Modernising Early Childhood Education in Aotearoa Consultation on proposed changes to the Early Childhood Education Care Services 2008 licensing criteria

Executive Summary

New Zealand Kindergartens (NZK) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the review of the Early Childhood Education (ECE) Regulatory Framework.

Our submission supports the intent to modernise, simplify, and refocus regulation to better support high-quality, teacher-led learning. We advocate for a more streamlined framework consolidating the current 85 centre-based criteria into approximately 25 priority standards that directly support child wellbeing and learning. We recommend that low-value requirements be reframed as guidance to reduce unnecessary compliance burden.

Central to our submission is the reaffirmation of Te Whāriki as the foundation of ECE regulation and the elevation of learning outcomes and wellbeing as primary indicators of quality. We endorse a systems-level, outcomes-based approach to regulation, supported by independent auditing, digital compliance tools, and modernised guidance. We strongly support embedding the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 as the regulatory foundation.

We caution that reduced prescription must be matched with robust, co-constructed guidance and clear role clarity for government agencies to avoid fragmentation and risk to children’s safety. Throughout, we call for practical, context-responsive tools that are “road tested” with providers to ensure they are accessible and effective.

This submission also provides detailed commentary on the proposed changes to licensing criteria, highlighting the benefits of consolidation while identifying specific risks. We recommend mitigations to ensure that safety, equity, and professional trust are not compromised in the shift toward greater flexibility.

With the right safeguards and a genuine partnership approach, the proposed reforms have the potential to deliver a future-fit, enabling regulatory system that supports quality early learning for all Tamariki.

Overview – New Zealand Kindergartens

Kindergarten in Aotearoa New Zealand is steeped in the history of pioneers who sought to provide education and care for children within their local communities. Dunedin is the “Home of Kindergarten”, established in 1889. Christchurch followed in 1899, Wellington in 1905, Auckland in 1908, and Invercargill in 1919. By 1975, there were 75 Kindergarten Associations operating 384 Kindergartens.

Our pioneering foremothers/fathers focused their efforts and resources on teacher training, policy and funding. They were pivotal in improving the standards of programmes, staffing, qualifications, and buildings and equipment.

New Zealand Kindergartens as we are known today was established as the New Zealand Free Kindergarten Union in 1912/13, and was legally constituted in 1926.

New Zealand Kindergartens is a For-Purpose Charitable Peak Body. It represents nineteen of the twenty six local Kindergarten Associations across Aotearoa. Collectively we have provision to education and care for more than 14,000 tamariki, we employ a minimum of 1,785 registered teachers, and a minimum additional 380 professionals to support our teaching teams.

Our purpose is to support for-purpose trailblazers to thrive in the provision of fit-forpurpose, teacher-led, quality education that enhances social, emotional, economic and environmental impact.

Regulatory Review Submission

In its submission to the Regulatory Review, NZK posited that of the 85 current centre-based licensing standards there was a clear opportunity to streamline and modernise the regulatory framework.

It recommend consolidating the standards to no more than 25 high-priority areas that demonstrated value- add to children’s learning and wellbeing. It suggested that the 35 low-value standards should be reclassified as guidance to reduce compliance burden without compromising quality.

The submission strongly supported Te Whāriki being central to the revised framework, with a stronger emphasis on child learning outcomes as the basis for regulatory assurance.

Additional recommendations included normalising expectations for sleep, nutrition, and non-prescription medication to reflect common home practices; clarifying that family input into policies and procedures should be optional; and aligning building requirements with the Building Code to reduce cost and complexity.

It proposed shifting from compliance-heavy auditing to a systems-level approach led by the Education Review Office (ERO), with a focus on outcomes and continuous improvement. To enhance trust and transparency, it proposed that regulatory and funding functions should be separated, using independent auditors where appropriate.

Further it proposed that digitising compliance systems, establishing standardised policy templates, and making greater use of the Health and Safety at Work Act would support consistency, reduce duplication, and ensure providers could focus on delivering high-quality, child-centred early learning.

System Transformation

Based on the Modernising Early Childhood Education in Aotearoa New Zealand discussion document (June 2025), the Early Childhood Education ECE regulatory review is aiming to achieve a comprehensive system transformation that repositions regulation as a tool for supporting, rather than hindering, high-quality early learning.

It proposes to:

• Modernise and Simplify the Regulatory Framework: The review seeks to streamline the licensing criteria, removing duplication and unnecessary requirements, and ensuring that the standards are proportionate and easy to understand. A key driver is to reduce the compliance burden on providers while maintaining or enhancing child safety and wellbeing.
• Shift Focus to What Matters: The intention is to ensure that regulation focuses on child learning, health, and safety outcomes—rather than administrative tasks. This includes removing or amending criteria that add little value or are better addressed through guidance.
• Promote Efficiency and Innovation: By simplifying criteria and supporting digitisation, the review aims to create conditions for services to innovate and improve without being constrained by outdated or overly rigid rules.
• Align with Best Practice and Other Reviews: The review incorporates recommendations from the Ministry for Regulation, aligns with health and safety legislation (such as the PCBU responsibilities), and responds to child protection concerns raised in the 2024 Poutasi Report.
• Support Sector Sustainability and Growth: By making regulation clearer and less burdensome, the changes are intended to lower costs, attract new providers, and allow existing services to focus on delivering high-quality learning experiences.

The ECE regulatory review is not just about tweaking existing rules, it is a deliberate transformation of the regulatory system to be more fit-for-purpose, outcome-focused, and enabling. It represents a shift away from prescriptive compliance toward trust-based, professional regulation that supports quality and sustainability in early childhood education.

Putting People First

As the regulatory framework for ECE is modernised, it is essential that the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 remains central to all expectations for service delivery. This legislation clearly defines the responsibilities of the Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU), ensuring that all workplaces, including early learning environments, are safe for both children and staff. Embedding the Act as the foundation for regulatory expectations provides a consistent, enforceable, and well-understood standard of safety, enabling providers to manage risks proactively and with confidence.

However, as the review proposes a shift toward a more “liberated” regulatory environment, one that reduces prescriptive requirements in favour of guidance and professional discretion, it is critical to remain alert to potential risks.

Without clear, mandatory criteria in key areas, there is a danger that safety systems could become uneven or underdeveloped, particularly among less experienced or underresourced providers. To mitigate this, any move away from prescriptive compliance must be balanced with robust, unambiguous guidance and strong accountability mechanisms to ensure that the safety of children and educators is never compromised in the name of flexibility or efficiency.

