Oral submission to the Education and Workforce Select Committee on the Education and Training (ECE Reform) Amendment Bill
Dr Sarah Alexander, Chief Advisor of the OECE
10 September 2025, 12.35pm
Oral submission to the Education and Workforce Select Committee
On the Education and Training (ECE Reform) Amendment Bill
The stated aim of the Bill is to: “Improve the effectiveness of the ECE regulatory system for children and parents, and reduce the regulatory burden for service providers”
The outcome of this Bill appears to be pre-determined
- Minister Seymour has already signalled the Bill is a done deal.
- The Bill is being fast-tracked – to undercut genuine scrutiny and public understanding
- The proposals haven’t been tested with all affected groups.
- The proposals haven’t been consulted with ECE experts.
- Yet, this Bill will significantly reshape ECE!
- Has this Committee received any modelling on the short- and long-term costs of creating a new regulatory bureaucracy and embedding labour-market obligations into ECE operations and funding?
- Of the 39 public submissions published so far on Parliament’s website:
- only three submissions express “support”
- and, two (including the Montessori Association) support in principle – yet call for major amendments due to operational and quality risks.
The Bill claims to: Improve regulatory effectiveness for children and parents, and reduce the regulatory burden on service providers
- But let’s be honest—it’s misleading to say this Bill is designed to improve outcomes for children and families.
- Its true intent, is to satisfy service providers and their lobbyists who want a much lighter-touch approach to monitoring and enforcement.
- And let’s not forget: the so-called “regulatory burden” is already being reduced through the removal of many licensing criteria.
- In our submission, the Office of Early Childhood Education highlighted the cobra effect—a term used by analysts to describe when a solution ends up making the original problem worse.
Here’s what we’re seeing:
- The Bill responds to perceived frustrations among service providers—but is there any evidence these issues occur at a scale or severity that justifies a legislative overhaul? No.
- The proposed solutions risk worsening existing problems—undermining child safety, eroding public trust, and weakening the integrity of the sector.
- And ironically, the reforms could backfire on the very providers the Bill claims to support.
- The Bill recasts ECE as primarily a workforce-participation tool.
- It overlooks parents’ rights to choose ECE for education only, respite, or caregiving support.
- The Bill embeds new funding obligations for government without clear cost modelling.
- It encourages extended service hours, which drives up fees and may push families out of formal ECE to make use of more informal options.
- The Bill’s definition of quality is flawed: it equates “minimum standards” with “quality” — yet real quality must go beyond the bare minimum.
- It introduces “Risk-Based Monitoring” of services, enabling selective scrutiny that is likely to favour large commercial providers and those willing to litigate to scare off inspection and any form of enforcement.
- It frames child safety as negotiable against cost-efficiency.
- The directive to avoid “unnecessary costs” opens the door to further deregulation.
- There’s no commitment to stronger monitoring and enforcement of minimum standards and what we see is that monitoring and enforcement will become a lot softer.
- The Bill creates an unnecessary Director of Regulation role within the Ministry of Education
- But, Minister Seymour’s speech at the First Reading said the role would be in ERO and not in the Ministry as the Bill states?
- Since ERO lacks licensing and enforcement powers, there will be significant wasted set-up costs and sector disruption.
- The Bill offers no safeguards against the Minister for Regulation’s political influence over complaints handling, compliance criteria, or enforcement strategy.
- It allows delegation of regulatory duties to non-government individuals and organisations—creating conflict-of-interest risks with no scope, rationale, or sunset clause.
Our Recommendations for your Report
- Please report back to Parliament that the Bill must not proceed beyond the second reading.
- It’s not needed. As I’ve said, the effects of the Bill could bite back and backfire on the very providers it aims to support and who are very excited about it currently.
- The purpose of regulating ECE is already clearly and appropriately defined in the Education (EC Services Regulations).
- And, the current wording in the Education and Training Act is good. It positions the principal purpose of ECE as regulating a system where all children are able to participate.
- It also recognises the importance of parent choice in selecting the type of service that suits their family—without reducing ECE to a tool for labour market participation.
- If the Bill does move forward, then the stated aim of the Bill must be revised.
- The claim that it improves effectiveness for children and families should be removed.
I’m happy to speak with you privately about political and sector matters that cannot be publicly stated.
If the Bill is passed in its current form, the likely consequences include:
- Significantly higher government costs, for lower-quality ECE provision
- Weakened monitoring and enforcement
- Bias in favour of certain service providers
- Discretionary bias by the Director of Regulation
- Reduced choice of enrolment hours and diversity of services for families
- Children spending longer hours in sub-par care environments
- Less provision for children’s individual health, cultural, social, and physical needs
- Developmental harm and poor long-term outcomes for children
- Parents withdrawing from ECE altogether—choosing instead to rely on babysitters, form informal care networks, or leave the workforce.
The Bill will trigger serious unintended consequences–undermining child safety and education, eroding public trust, and destabilising the sector. The OECE’s written submission goes into more details.
During the last election each of the Coalition partners proposed constructive, child-focused ideas that deserve to be brought into the light.
For example:
- National Party: Regular, unannounced Ministry of Education spot checks of ECE services.
- And, ensuring that at all times of the day, at least one adult working with children in teacher-led centres is ECE-teacher qualified
- ACT Party: ERO visits that are unannounced
- NZ First: Review staffing ratios for infants as an urgent health and safety matter
These are practical, child-focused solutions.
So, this is a plea: Bring forward these kinds of solutions instead of rushing through a Bill that risks doing real harm.
