Rebuilding trust and rethinking care: key takeaways for the ECEC sector from the Senate inquiry

Child safety failures, workforce strain and uneven market growth have placed early childhood education and care under ongoing scrutiny. As the Senate inquiry hearings continue, the implications for providers, approved providers, educators and regulators are becoming clearer.

The Senate Education and Employment References Committee hearing in Brisbane on 23 February 2026 placed the early childhood education and care (ECEC) sector back under renewed national focus.

Prompted by serious child safety failures during the past year, the inquiry heard from major providers, regulatory authorities, academic experts and parent advocates. Evidence centred on safeguarding gaps, workforce pressures and the structural settings shaping service delivery under the National Quality Framework (NQF).

For sector leaders, the message was direct: regulatory reform is likely, expectations around child safety will tighten, and scrutiny of market settings will intensify.

Child protection dominated proceedings, particularly in relation to the ‘Operation Tenterfield' case.

Queensland Family and Child Commission Principal Commissioner Luke Twyford told the hearing that current systems continue to leave children exposed. He described perpetrators as acting like “water moving across a landscape”, seeking the path of least resistance to access children.

Evidence highlighted structural gaps that have enabled individuals dismissed for serious misconduct to reappear elsewhere in the sector. Industrial relations settings, reputational concerns and inconsistent information-sharing arrangements were identified as contributing factors.

The Queensland Family and Child Commission recommended the establishment of a national child safeguarding intelligence hub to enable real-time information sharing across jurisdictions. It also proposed corporate liability reforms that would align director accountability for child safety with existing Work Health and Safety (WHS) obligations.

Large providers detailed steps already taken to strengthen safeguarding systems. Affinity Education Group confirmed investment of more than $70 million in safety upgrades, including CCTV and mandatory training delivered in partnership with Bravehearts. Goodstart Early Learning emphasised the importance of organisational culture, encouraging educators to report concerns without fear of reprisal and reinforcing safeguarding as a leadership responsibility.

These discussions align directly with the National Quality Standard (NQS), particularly Quality Area 2, Children’s health and safety and reinforce existing obligations under the Education and Care Services National Law and Regulations. The inquiry signalled that compliance alone will not be viewed as sufficient; proactive risk identification and transparent reporting will be expected.

Laureate Professor Karen Thorpe from the University of Queensland presented research examining stress points within daily program delivery.

Sleep and rest periods, along with meal times, were identified as high-risk moments for educator stress and reduced quality interactions. Professor Thorpe criticised practices that require children who no longer need sleep to remain lying down for extended periods, arguing that such approaches may compromise wellbeing and learning.

The Queensland Department of Education confirmed that legislative amendments have removed ‘rest pauses’, which previously permitted reduced staffing ratios while children slept. The change is designed to strengthen supervision and child safety.

Professor Thorpe also called for review of Quality Area 2 of the NQS, arguing that current provisions do not adequately safeguard the nutritional quality or quantity of food provided. Evidence suggests that in highly competitive markets and lower-income communities, some services rely heavily on low-cost, high-carbohydrate meals with limited protein, potentially affecting children’s behaviour and capacity to engage in learning.

The hearing reinforced the interconnectedness of pedagogy, workforce conditions and regulatory settings. When educators face time pressure linked to documentation or operational demands, quality interactions can suffer – an issue with direct implications for assessment and rating outcomes.

Parent advocacy groups, including Childcare Choice and the Future Care Project, argued that current Child Care Subsidy (CCS) settings privilege centre-based care and limit access to flexible alternatives.

Evidence highlighted barriers faced by shift workers, families in regional ‘childcare deserts’, and parents of children with additional needs or neurodivergent profiles. Advocates called for expansion of CCS eligibility to include more flexible arrangements, such as nannies and In-Home Care.

Concerns were raised about the administrative complexity of the In-Home Care program and qualification requirements for educators in home-based settings. Advocates argued that current Certificate III requirements may not reflect the operational realities of home environments.

Any reform in this space would have implications for workforce supply, regulatory oversight and service viability. The inquiry is expected to examine how funding models interact with equity, inclusion and participation in the workforce.

Workforce pressures remain central to sector sustainability.

Major providers reported that the Federal Government’s 15 per cent worker retention payment has had an immediate positive effect on recruitment and retention. However, Affinity Education Group acknowledged staff turnover rates of approximately 30 per cent, identified the ongoing fragility of workforce stability.

The hearing also examined uneven service distribution. Evidence suggested that significant numbers of new for-profit services are opening in already saturated metropolitan areas, intensifying competition for educators and enrolments. At the same time, many regional and remote communities remain underserved.

Witnesses expressed support for the establishment of a National ECE Commission to oversee service planning and reduce oversupply in high-density markets. Such a body could influence future approval processes under the NQF and reshape the balance between market forces and strategic planning.

Public hearings continue in Canberra on 24 February 2026, with evidence expected from additional large providers, including G8 Education, as well as regulatory authorities and advisory bodies such as the Australian Skills Quality Authority and the Productivity Commission.

The committee will also hear from the Australian Paediatric Society, Dr Peter Goss, Chair of Diabetes and Allergy, alongside union representatives.

Peak bodies representing family day care, playgroups and early learning advocacy organisations are also scheduled to appear, broadening the discussion on flexibility, funding and quality.

For the ECEC sector, the inquiry represents more than a response to recent failures. It signals a potential recalibration of accountability, funding design and regulatory oversight.

Rebuilding trust will require sustained action across governance, workforce development and pedagogy. The direction of reform is still emerging, but one conclusion is clear: transparency, specialised support and uncompromising child safety will define the next chapter for early childhood education and care in Australia.

References

Senate Education and Employment References Committee, Public hearing, Early childhood education and care inquiry, Brisbane, 23 February 2026 Youtube recording.

Senate Education and Employment References Committee homepage

Senate Education and Employment References Committee upcoming hearings.