Clarity around the roles and responsibilities of government agencies is also vital in the context of regulatory reform. As the system moves toward greater flexibility and professional autonomy, it becomes even more important that agencies such as the Ministry of Education, ERO, and WorkSafe have clearly defined mandates and understand how to work alongside providers, rather than imposing top-down compliance models. A collaborative, solutionsfocused approach fosters trust, supports continuous improvement, and ensures that regulation enhances rather than obstructs the delivery of high-quality early learning.

For providers to operate with confidence and consistency, they must be able to rely on government agencies for timely, transparent, and constructive guidance. Role clarity ensures that regulation is applied consistently across the sector, avoids duplication of oversight, and enables more effective, proportionate responses to emerging risks. Ultimately, effective regulation requires a shared commitment to partnership, where agencies and providers work together in the interests of children’s safety, wellbeing, and learning.

Feedback

NZK’s feedback is provided within the context of the broader system transformation outlined in the Modernising Early Childhood Education in Aotearoa New Zealand discussion document (June 2025).

Our submission aligns with the review’s stated goals of simplifying regulation, focusing on outcomes that matter for children, and reducing unnecessary compliance burden.

It is grounded in a commitment to child wellbeing, professional trust, and the centrality of Te Whāriki.

At the same time, our recommendations are framed with a clear understanding of the need to retain essential safeguards particularly the foundational role of the Health and Safety at Work Act, and to ensure that any move toward greater flexibility is supported by robust guidance, accountability, and partnership between government agencies and providers.

Proposed Advice and Guidance

The proposed changes to the licensing criteria are framed as a means to streamline regulatory requirements, reduce bureaucracy, and ease the compliance burden on early learning services. These goals are welcomed, particularly given the increasing operational pressures and administrative load on service providers. However, the success of these changes will ultimately depend on the quality, relevance, and accessibility of the supporting guidance that accompanies them.

Throughout this submission, there is a clear call on the Ministry of Education to support any changes made with robust advice, practical guidance, and well-designed resources. These supports are essential to ensure that services can confidently interpret and implement the updated requirements in a way that upholds quality and compliance.

To ensure that services can implement the revised criteria confidently and consistently, the Ministry must co-construct its guidance, tools, and resources with the sector. Coconstruction ensures that advice reflects the practical realities of service delivery, respects the diversity of service models, and supports the intent of the criteria without being prescriptive or overly rigid. Such collaboration also fosters sector ownership and builds trust in the regulatory framework.

It is essential that the guidance is contemporary, context-sensitive, and sufficiently flexible to accommodate a range of local needs, community contexts, and pedagogical approaches. To be useful, guidance must also be “road tested” with a representative cross-section of services prior to release. This process ensures that tools and templates are not only fit-forpurpose but also practical and easy to implement. Without such validation, there is a risk that services, particularly smaller or isolated ones, may struggle to interpret or meet the new expectations, thereby undermining the intended reduction in compliance burden.

In summary, clear, co-designed, and trialled guidance is not an optional extra, it is essential for the successful implementation of this regulatory reform. It is this partnership approach that will enable the sector to realise the intended benefits of flexibility, efficiency, and improved quality.

Section 2.3 – Centre-Based Early Learning Health and Safety Licensing Criteria

2.3.1 Premises and Storage

The proposed merger of HS1 and HS11 into a single, streamlined criterion reflects a sensible effort to reduce duplication and simplify compliance. However, there are potential risks associated with this change that warrant careful consideration.

By combining hygiene, maintenance, and storage requirements into a broader standard, there is a risk that clarity could be lost, particularly regarding the specific expectations for the hygienic storage of sleep furniture and bedding. This could lead to inconsistent practices across services, especially among less experienced or lower-resourced providers, potentially compromising children’s health and wellbeing.

To mitigate these risks, it will be important that the revised criterion is supported by clear guidance and examples that explicitly outline what compliant practice looks like in relation to both general hygiene and the safe storage of sleep items.

ERO’s auditing approach should also be adapted to ensure this area is not deprioritised under the new, broader standard. Additionally, training and sector communications should emphasise the rationale for the change and reinforce expectations to avoid dilution of current good practice.

2.3.2 Laundering

The proposed amendment to HS2 simplifies the wording and clarifies that laundering may occur either on-site or off-site. However, removing the requirement for a documented procedure introduces potential risks, including inconsistent hygiene standards, reduced accountability, and difficulty verifying compliance.

Without clear procedures, services may unintentionally adopt practices that increase the risk of cross-contamination or illness.

To mitigate these risks while still reducing regulatory burden, it would be prudent to retain a simplified requirement for a written procedure or refer to clear hygiene expectations in accompanying guidance. This ensures consistency across services, supports compliance monitoring, and maintains robust health and safety protections for children and adults.

2.3.3 Emergencies

Merging HS5 into HS7 and updating the emergency plan requirements does help reduce duplication and streamline compliance expectations. However, this consolidation also introduces potential risks. The most significant is that the unique focus of HS5, the clear identification and maintenance of safe assembly areas, could become less visible or deprioritised if it is seen as just one item within a broader emergency planning requirement.

In practice, this could lead to vague or inadequately planned assembly areas, putting children and adults at risk during an actual emergency.

To mitigate these risks, it is essential that the revised HS7 explicitly retains and emphasises the requirement for safe, clearly designated assembly areas outside the building. These areas should be context-specific, easily accessible, and regularly reviewed to account for changes in site layout or occupancy.

Supporting guidance should reinforce this expectation and provide examples of good practice. Additionally, regulatory monitoring should ensure that the inclusion of assembly areas within the emergency plan is not just present but meaningfully implemented. With these safeguards in place, the intent of HS5 can be preserved while simplifying compliance under a consolidated criterion.

2.3.4 Securing Furniture and Hazards

Merging HS6 into HS12 offers a more integrated and holistic approach to risk management by placing all safety-related checks, daily hazard identification, accident analysis, and environmental risks under a single criterion. However, there are potential risks with this consolidation.

The specific and critical requirement to secure heavy furniture, fixtures, and equipment (as outlined in HS6) may be deprioritised or overlooked when it becomes one item within a much broader list of potential hazards. This is particularly concerning given the serious injury risks posed by unsecured furniture during earthquakes or other emergencies.

To mitigate these risks, the revised HS12 must ensure that the requirement to secure heavy furniture is clearly and prominently stated, not just listed among other hazards. Supporting guidance should provide specific expectations around anchoring and regular checks of highrisk items. Additionally, licensing visits and self-review tools should continue to highlight this as a distinct and non-negotiable safety measure.

