NZK, Kelly Seaburg, Barnardos, and Te Rito Maioha Submission to the Ministry for Regulation on Licensing Criteria and the Regulatory System
OPINION/ANALYSIS – December 11, 2024.
A group of early childhood service providers and lobby groups are calling for ECE services to be left to self-regulate, free from government oversight.
In their paper Shaping Our Future, submitted to the Ministry for Regulation, they claim to include an appendix of recommended changes to centre-based and home-based licensing criteria. Yet that appendix remains inaccessible—not even members of the organisations it represents can see it.
This raises pressing questions: what are they withholding, and do their undisclosed recommendations align with the Early Childhood Council’s push to significantly weaken licensing criteria? Several of the large service providers involved in the submission are also represented by the ECC, suggesting a possible overlap in interests and agendas. This may be concerning to members of these organisations who are not affiliated with the ECC.
The signatories inlcude1 NZ Kindergartens Inc, Te Rito Maioha, Barnardos, a Home-Based Childcare Association, and a group Advocates for Early Learning Excellence led by Kelly Seaburg (New Shoots), which includes some of New Zealand’s largest private operators such as Busy Bees, Kindercare, and Evolve Education. The submission is signed by individuals who identify themselves as “leaders2,” raising the question: were their members consulted or aware of the contents of this submission?
Key proposals in the submission include:
- A self-regulation and monitoring scheme, to remove much of the regulatory responsibility from the Ministry of Education to ECE services themselves.
- Reduced oversight of serious incidents: Ministry involvement in serious incidents involving children could be withdrawn if a service has “robust” health and safety policies on paper—even though such policies do not guarantee safe practice.
- Loss of anonymity for complainants: Parents who wish to remain anonymous and avoid potential repercussions from their ECE service may be blocked from reporting suspected breaches. If complaints are handled internally by the service, anonymity and protections for complainants are removed. To quote the document: “The MoE complaint management system allows complainants to raise concerns anonymously, assuming providers lack competence in handling complaints. The current system lacks transparency, treating providers as guilty before investigations are completed, does not consistently allow providers to address complaints first, and vexatious complaints are afforded considerable time and resource. An effective process would mean providers investigating first, as per their Policy, and MoE peer reviewing” (p. 4).
- Scrapping significant administrative and compliance requirements, on the grounds that head teachers spend too much time on these tasks and government funding does not cover them. (Yet, isn’t administration and compliance part of operating a publicly funded ECE service? The submission does not propose additional funding to support this work.)
- Treating all requirements beyond the Building Code as optional guidance, rather than enforceable standards. (This is problematic: the Building Code was written with the understanding that ECE regulations already include additional safety provisions. For example, the Code allows near-boiling water from non-sanitary taps and only requires sanitary taps to “avoid the likelihood of scalding.” In contrast, ECE licensing criteria mandate that water accessible to children must not exceed 40°C to avoid the possibility of scalding. If these criteria were downgraded to mere guidance, the Building Code itself would need to be amended to maintain child safety—an unnecessary and impractical legislative burden.)
Funding and oversight
To fund self-regulation, the submitters propose reviewing and reducing the Ministry of Education’s departmental costs for overseeing regulatory compliance. They claim that “$100 million per year (5% savings dividend) can be freed up from existing government funding” and redirected to “peak bodies.” (It’s unclear who they mean by “peak bodies”—perhaps themselves or their preferred representatives?)
The submission does not clarify whether, in addition to receiving $100 million annually from the government, these groups would also charge ECE services for inspections, access to management materials and policies, or compulsory training courses.
Monitoring and enforcement
The submitters argue that the Ministry of Education operates a “reactive, low-trust approach that drives fear into the sector,” claiming that licence reviews are triggered without child harm and result in disproportionate consequences for minor, easily remedied issues.
In reality, the Ministry operates a high-trust model. Regular monitoring is rare, and enforcement is weak. Licences are typically downgraded only in cases of serious or repeated non-compliance that cannot be quickly resolved.
Accountability
Should Minister Seymour/ the Government support the group’s call for self-regulation, government can not distance itself from accountability for regulations when it goes wrong. As to why this is not possible you only have to look at the report from the Abuse in Care – Royal Commission of Inquiry:
“49. In summary, the State registered and financially supported Marylands School. That school did not provide adequate education and safeguarding of the tamariki who were sent there – abused and neglected, and deprived of their human rights. The State registered Hebron Trust and government agencies referred rangatahi at risk to Hebron Trust without ensuring their care and safety. The Crown failed to ensure that the care provided at both Marylands School and Hebron Trust was consistent with the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi. The State also failed to ensure that there was proper accountability for the abuse and neglect inflicted by the Order.
54. The findings in this report are also a reflection of broader systemic issues that continue to persist today.
55. Aotearoa New Zealand must heed the calls for accountability and justice. Fundamental changes will be required if we are to ensure that such horrific harm and exploitation of tamariki and rangatahi does not happen again.”
