ECAC’s Blind Spots: Why the Ministry Isn’t Getting the Best ECE Advice
The Ministry’s review of its early childhood advisory committee exposes deeper failures in sector oversight and explains why it struggles to obtain balanced, credible advice. Its continued operation raises serious concerns about integrity and effectiveness across Aotearoa’s ECE system, demanding closer scrutiny.
OPINION/ANALYSIS – 29 October 2025
Sarah Alexander
After sixteen years, the Ministry of Education has finally reviewed the Terms of Reference for its Early Childhood Advisory Committee (ECAC). Instead of signalling progress, the review highlights long‑standing problems in how the Ministry oversees early childhood education – problems that have left the sector fragile, divided, and slipping in quality.
ECAC was established in July 2009 with 17 members the Ministry claimed were “collectively reflective” of the sector. The committee met in Wellington five times a year (later reduced to four). Meetings were held behind closed doors and minutes were not published.
In 2012, after persistent questioning from Dr Sarah Alexander, the Ministry promised greater transparency -agreeing to make publicly available its agendas, minutes and papers for each meeting on its website.
The Office of Early Childhood Education (OECE) reported that ECAC was operating outside its own published rules. For example, by holding secretive fortnightly meetings with its ECAC members to discuss policy and operational issues.
Fast forward to May 2025: the Ministry finally released a new Terms of Reference for its ECAC.
Best practice in governance calls for regular, ideally annual, reviews of Terms of Reference to ensure they reflect a committee’s evolving purpose and that they incorporate lessons from performance evaluations. They should also address:
- Accountability to those the committee is meant to represent
- Conflict-of-interest management
- Member composition (including expertise and diversity)
- Equal influence among members
Unfortunately, the newly published Terms of Reference fall short of these standards. Rather than scrutinising past practices or inviting feedback from the wider sector, the document simply formalises operational changes that have quietly occurred over time. It cements ECAC’s existing structure and redefines members as “frontline operators”.
Temporary seats offered in 2021 to BestStart and a lobby group called “Advocates for Early Learning” formed by Michelle Pratt of New Shoots centres have now been made permanent with Kelly Seaburg taking the seat, further entrenching the influence of select service providers. Agencies like the Education Review Office (ERO) and the Teaching Council are now granted full membership rights – despite not fitting the “frontline operator” description.
Inward-Focused, Not Outward-Facing
The ECAC review was a closed-shop exercise: only sitting committee members were invited to give feedback on it, thus essentially rewriting the rules that govern their own influence.
There was no public scrutiny, no broad stakeholder input, no fresh perspectives. Moreover, key voices such as the OECE, the ECE Parents’ Council, OMEP Aotearoa, Child Poverty Action Group, and the Children’s Rights Alliance Aotearoa were never invited to the table.
And yet, in the words of one Ministry official, ECAC’s role is “in advising on the real-world impacts of policy.”
Competitive Dynamics and Stakeholder Silencing
Information obtained under the Official Information Act reveals internal tensions within the ECAC membership. In one exchange a Ministry official noted: “Feedback prior to the December 2024 meeting has been contradictory, as one might expect, with some members wanting to exit others. Simon from the ECC is saying that peak bodies like the ECC should attend but not providers”.
The Chief Executive of NZ Kindergartens lobbied for the removal of NZEI teacher representatives, arguing the union “is not directly focused on tamariki,” that its priorities are “very different to those of us advocating for the full spectrum of ECE provision.” It said the committee “should be a place of free, frank, and candid debate and discussion.”
Committee membership is widely regarded as high-status, and both current members and the Ministry of Education appear to guard that privilege closely.
This gatekeeping has played out publicly: the Early Childhood Council and New Shoots centre director Kelly Seaburg attempted to have the OECE shut down, and complained about the OECE having its own advisory committee. Rather than supporting or engaging with OECE’s efforts, the Ministry publicly backed the lobbyists and criticised the OECE.
Power Entrenchment Through Membership Rules
By defining ECAC membership as “representation from all licensed early learning service types, broadly proportional to market share,” the updated Terms of Reference effectively prioritise for-profit centre and home-based providers, and their lobbying representatives.
This framing shifts the focus of early childhood education from a public good rooted in cross-sector collaboration to a competitive marketplace. The Ministry is allowing these dominant players, through ECAC, to gain greater policy influence while parent-led and smaller services, whose insights are essential to a sustainable, high-quality ECE system, are pushed to the margins.
Appointments are officially “by invitation of the Chief Executive, Ministry of Education,” yet the process is opaque and inconsistent:
- Some groups are told to submit a written application only to be informed that “membership is not under review” or that ECAC is being reviewed and membership can’t be considered until that is done.