By embedding clear expectations and maintaining visibility through compliance and monitoring processes, this change can improve efficiency without compromising child safety.

2.3.5 Emergency Drills

Extending the required frequency of emergency drills from every three months to every four months may reduce compliance burden and offer greater flexibility to service providers.

However, this change also carries potential risks particularly the risk of reduced preparedness among staff and children. Longer intervals between drills could lead to decreased familiarity with procedures, slower response times, and increased anxiety during actual emergencies, especially for younger children or new staff who may not have participated in a recent drill.

To mitigate these risks, it is essential that services are encouraged to continue conducting drills more frequently if needed, particularly when there are significant changes in enrolment, staffing, or the physical environment.

Guidance should clearly state that four-monthly drills are the minimum requirement, not the ideal frequency. Services should also ensure that all staff receive induction training on emergency procedures and that drills are well-documented, evaluated, and used to inform improvements in emergency planning. With these safeguards, the change can provide flexibility without undermining safety.

2.3.6 Sleep and Monitoring

Reducing the required frequency of sleep checks from every 5–10 minutes to every 10–15 minutes may ease compliance and reduce administrative burden for providers. However, this change introduces potential risks, particularly in relation to the early detection of medical distress such as choking, febrile seizures, or sudden changes in breathing. Younger children and those with additional health needs may be especially vulnerable if monitoring intervals are extended without careful consideration of individual risk factors.

To mitigate these risks, it is crucial that the revised criterion maintains the requirement for more frequent checks based on individual needs. Services should be supported to develop risk-based sleep monitoring procedures that consider factors such as age, health history, and parental guidance. Clear guidance and training should accompany the regulatory change, emphasising that 10–15 minutes is a maximum interval, not a standard for all children.

Consistent documentation and a strong culture of vigilance remain essential to ensure children’s safety during sleep, even with this more flexible approach.

2.3.7 Hot Water Temperature and Hazards

The proposed amendment to HS14 introduces a practical addition by requiring that any malfunctioning hot water cylinder be inspected and repaired, as necessary. While this aims to clarify maintenance expectations and reduce unnecessary burden, there are potential risks.

The revised wording may be interpreted as reactive rather than preventative focusing only on faults once identified, rather than requiring regular monitoring to ensure consistent water temperatures and early detection of issues.

To mitigate these risks, services should be encouraged through supporting guidance or best practice resources to implement a routine monitoring schedule for hot water cylinder temperatures. This would ensure water remains at or above 60°C to prevent the growth of harmful bacteria such as Legionella.

Guidance should also clarify what constitutes a “malfunction,” outline acceptable timeframes for inspection and repair, and reinforce that health and safety risks associated with water temperature must be actively managed, not just addressed when problems arise.

With these supports in place, the amended criterion can maintain the original intent while improving clarity and reducing compliance burden.

2.3.8 Animals and Hazards

The proposed changes to HS16 provide clearer expectations around safe and hygienic animal handling particularly by including examples such as handwashing and keeping animals separate from food areas. However, there are potential risks with the amended wording, especially the qualification that animals “are able to be restrained if they pose a risk to children.” This could create ambiguity and lead some providers to underestimate or delay action on potential animal-related hazards, particularly where the risk is not immediately visible or where staff are unsure how to assess it.

To mitigate these risks, the criterion should be supported by clear guidance outlining what constitutes a risk, how to assess animal behaviour, and when restraint or removal is appropriate. It should also reinforce the need for active supervision, regular health checks of animals, and safe enclosure practices. Clarifying that the potential for risk, rather than only observed risk, triggers the need for restraint would help maintain a strong safety standard.

With these mitigations, the revised criterion can remain both practical and protective of children’s health and safety.

2.3.9 Excursions and Hazards

The proposed amendment to HS17 provides greater clarity around documentation requirements for excursions, particularly by specifying that parental permission must cover the proposed location and method of travel, and by formalising the requirement for approval by the Person Responsible.. While this strengthens accountability and may support compliance, there are still potential risks.

If the emphasis shifts too heavily toward documentation, services may treat risk assessments and approvals as tick-box exercises, potentially overlooking the dynamic, realtime aspects of ensuring safety during outings. There is also a risk that parents may feel overloaded with information or unclear about the difference between regular and special excursions if the communication is not well managed.

To mitigate these risks, services should be supported to embed meaningful risk assessment practices that are context-specific and reviewed before each outing, even for routine excursions. Accompanying guidance should clarify expectations for what constitutes a regular versus special excursion and how parental communication should be tailored for each. Templates or tools for documenting RAMS processes, parent permissions, and excursion logs can also help ensure consistency without increasing administrative burden.

With these measures in place, the revised criterion can enhance safety and transparency while supporting clearer compliance.

2.3.10 Food and Nutrition

Merging HS21 into HS19 creates a more streamlined criterion covering both food and water provision, which may reduce administrative burden for providers. However, combining these two areas introduces potential risks if the importance of safe and accessible drinking water is diluted within broader nutritional requirements.

Water access is a distinct health and hygiene issue, and if not clearly emphasised, services may inadvertently deprioritise it, particularly where infrastructure or staffing constraints exist.

To mitigate this, the revised criterion should maintain clear and separate wording for drinking water to ensure it is not overshadowed by food requirements. Supporting guidance should reinforce that access to safe, ample drinking water is a non-negotiable health requirement, and include best practice recommendations for ensuring independent access for older children and appropriate support for younger ones.

Regular monitoring through self-review or licensing visits should also explicitly check for both food and water compliance.

With these safeguards in place, the proposed change can effectively reduce duplication while preserving critical protections for children’s health and wellbeing.

2.3.11 Supervision While Eating

The proposed changes to HS22 aim to provide greater clarity and flexibility by defining what supervision entails, specifically allowing adults to be in close proximity rather than seated, and by adjusting how services share Ministry of Health guidance with parents. However, these adjustments carry potential risks.

The more relaxed supervision language may lead to inconsistent interpretation of “close proximity,” potentially compromising a supervising adult’s ability to respond immediately if a child begins choking. Additionally, shifting from a requirement to provide the choking prevention pamphlet to simply informing parents how to access it may reduce the likelihood that all families engage with this critical safety information.

To mitigate these risks, clear guidance should define what constitutes effective supervision emphasising unobstructed line of sight, immediate access, and active engagement during eating times. Services should also be strongly encouraged (even if not required) to provide printed or digital copies of the choking prevention pamphlet at enrolment, especially for families who may face digital access barriers. Ongoing staff training on choking response protocols and routine internal reviews of eating supervision practices will also help ensure safety is not compromised under the more flexible framework.