Being funded for bad practice
The economic realities of running an early childhood service—and the pressure to generate profit—can sometimes interfere with doing what’s right. This can lead to poor practices and a casual attitude toward risks to children’s learning, health, safety, and wellbeing.
When service owners and CEOs of provider lobby groups lack understanding of the reasons behind specific regulations and licensing criteria, they may challenge or dismiss them. Even when they do understand, they may not care. Some may believe they’re above the law, or view children’s safety as secondary to financial cost. For an international perspective on how deregulation can increase the risk of harm to children, see The dark future of American child care.
The proposal for self-regulation raises serious questions:
- How will conflicts of interest be managed?
- What happens if a provider disagrees with an assessment made by a body that represents their interests?
- What if the regulatory body also operates ECE services that compete with the provider being reviewed?
- Could there be nepotism—favouritism toward friends or affiliated members?
- Would higher fee-paying services receive more favourable reports, while others must work harder to earn the same recognition?
The submission fails to address these concerns. Self-regulation risks becoming a system where providers can continue poor practices and still receive public funding.
Silencing parent concerns
A strong regulatory system is essential to give parents confidence that their child is safe and receiving professional care and education. For many families, childcare is not optional—parents must work, and their children rely on these services. This economic pressure makes families vulnerable to exploitation and bullying.
Many parents already find it difficult to raise concerns, especially when the system doesn’t support them. If self-regulation is adopted, this risk will grow. Parents may be discouraged or even pressured not to speak up, and without independent oversight, their voices could be silenced entirely.
So, what is the solution?
The submission attempts to address the complexity of the current regulatory system. However, the proposed shift to self-regulation and self-monitoring is likely to worsen outcomes and reduce quality—potentially significantly.
That said, frustration within the ECE sector is understandable. The current regulatory regime has not been well managed by the Ministry of Education. The Ministry struggles to regulate effectively due to limited resources, high staff turnover at the national office, and a loss of institutional expertise.
So, what’s the solution? We need a regulatory system that is focused on achieving better outcomes for young children and their families. As the Office of Early Childhood Education stated in its submission to the Ministry for Regulation, “fund and forget” is not an appropriate strategy for our sector.
To build a stronger, more effective regulatory system, five key actions are needed:
- Resource the Ministry of Education properly
The Ministry must be adequately funded and mandated to carry out regular checks and monitoring. This supports services to remain compliant and helps identify issues early. - Make it easier for complaints to be heard
The Ministry should actively welcome and support complaints from ECE staff, parents, and the public. The current system makes it difficult for concerns to be raised and addressed. - Ensure providers understand the rules
Service providers must demonstrate knowledge of the regulations relevant to their service type. Just as drivers must pass a theory test before getting behind the wheel, ECE operators should be tested on their understanding of the rules. (The Ministry for Regulation has acknowledged this gap and released a document correcting common misconceptions it had picked up about licensing requirements.) - Break down silos between agencies
The Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health, and WorkSafe must collaborate more effectively on ECE matters. WorkSafe, in particular, lacks early childhood expertise—this must be addressed. - Don’t start removing any licensing criteria and regulations without proper impact assessment
Minister Seymour and the government must refrain from reducing rules and regulations without thoroughly assessing the consequences for children and the quality of ECE services. (See analysis of Minister Seymour’s record in ECE to date.)
Footnotes
- The complete list of organisations and providers on the submission are:
– NZ Kindergartens Inc. Keep in mind that NZK does not represent all kindergarten associations around the country, and there are other groups that represent kindergarten associations.
– Te Rito Maioha
– Advocates for Early Learning Excellence
– New Shoots children’s centres (nation-wide for-profit)
– Busy Bees (nation-wide for-profit)
– Kindercare (nation-wide for-profit)
– Evolve Education (nation-wide for-profit)
– Educare Early Learning Centres (nation-wide for profit)
– Three Trees Group (3 private centres) with 4Es Education Consultancy
– ELC Group (3 private centres)
– Barnardos
– Montessori Assn
– Home Base Childcare Assn (namely: Paua, Building Blocks, Kiddz, Nurture@Home, Just Four Kids). ↩︎ - Signing the submission the following people said they are a “group of Early Childhood Education (ECE) Sector Leaders” who represent the views or interests of 68% of the ECE sector.
– Kathy Wolfe (CEO, Te Rito Maioha)
– Jill Bond (CEO, NZK) and Christine Hall (CEO, Central Kids Kindergarten and a member of NZK)
– Kelly Seaburg (Director, New Shoots Children’s Centres)
– Cathy Wilson (CE, Montessori)
– Heather Taylor (GM, Barnardos)
– Raewyn Overton-Stuart (Director, PAUA home-based service) ↩︎
Articles you may also be interested in :
- Discussion of the ECC’s submission
- Is there over auditing of ECE services and too many regulations?
- Minister Seymour’s ECE “Achievements” in the last year
- ECE Regulations Review 2024 – articles, videos, and references
We’d love to know what you think, add your opinion and comment below.