- Others receive direct invitations they have not formally requested.
- Applicants must supposedly represent a legally constituted organisation, but the Ministry bent this rule for advocates like Kelly Seaburg of New Shoots. When asked if her group was a legal entity, she admitted it was not – yet the Ministry responded: “We don’t want this to be a barrier to achieving the right sort of representation on ECAC.”
- Home-based provider Erin Maloney was similarly vetted. The Ministry pressed her on whether there would be an alternative nominee if she was not available to attend meetings, acknowledging she was an individual they had selected to be on ECAC.
These inconsistent criteria and secretive appointments reinforce ECAC as an insider club.
By concealing membership rules behind opaque procedures and ad hoc exceptions, the Ministry ensures that a select few retain exclusive influence over early childhood policy and sector-wide accountability is undermined.
The Office of Early Childhood Education (OECE), which represents a wide range of teachers and providers, has repeatedly offered to join ECAC. Each time, the Ministry has responded with comments such as “membership is by invitation only” or “ECAC membership is not under review.”
When Dr Sarah Alexander asked why the OECE continued to be excluded, a Ministry official replied, “Because you know too much.” Surprised that expertise (whether hers or the OECE’s) was treated as a problem, she asked if there were any other reasons. The official then admitted, “Some of our (ECAC) members wouldn’t like it.” Dr Alexander then offered that a different OECE representative would attend meetings if her involvement was the issue, but the official could only suggest submitting a written request – even though it was clear the answer would remain no.
The Ministry has capped ECAC membership at 25, with fixed seats for the Education Review Office and the Teaching Council. With 24 places already filled and no clear process for removing members or setting term limits, the structure effectively shuts out other stakeholders and prevents new voices from ever joining the committee.
Unbalanced Representation in ECAC
There is no assurance of balanced representation across the sector. Parent-led services and minority groups such as early intervention providers, now find their opportunities to contribute to the Early Childhood Advisory Committee (ECAC) increasingly overshadowed by the better-resourced and politically influential interests of the Early Childhood Council (ECC), Kelly Seaburg (New Shoots), and Te Rito Maioha, who are supported in their lobbying by the Montessori Association and NZ Kindergartens Inc.
Meanwhile, free kindergarten associations no longer speak with a unified voice; their representation is fragmented across multiple organisations, each pursuing distinct financial and political agendas.
The Ministry’s ECAC continues to exclude independent experts and organisations who have deep, specialised knowledge who are not aligned with service-provider lobbying interests. Critical voices, including parents and child-rights advocates, remain absent, despite their essential role in shaping well-informed, inclusive sector-wide advice.
Transparency Deficits in ECAC Operations
ECAC’s meeting minutes are very general, often released weeks or even months after meetings, and usually contain little detail about what was discussed or disagreed on. The new Terms of Reference say that slide packs and presentation materials will be shared with committee members after each meeting, but the Ministry does not plan to make these documents available to the wider sector.
Suggestions from Dr Sarah Alexander to livestream meetings or publish detailed minutes have not been taken up, leaving stakeholders without a clear or timely picture of ECAC’s discussions. The Ministry has also chosen not to introduce a formal conflict‑of‑interest process, saying it is unnecessary. Ministry official Megan Hutchinson explained, “It is an expectation that members are representing the interests of their organisations.” This approach leaves potential and actual conflicts of interest unaddressed.
Persistent Accountability Problems in ECAC
The Ministry still has no system for checking whether representatives of service providers actually speak for the services they claim to represent. When Simon Laube of the Early Childhood Council suggested relying only on “peak bodies” and excluding large providers (examples include Barnardos and BestStart), a Ministry official acknowledged the real issue: “It is not about providers feeling entitled to have a place on ECAC; it is that they do not feel there is anyone representing their perspective.”
The Ministry also has no system for checking whether provider representatives are “double dipping” – for example, when a service provider sits on ECAC as a service provider while their representative body (or bodies) also holds a seat. It is possible for the same provider to be represented multiple times because the Ministry does not ask members to name the specific services they speak for. This means some providers may have two or more voices at the table, while others have only one seat, and many have none at all. The Ministry neither tracks nor checks for overlap, leaving it unaware of who holds disproportionate influence and who is missing entirely.
The Terms of Reference do not include any process for standing down members who take legal action against the Ministry. And, there are still no clear procedures for:
- managing conflicts of interest,
- ensuring all members’ concerns receive fair attention, or
- regulating the direct lobbying access members gain to Ministry officials outside formal meetings.
———————————————————————
We welcome your thoughts and comments on ECAC. What would a well-functioning, truly representative early childhood advisory committee to the Ministry of Education look like?