2.3.12 Room Temperature

The proposed amendment to HS24 introduces practical flexibility by acknowledging that brief fluctuations in room temperature such as when doors or windows are opened are acceptable, as long as the overall environment remains comfortable and does not drop below 18°C for sustained periods.

While this approach reduces unnecessary compliance burden and reflects real-world conditions, it carries the risk that some providers may interpret “brief” or “fluctuating” too loosely. This could result in environments that, while technically compliant, expose children to repeated or prolonged periods of discomfort or cold, particularly in colder regions or poorly insulated buildings.

To mitigate these risks, guidance should define what constitutes a “brief” fluctuation (e.g. a few minutes), and reinforce the expectation that services monitor room temperature regularly throughout the day, not just at start-up. Services should also be encouraged to maintain reliable heating systems and use temperature monitoring devices to ensure consistency. Licensing or review processes could include spot checks and conversations with staff to ensure that temperature standards are understood and met in practice.

These mitigations would help balance flexibility with the need to protect children’s comfort, health, and wellbeing.

2.3.13 First Aid Qualifications – Child Health and Wellbeing

The proposed amendment to HS25 introduces greater flexibility by allowing a temporary reduction in the required ratio of first aid-qualified adults from 1:25 to 1:50 during emergencies, and by recognising midwives as qualified first aiders.

While this may ease staffing pressures and reduce compliance burden in urgent situations, it carries potential risks. Reducing the availability of first aid-qualified adults, even temporarily, could compromise timely response to simultaneous or secondary incidents, especially in larger or more complex services. There’s also a risk that the “temporary” reduction could be misapplied beyond true emergencies, leading to under-coverage during high-risk periods.

To mitigate these risks, the term “emergency” must be clearly defined in guidance, with examples (e.g. evacuations, medical crises, lockdowns) and a strong emphasis that the relaxed ratio is only acceptable for the immediate duration of such events. Services should be required to return to the 1:25 ratio as soon as the emergency is resolved.

Regular training, robust staffing plans, and clear role assignments during emergencies can also help ensure that children continue to receive appropriate care and supervision.

With these mitigations, the proposed change can offer pragmatic flexibility without compromising child health and safety.

2.3.14 Medicine Administration – Child Health and Wellbeing

The proposed amendments to HS28 and the revised Appendix 3 aim to simplify compliance and clarify expectations around medicine administration by clearly distinguishing between short-term (Category i) and ongoing (Category ii) medication use.

This change offers practical benefits such as reducing daily paperwork for long-term conditions and allowing flexibility in parental acknowledgement. However, the proposal also introduces risks, particularly around miscommunication, inconsistent documentation practices, and reduced oversight of medicine administration.

One key risk is that daily parental acknowledgement for Category ii medicines is no longer mandatory, which may lead to outdated authorisations being used or medicine being administered incorrectly if a child’s condition, dosage, or schedule changes.

There’s also the risk of confusion about how frequently parents must renew authorisations, especially for intermittent or as-needed medications (e.g., antihistamines). Furthermore, the allowance for Rongoā Māori preparation by adults at the service, while culturally responsive, could introduce complexity if there is a lack of clarity around preparation, storage, or administration responsibilities.

To mitigate these risks, robust service-level policies and regular staff training on medicine administration should be required, with clear internal checks to ensure consistency between parental authorisation, dosage, and administration records. Services should be encouraged to proactively confirm with parents any ongoing or symptom-based medicines on a regular basis, especially if circumstances change.

For Rongoā Māori, additional guidance and cultural safety protocols should be developed in collaboration with whānau and relevant practitioners to ensure both respect and safety.

Finally, guidance should reinforce that even with reduced documentation frequency, the core responsibility to administer medicine safely and accurately remains unchanged.

With these supports in place, the proposed changes can ease compliance while continuing to uphold children’s health and safety.

2.3.15 Medicine Training – Child Health and Wellbeing

The proposed amendment to HS29 aims to provide greater clarity by explicitly stating that information, training, or instruction for administering medicine can come from a child’s parent, whānau, or a health professional. This more inclusive and flexible wording recognises the role of parents and caregivers as experts in their child’s needs, while also supporting culturally responsive practices, such as the administration of Rongoā Māori.

However, while the intent of the original criterion is maintained, the proposed changes introduce potential risks that need to be carefully managed.

A key risk is the potential variability in the quality and depth of information or training provided, particularly if it comes solely from a parent or whānau member without verification or input from a qualified health professional. In cases where a medication has specific administration requirements, storage protocols, or potential side effects (e.g. EpiPens, insulin), relying on informal instruction alone could result in incorrect or delayed administration. There is also a risk that services may not keep adequate records of the training or instructions received, reducing accountability and making it difficult to verify compliance in the event of an incident.

To mitigate these risks, services should be supported through clear guidance that defines what constitutes sufficient training or instruction, especially for complex or high-risk medications. It should also be recommended that services document the source and content of any instruction provided whether from parents, whānau, or health professionals, and retain this as part of the child’s health record. Where the medicine is associated with a known condition (e.g., asthma, epilepsy, severe allergies), developing an Individual Health Plan in collaboration with a health professional should be considered best practice.

These mitigations will help ensure that the flexibility offered by the amended wording does not come at the expense of consistency, safety, or clarity.

2.3.16 Child Protection

The proposed amendments to HS31 enhance clarity and reinforce child protection obligations by aligning the criterion more explicitly with the Children’s Act 2014 and recommendations from the 2024 Poutasi Report. The addition of a requirement to evaluate how well the child protection policy and procedure works using a real or hypothetical case encourages services to move beyond compliance and critically assess the effectiveness of their approach. However, this change also introduces several risks that need to be carefully mitigated.

A key risk is the potential variability in how services interpret and implement the new evaluation requirement. Without clear guidance, services may complete this step in a superficial or inconsistent manner, undermining the intent of strengthening responsiveness to abuse and neglect. Some services may also struggle with the practical and ethical complexities of evaluating real incidents, particularly where there are privacy concerns or unresolved outcomes. Additionally, smaller or less-resourced services may lack the confidence or capability to develop robust hypothetical scenarios that effectively test their procedures.

To mitigate these risks, the Ministry should provide clear guidance, templates, and examples of what constitutes an effective evaluation, both using real cases (with de-identification and appropriate safeguards) and realistic hypothetical scenarios. Training and professional development should reinforce the purpose of this exercise as a tool for learning, preparedness, and system improvement, rather than just a compliance task. Furthermore, ongoing monitoring should include a review of the quality of policy evaluations to ensure they are meaningful and contribute to a culture of child-centred safeguarding.

