any behaviour that causes significant emotional or psychological harm to a child; and
• significant neglect of a child.

Organisations are required to notify the Commission for Children and Young People within 3 days upon becoming aware of a reportable conduct allegation and update the Commission for Children and Young People within 30 calendar days with more detailed information about the reportable allegation and the proposed approach to addressing it. Once any investigation is complete, any investigation findings or disciplinary action should also be provided, including an explanation if no action is taken. The Commission for Children and Young People also has power to initiate an own motion reportable conduct investigation.

ECEC services have been subject to the Reportable Conduct Scheme since January 2019. Allegations can relate to the conduct of employees, volunteers, contractors or office holders—and since 1 July 2024 also includes workers or volunteers provided through labour hire agencies as well as secondees.

In 2023–24, notifications from the ECEC sector comprised 28 per cent of the overall notifications made under the Reportable Conduct Scheme. ECEC notifications rose 39 per cent in 2023–24 compared to the previous year. It is important to note that reporting rates will be informed by a range of factors—including the size and number of organisations within a sector, the type of engagement they have with children and young people (including the risk environment) and staff awareness to make a report.

In 2023–24, the most common reportable allegation type for the sector was physical violence (61 per cent), followed by behaviour that causes significant emotional of psychological harm (12 per cent), significant neglect (14 per cent), sexual misconduct (10 per cent) and sexual offences (4 per cent). 24 per cent of reportable allegations have been substantiated since the ECEC sector became subject to the scheme.

The Commission for Children and Young People has a range of information-sharing powers and obligations relating to reportable conduct—including with Working with Children Check Victoria.

4. Working with Children Check scheme

Victoria’s Working with Children Check scheme commenced in April 2006. It is a screening process for assessing people who work with, or care for, children in Victoria. It aims to prevent people who are considered to pose an unacceptable risk to children from engaging in child-related work, either as an employee or a volunteer. The Worker Screening Unit within the Department of Government Services is responsible for administering the Working with Children Check scheme.

Factors considered when issuing a Working with Children Check

The Working with Children Check scheme is based on the presumption that every adult is suitable to work with children, unless their established criminal or disciplinary history suggests otherwise. A very broad range of people are required (or requested) to hold a Working with Children Check—from casual volunteers at the school canteen to those who are being paid to provide direct care and services to children every day. Around 2 million Victorians hold a Working with Children Check.

When a person submits an application, Working with Children Check Victoria confirms an applicant’s identity and then considers if they have any:

• criminal record in any Australian state and territory across their lifetime – including serious sexual, violent and drug offences they have previously been charged with, regardless of the outcome of those charges
• findings related to professional conduct, which is determined by:

- the Victorian Institute of Teaching
- the Suitability Panel, established under the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, which makes findings related to the suitability of registered out-of-home carers
- the Commission for Children and Young People through the Reportable Conduct Scheme.

• compliance (if applicable) with historical and current health practitioner legislation
• current or historical reporting obligations or orders under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 or the Serious Offenders Act 2018.

A person holding a Working with Children Check is subject to ongoing monitoring for criminal offending or a new finding or decision from a prescribed disciplinary or regulatory body that may result in a new risk assessment. Working with Children Check Victoria receives a range of information from other regulators, including the Victorian Institute of Teaching and the Commission for Children and Young People.

National standards for Working with Children Checks were agreed by all jurisdictions in 2019; however, these reflect only minimum features of schemes rather than creating national consistency and harmonisation.

5. Prohibition notices relating to ECEC workers

The ECEC Regulator in the Victorian Department of Education regulates services’ compliance with the National Law. The primary responsibility for individual employees under the National Law is with services, who need to comply with certain obligations in relation to individuals. However, the ECEC Regulator does have limited scope to sanction individual workers, by issuing prohibition notices that exclude them from a service or the sector more broadly. This is generally reserved for the most serious cases of non-compliance. Examples of factors that may be taken into account in making a decision to issue an immediate prohibition include where:

• An individual has been excluded from holding a Working with Children Check.
• Facts have been tested before a court or tribunal which established, on the balance of probabilities, that the person was responsible for harming a child.
• It becomes apparent through an investigation, where the person has been interviewed, that they pose an immediate risk to children.

Factors that may be taken into account when issuing a show cause notice, reflecting an intention to issue a prohibition notice, may include:

• Victoria Police has laid criminal charges.
• The ECEC Regulator has investigated the person and is prosecuting them for non-compliance with the National Law.
• Another regulator, such as the Victorian Institute of Teaching, has revoked or cancelled their work permissions because they pose a risk of harm to children.

Other grounds to consider a show cause for a potential prohibition notice include the ECEC Regulator substantiating a serious harm has occurred involving an individual (or there is available evidence such as an admission or CCTV to demonstrate this), there are substantiated reportable conduct, Working with Children Check Victoria has issued an interim exclusion and is seeking a response, or notifications about an individual suggest a pattern of concerning behaviour.