More than 400 Australia‑based childcare services under foreign ownership: what this means for the ECEC sector

A recent media investigation has revealed that over 400 early childhood education and care (ECEC)‑services across Australia are owned or majorly backed by foreign investors, raising questions about transparency, profit motives and system oversight.

Foreign institutions from countries including Switzerland, Canada, Singapore and Hong Kong hold significant ownership stakes in some of Australia’s largest childcare networks. 

Among the most prominent operators in this category are:

• Guardian Childcare & Education (182 centres nationally) majority‑owned by Swiss firm Partners Group. 
• Busy Bees Early Learning (103 centres) backed by Canadian Ontario teachers’ pension fund and Singapore’s Temasek. 
• Only About Children (approx. 80 centres) owned by U.S. based Bright Horizons Family Solutions. 

Support for these providers continues via publicly funded mechanisms: for example, major foreign‑backed providers receive significant wage‑retention and other government grants. 

On quality, the data suggest that among those foreign‑owned networks with published quality ratings, only around 5 per cent do not meet the National Quality Standard (NQS) below the average of approximately 10 per cent for private‑for‑profit providers overall. 

The growth of foreign investment in a key public infrastructure, early learning and care prompts reflection on how ownership, profit‑motives and operational priorities intersect with children’s safety, educator workforce conditions and community trust.

The concern is not simply foreign ownership per se, but whether business models prioritise shareholder returns over educational and developmental quality, workforce stability and inclusive access across all communities.

If ownership is not fully tracked, this may limit the ability of regulatory and funding bodies to understand how provider ownership may influence fee setting, staffing, ratio compliance, investment in facilities or reinvestment of surpluses into quality.

When major providers are controlled by global investment groups, domestic policy levers (such as supporting access in low‑income or regional communities) may have less direct influence, unless regulatory frameworks and funding models accommodate such ownership realities.

Large providers under foreign ownership may achieve scale advantages, but there is debate about whether that scale translates into better investment in educators’ conditions or facility quality, or whether cost pressures (including rent, profit margins, external investor expectations) may limit local‑service reinvestment.

Moving forward, policy positioning could include:

• Improved disclosure of provider ownership and governance structures.
• Strengthened reporting requirements on large providers’ financial and investment flows, particularly those with foreign capital backing.
• Public transparency of executive remuneration, bonuses and incentive structures, in high-fee or publicly funded services, ensuring that salary structures are proportionate and aligned with sector values and community expectations.
• Funding model adjustments or targeted incentives to ensure that offshore‑backed providers reinvest meaningfully in local quality, educator workforce stability and regional/low‑income access.
• Continued sector dialogue about the values of ownership models that embed community‑based governance, reinvestment of surpluses, and educator workforce wellbeing.

In a sector increasingly influenced by global capital, ensuring that children, families and educators remain the centre of decision‑making is vital.