With these supports, the revised HS31 has the potential to significantly strengthen child protection practices across the sector, while balancing clarity, accountability, and continuous improvement.

2.3.17 Incident Notification

The proposed amendments to HS34 significantly expand and clarify the types of incidents that must be reported to the Ministry of Education. This change strengthens oversight and aligns with the recommendations of the 2024 Poutasi Report, reinforcing child safety and institutional accountability.

Importantly, the amended criterion goes beyond injury or illness to include serious child protection concerns and high-risk situations such as children leaving the premises unsupervised or being taken by an unauthorised person. However, while these changes are well-intentioned and necessary, they introduce several operational risks for services.

One key risk is the potential for confusion or overreporting if services are unclear about the threshold for “as soon as possible” or are unsure when internal child protection procedures warrant Ministry notification. This could result in inconsistent reporting practices across services and overwhelm both providers and Ministry personnel with low-risk or poorly documented notifications. Conversely, services may delay or fail to report critical incidents due to uncertainty about reporting requirements or fear of punitive responses. Additionally, small or under-resourced services may struggle to compile and submit the required documentation such as investigations and outcome records within expected timeframes, especially during a crisis.

To mitigate these risks, the Ministry should issue comprehensive guidance outlining clear definitions, timeframes, and examples of notifiable incidents, along with a simple notification template to streamline the process.

Services should receive training on these new requirements and be supported to embed incident reporting within their broader health, safety, and child protection frameworks.

Emphasis should be placed on the learning and improvement value of reporting, rather than compliance alone. Ministry staff should also be equipped to provide timely feedback and support to services following a report.

With these supports in place, the amended HS34 will be more likely to deliver on its intent: improving child safety, service responsiveness, and sector-wide transparency.

Section 2.4 – Centre-Based Early Learning Premises and Facilities Licensing Criteria

2.4.1 Design and Layout

The proposed merger of PF1 and PF2 into a single, streamlined criterion simplifies regulatory expectations and reflects the natural interdependence between a service’s physical environment and its capacity to provide safe, engaging, and developmentally appropriate learning experiences.

The revised wording gives services more flexibility to configure their premises to suit their curriculum and community context, which is particularly valuable for diverse early learning settings. However, the broader and less prescriptive language also introduces several potential risks.

One key risk is that, in the absence of more specific guidance, some services, particularly new or under-resourced ones, may misinterpret the expectations for effective supervision and appropriate space configuration. This could result in environments where children’s access to outdoor or active play is unintentionally restricted due to poor visibility or layout constraints. Additionally, without detailed requirements, services may overlook the specific spatial needs of children with diverse abilities or developmental challenges, reducing inclusivity and potentially compromising the quality of learning experiences.

To mitigate these risks, it is essential that the Ministry provide clear supporting guidance and illustrative examples that demonstrate how flexible environments can still meet the intent of the criterion. This could include case studies of well-designed spaces, minimum design considerations for visibility and access, and strategies for accommodating mixed-age groups or children with diverse needs. Licensing assessments should continue to focus not only on physical compliance, but also on how well the layout supports both curriculum delivery and child safety in practice.

With these supports in place, the merged criterion can promote innovation while safeguarding the core expectations of safety, supervision, and equitable access to meaningful play and learning.

2.4.2 Variety of Equipment

The proposed changes to PF4 improve clarity by explicitly linking the provision of equipment and materials to children’s developmental stages, abilities, and interests. This shift from a focus on quantity and appropriateness to one that includes timely access and emerging interests better aligns with the principles of responsive, child-led learning. It also encourages services to be more intentional in their selection and rotation of resources to maintain engagement and challenge. However, the revised wording does introduce potential risks if not supported by clear guidance.

One key risk is that the broader and more subjective language such as “timely access” and “emerging interests” could be interpreted inconsistently across services. This may lead to variability in the quality and sufficiency of learning resources, particularly in lower-resourced services or those with high child-to-adult ratios.

Without clearer expectations or examples, some services may struggle to demonstrate compliance, especially if they do not have established practices for regularly reviewing and updating their equipment based on children’s evolving needs.

To mitigate these risks, the Ministry should develop guidance that unpacks the intent of the revised criterion with practical strategies such as regular resource audits, child interest mapping, and examples of age-appropriate and inclusive materials. Licensing assessors should also be trained to evaluate not just the presence of equipment, but how it is used to foster curiosity, learning, and developmental progression.

With this support, the revised PF4 can both enhance practice and reduce ambiguity, helping services meet the diverse and changing needs of their Tamariki.

2.4.3 Adult Workspace

The proposed amendment to PF9 clarifies that adult workspaces must be located where children are not present, thereby reinforcing the need for privacy, concentration, and professional boundaries in adult tasks such as breaks, meetings, and curriculum planning.

This clarification supports good practice by recognising the importance of dedicated, distraction-free environments for teachers’ wellbeing and professional responsibilities.

However, it also introduces practical risks and implementation challenges, particularly for smaller or space-constrained services.

The primary risk is that the revised requirement may be difficult to implement for services operating in older buildings, shared facilities, or compact urban settings, where creating a completely child-free area may not be feasible without costly modifications. If not accompanied by flexibility or transitional support, the change could unintentionally place undue compliance pressure on these services or lead to tokenistic solutions that don’t genuinely improve adult working conditions.

To mitigate these risks, the Ministry should provide clear guidance on what constitutes a suitable adult workspace including examples of acceptable solutions in limited-space environments (e.g. scheduled use of shared rooms, curtained-off spaces, or portable storage and planning units).

Transitional allowances or case-by-case discretion during licensing assessments may also be necessary to support equity in implementation. Additionally, the Ministry should frame this requirement as part of a broader commitment to teacher wellbeing and professional integrity, encouraging services to view it not as a burden but as an investment in quality teaching and learning.

2.4.4 Lighting, Ventilation, Heating, and Acoustic Materials

The proposed amendments to PF12 aim to simplify compliance by integrating general environmental conditions: lighting, ventilation, temperature, and noise control into one criterion, while removing the specific 18°C temperature threshold to avoid duplication with HS24. While this consolidated and less prescriptive approach may reduce redundancy and offer flexibility, it also introduces several risks related to the consistency and adequacy of environmental standards across services.

The most significant risk is the removal of the explicit minimum temperature requirement, which may lead some providers to under-prioritise heating adequacy particularly in colder regions or older buildings. The phrase “comfortable room temperature” is inherently subjective and may be interpreted differently across services, potentially leading to inconsistent environments that compromise children’s health, comfort, or ability to learn.

Similarly, terms such as “sufficient fresh air” and “if necessary” regarding acoustic materials may be seen as optional rather than essential unless clearly explained.

To mitigate these risks, the Ministry should ensure strong cross-referencing between PF12 and HS24 to reinforce the minimum temperature expectation of 18°C, even if not repeated in this criterion.

Supporting guidance should define what “comfortable” and “sufficient” mean in practice, using examples and benchmarks (e.g. air exchange rates, recommended lux levels for lighting, temperature bands by season). Services should also be encouraged to assess their environments regularly using simple tools or checklists to ensure that conditions consistently support children’s wellbeing and learning.

Licensing officers should evaluate how environmental features function in practice, not just whether they exist on paper.

These mitigations will ensure that the intent of PF12, creating safe, healthy, and learningconducive spaces is upheld while offering services flexibility in how they meet it.

2.4.5 Outdoor Activity Space

The proposed amendments to PF13 introduce greater flexibility by clarifying that while outdoor space should be easily and safely accessed from indoor areas, limiting access at times may be appropriate.

This update acknowledges practical realities, such as severe weather or staffing constraints, and may reduce unnecessary compliance anxiety. However, this added flexibility carries potential risks that need careful consideration to avoid unintended consequences for children’s access to outdoor learning and play.

The most significant risk is that services may overuse the justification to limit access for convenience, resourcing, or perceived safety resulting in reduced outdoor experiences for children. Outdoor play is critical for children’s physical, emotional, and cognitive development, and over-restriction could undermine the curriculum and children’s wellbeing.

There is also a risk that vague wording may lead to inconsistencies in how services interpret and apply the criterion, making it harder for licensing assessors to evaluate compliance.

To mitigate these risks, guidance should clarify that restricting access to outdoor spaces should be the exception, not the norm, and only applied when justified by specific, temporary conditions (e.g. health and safety concerns).

The Ministry should encourage services to have a policy or rationale in place when outdoor access is limited, and ensure that children have regular and meaningful opportunities for outdoor play each day.

Licensing visits should include observation and discussion about how services manage outdoor access and how decisions are made in the interests of children’s learning and wellbeing.

With these mitigations, the revised PF13 can support practical implementation without compromising the fundamental importance of outdoor play in early childhood education.

2.4.6 Infant Toddler Safe Space

The proposed amendment to PF14 introduces important clarification: while services must provide safe and comfortable spaces for non-walking children, this does not require complete separation from older, more mobile children. This clarification may ease compliance concerns and better align with inclusive, mixed-age philosophies commonly seen in early childhood education. It supports opportunities for tuakana–teina relationships and whanaungatanga, while still affirming the need to protect infants and toddlers from unintentional harm.

However, the revised wording also introduces several potential risks. Without clear guidance, some services may underestimate the need for proactive environmental design and supervision strategies to ensure that infants and toddlers remain safe when moving among older children.

There is a risk that the protection requirement may be weakened in practice, particularly in busy or understaffed environments where it is harder to closely monitor children’s interactions. Additionally, services may vary widely in how they interpret what constitutes an adequately “safe and comfortable” space for non-walking children.

To mitigate these risks, the Ministry should provide clear guidance and examples of how services can create flexible, shared environments that still meet safety requirements, such as using soft barriers, separate zones within shared spaces, or having adult-to-child ratios adjusted to support close supervision.

Licensing officers should assess not only whether protective spaces are available, but also how they are used in practice to balance developmental opportunities and safety.

With these supports in place, the proposed change can encourage inclusive practice without compromising the wellbeing of Aotearoa’s youngest Tamariki.

2.4.7 Food Hygiene

The proposed merger of HS20 (Food Hygiene) and PF16 (Kitchen Facilities) creates a single, clearer standard for services not registered under National Programme 2 (NP2) of the Food Act 2014. This consolidation supports alignment with Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) guidance and may reduce confusion for providers by clearly distinguishing between those subject to NP2 and those who must meet the outlined requirements directly. It also modernises food safety expectations by shifting the required cold storage temperature from 4°C to 5°C, consistent with current MPI standards.

However, several potential risks arise from this change. First, services not registered under NP2 may misinterpret or inadequately apply the hygiene and food safety requirements if they are unfamiliar with MPI expectations or lack sufficient training in food handling.

There is also a risk that some services may mistakenly assume they are exempt from compliance due to unclear understanding of their NP2 registration status. Additionally, services with limited resources or shared facilities may struggle to meet the full set of equipment and storage requirements, particularly where space, plumbing, or pest control measures are suboptimal.

To mitigate these risks, the Ministry of Education should provide clear guidance to help services determine their NP2 status, including a decision tool or checklist. Non-NP2 services should receive tailored resources outlining minimum expectations for hygienic food preparation, temperature control, and equipment maintenance, aligned with MPI’s safe food handling practices.

Licensing assessors should be equipped to evaluate compliance through observation and discussion, with flexibility for context-appropriate solutions in small or rural services.

Additionally, encouraging regular internal audits and staff training on food hygiene will help ensure consistent implementation.

With these supports, the revised criterion can enhance clarity, reduce regulatory duplication, and uphold high food safety standards for Tamariki.

2.4.8 Toilets

The proposed consolidation of PF18, PF20, and PF22 into a single criterion offers a more streamlined approach to toilet and hygiene-related requirements. By grouping the number, location, accessibility, and privacy of toilet facilities under one heading, the change reduces duplication and clarifies that all toilet-related expectations must be met collectively. This should help services understand and plan for toilet provision more holistically, particularly in the design and renovation of early childhood environments. However, the change also brings several potential risks.

One key risk is that merging these criteria could blur the lines of responsibility between the Ministry of Education and Health New Zealand, particularly if providers are unclear about which aspects fall under each agency’s purview. This could lead to incomplete compliance checks or the assumption that certain requirements such as privacy or hygiene-related placement are optional or secondary. Additionally, the broad wording may result in inconsistent interpretations of what constitutes adequate separation between toilets and food or play areas, or what qualifies as providing a “sense of privacy,” especially in mixed-age or open-plan settings.

To mitigate these risks, it is essential that the Ministry issue clear, practical guidance that breaks down the components of the new merged criterion. This guidance should include minimum expectations for privacy design (e.g. partial screens, partitions), examples of appropriate toilet-to-child ratios in practice, and illustrations of safe separation between toilets and food/play areas.

Joint communication from the Ministry and Health New Zealand should clarify the ongoing roles and responsibilities of each agency in assessing compliance.

Licensing assessors should be trained to evaluate all dimensions of the merged criterion, including the more subjective elements like privacy and accessibility, to ensure consistent enforcement.

With these mitigations in place, the revised criterion can both reduce complexity and uphold critical standards of hygiene, dignity, and child wellbeing.

2.4.9 Handwashing Facilities

The proposed merger of PF19, PF20, and PF21 into a single criterion creates a more streamlined and user-friendly standard for handwashing and drying facilities. By combining water access, hygiene, separation, and independence into one requirement, the change helps providers see the full picture of what hygienic toileting and handwashing facilities should include. This integration may reduce confusion and compliance fatigue by consolidating overlapping requirements into a single, practical standard. However, several key risks arise from this change, particularly if responsibilities and expectations are not clearly communicated.

One major risk is ambiguity around the role of Health New Zealand. Since the merged criterion includes elements previously assessed by both the Ministry of Education and Health New Zealand, there is potential for gaps in oversight or misunderstandings among services about who enforces what.

Another risk lies in the broad phrasing, terms like “appropriate” and “safe and easy to access” can be interpreted inconsistently across services, potentially leading to variability in hygiene standards and the adequacy of handwashing provisions, especially in busy or highenrolment environments.

To mitigate these risks, the Ministry of Education should publish detailed guidance explaining:

• minimum standards for the number and type of handwashing and drying facilities
• clear definitions of “appropriate” facilities, including examples of accessible setups for both independently toileting and supported children
• how separation from play and food areas can be practically implemented in different service layouts
• a breakdown of which agency (Ministry or Health New Zealand) is responsible for assessing each part of the merged requirement.

In addition, joint communication from the two agencies and aligned messaging in licensing handbooks and review tools will be crucial to avoiding confusion.

Licensing assessors should be trained to evaluate all components of the merged criterion holistically, ensuring services maintain consistent, child-friendly, and infection-minimising hygiene practices.

With these supports in place, the merged criterion has the potential to improve both clarity and health outcomes across the ECE sector.

2.4.10 Adult Toilet and Handwashing

The proposed amendment to PF23 strengthens the original criterion by explicitly including handwashing and drying facilities, aligning adult sanitary provision with broader infection prevention measures.

This amendment reinforces the importance of maintaining appropriate and hygienic toilet facilities for adults, particularly in early childhood services operating in older buildings or converted spaces, which may not fall under the current provisions of the Building Act.

Retaining this criterion also supports the dignity, wellbeing, and professionalism of teaching staff and visiting whānau.

However, several risks remain if the criterion is not properly communicated or supported.

One risk is that the term “suitable for adults” remains undefined, which may result in variable interpretations about accessibility, hygiene standards, or shared use with children.

In some services, particularly those with limited space, there is a risk that adult toilet facilities could be shared with children or compromised in cleanliness, potentially undermining infection control efforts and staff privacy.

Another risk is that, if this requirement is removed altogether (as originally recommended), adult needs and hygiene infrastructure could be deprioritised, especially during building alterations or space constraints.

To mitigate these risks, clear guidance should accompany the amended criterion outlining what constitutes a “suitable” adult toilet, such as separate from children’s facilities, adequate in number based on staff size, and easily accessible throughout the day.

Services should be encouraged to consider staff dignity and occupational health needs in their design and refurbishment plans.

Licensing assessors should verify that facilities meet hygiene, privacy, and functional standards.

With these measures, the amended PF23 can remain a vital yet low-burden safeguard for adult health, hygiene, and professionalism within early learning environments.

2.4.11 Tempering Valve

The proposed removal of PF24 reflects a shift toward outcome-based regulation by eliminating specific installation requirements (e.g. tempering valves) and relying instead on the performance standard already set out in HS13, that hot water accessible to children must be no higher than 40°C and comfortable to use.

This approach offers greater flexibility for services to choose how they meet the temperature safety requirement and may reduce compliance burden, particularly in cases where newer or alternative technologies are in place to regulate water temperature.

However, removing PF24 introduces some key risks.

Without explicit reference to a tempering valve or a similarly accurate control mechanism, some services may rely on inconsistent or informal methods to regulate hot water temperature, such as manual adjustment of the hot water cylinder or ad hoc mixing taps.

This increases the risk of hot water temperatures fluctuating above safe levels, particularly in older facilities or where water systems are shared across multiple areas. There is also a risk that the removal of PF24 may cause confusion about what constitutes an “accurate means” of temperature control, especially during installation, maintenance, or renovations.

To mitigate these risks, HS13 should be accompanied by clear guidance stating that while a tempering valve is not explicitly required, services must be able to demonstrate reliable, verifiable methods for limiting water temperature at taps children can access. This guidance should also include best practice recommendations (such as regular temperature monitoring and maintenance schedules).

Licensing assessors should be encouraged to verify not only the temperature itself but the means by which it is maintained.

With these safeguards in place, the removal of PF24 can support regulatory flexibility while ensuring children’s health and safety remains protected.

2.4.12 First Aid Kit

The proposed amendment to PF28 strengthens the existing requirement by expanding the focus from simply having a compliant first aid kit to ensuring it remains well-stocked, regularly reviewed, and functional. This shift from a static compliance requirement to a dynamic system of maintenance supports improved health and safety outcomes for both children and adults. By requiring services to implement a system for monitoring and replenishing the kit, the criterion recognises the practical realities of first aid use in early childhood settings and helps ensure readiness during emergencies.

However, there are some potential risks associated with this change. The requirement to establish a review and restocking system may be interpreted inconsistently across services, especially where responsibilities for health and safety checks are not clearly assigned.

Without clear expectations around the frequency and process for checks, there is a risk that first aid kits may still become outdated or incomplete, despite the new wording. Smaller services or those with limited staffing may also see this as an added administrative burden unless supported with practical tools.

To mitigate these risks, the Ministry should provide simple, standardised templates or checklists to guide services in setting up their first aid kit review system. Clear guidance should recommend a minimum review frequency (e.g. monthly) and identify key items that should always be included, along with best-before tracking for time-sensitive materials like saline, antiseptics, or medications.

Licensing assessors should be trained to verify not only the presence of a first aid kit but the documentation and effectiveness of the service’s monitoring system.

With these supports, the revised PF28 can significantly improve emergency preparedness while remaining practical and achievable across a range of early learning settings.

2.4.13 Design of Sleep Provisions

The proposed merger of PF29 and HS10 into a single criterion brings together design and arrangement requirements for sleep furniture, offering greater clarity and reducing duplication. The revised wording sets out clear expectations for both the physical safety of sleep items (e.g. size and design for safe sleep) and their spatial arrangement to allow airflow, adult access, and safe movement as children wake. This integrated approach is logical and may ease compliance by presenting all sleep-related expectations in one place, which is particularly helpful for new or expanding services.

However, this consolidation also introduces some potential risks. One key concern is that the broader, more flexible language may lead to inconsistent interpretations, particularly around what constitutes “sufficient air movement” or “safe” waking spaces. Services with limited room or higher enrolments may feel pressure to maximise space, leading to tighter arrangements that compromise ventilation or staff accessibility.

Additionally, the absence of reference to specific measurements (e.g. minimum spacing distances) may make it harder for services to objectively assess compliance, or for licensing staff to consistently evaluate whether arrangements meet the intent of the criterion.

To mitigate these risks, the Ministry should issue accompanying guidance that provides measurable examples of good practice (e.g. suggested spacing distances, diagrams of safe layout options) without being overly prescriptive. This guidance should also clarify expectations for different sleep furniture types, including cots, floor mats, or stretchers, and include considerations for mixed-age environments.

Licensing assessors should be trained to evaluate not just the presence of suitable furniture, but how its use in context supports children’s health, safety, and independence.

With these supports, the revised criterion can offer clarity, flexibility, and strong protection for children’s wellbeing during sleep.

2.4.14 Mattress Coverings

The proposed merger of PF30 and PF31 into a single, consolidated criterion provides a clearer and more streamlined standard for sleep hygiene and safety. By combining requirements for individual bedding and mattress coverings, the amendment reduces regulatory fragmentation and aligns well with the practical realities of managing shared sleep environments. It maintains a strong focus on infection control, warmth, and safety particularly the need for non-porous, easy-to-clean mattress surfaces and bedding that minimises the risk of suffocation.

However, the integration of these requirements also introduces some risks. The broader wording may lead to varied interpretations of what constitutes “clean” or “adequate” bedding and how frequently it must be laundered, especially in high-turnover or resourcelimited services.

There is also a risk that services may not fully understand that all shared sleep surfaces, regardless of type, must meet non-porous or disposable hygiene standards. Additionally, combining hygiene and warmth-related requirements could result in one area (typically bedding hygiene) receiving more attention than the other, leading to inconsistencies in implementation.

To mitigate these risks, the Ministry should provide practical guidance with specific expectations, for example:

• minimum laundering frequency (e.g., daily for shared bedding or between uses)
• clear examples of compliant mattress coverings
• advice on safe and hygienic storage of bedding
• clarification of the roles of Health New Zealand and Ministry of Education in checking hygiene and safety during licensing or reviews.

Visual aids or checklists could further support services in maintaining compliance without increasing administrative burden.

With these supports in place, the merged criterion can enhance clarity, reduce duplication, and uphold essential sleep hygiene and safety standards for Tamariki across all early learning settings.

2.4.15 Sessional Services Only – Over 2 Sleep Space

The proposed amendment to PF32 provides clearer, more concise expectations for sessional services in relation to sleep or rest provision for children aged 2 and over. The removal of the word “couch” and the focus on dedicated sleep furniture such as beds, stretchers, or mattresses helps reinforce appropriate sleep safety practices, especially in environments where children may still require rest despite the shorter session length. This clearer, simplified wording supports easier compliance and consistency in implementation.

However, a key risk is that the term “if necessary” could be interpreted too loosely, potentially leading some services to neglect providing any rest space unless a child visibly falls asleep. This may disadvantage children who need quiet or rest time but are not overtly tired. There is also a risk that removing the word “couch” could create confusion for services that have previously relied on them for brief naps or rest, especially in small or rural sessional settings with limited resources.

To mitigate these risks, the Ministry should provide clear guidance on:

• the types of rest or sleep spaces considered appropriate in sessional services (e.g., low beds, floor mats with bedding, or soft rest areas)
• when rest opportunities should be offered, even if sleep is not routinely expected
• safe use of existing soft furnishings that meet hygiene and supervision requirements, particularly in low-risk, short-duration situations.

Reinforcing the importance of flexibility while maintaining safe and comfortable conditions for all children will ensure that the amended criterion remains both practical and childcentred.

With these mitigations in place, the revised PF32 can support consistent standards without imposing unnecessary burden on sessional services.

2.4.16 All-Day Services Only – Over 2 Sleep Space

The proposed merger of PF33 and PF34 into a single, consolidated criterion for all-day services clarifies and simplifies expectations regarding sleep and rest for children aged 2 and over. By combining space and furniture requirements into one criterion, the change reduces regulatory fragmentation and makes it easier for services to understand their responsibilities.

The removal of “cots” from the list of sleep furniture aligns with developmental best practice, reflecting that most children over 2 are increasingly independent and more likely to use stretchers, mattresses, or low beds.

However, this consolidation also introduces potential risks. The removal of specific references to cots may lead some services to prematurely transition younger two-year-olds to less secure or developmentally inappropriate sleep furniture, especially in mixed-age settings. Without clear guidance, services may also misinterpret the phrase “reasonable period each day,” resulting in inconsistencies in how long rest or sleep is made available, or whether it is truly restful, depending on staffing, space, or philosophical approach.

Additionally, the flexibility around shared sleep and activity space could result in environments where children who are resting are disrupted by ongoing play if alternative spaces are not well-managed.

To mitigate these risks, the Ministry should issue guidance that includes:

• clear expectations for age-appropriate sleep furniture, acknowledging that some two-year-olds may still need cots based on their individual development
• definitions or examples of what constitutes a “reasonable period” of rest in an all-day setting
• practical examples of how services can create separate zones or use partitions in shared spaces to ensure restful conditions without limiting play for other children.

Licensing assessments should include observation of how services balance active and rest needs, and how they determine appropriate furniture based on each child’s stage rather than simply their age.

With these supports, the merged criterion can enhance clarity and responsiveness while maintaining children’s safety, wellbeing, and autonomy.

2.4.17 Sessional Services Only – Under 2 Sleep Space

The proposed merger of PF35 and PF36 into a single, unified criterion provides greater clarity and simplifies compliance by combining sleep space and sleep furniture requirements for sessional services catering to children under 2 years of age.

This approach aligns well with the developmental needs of infants, ensuring that both the environmental conditions for restful sleep and the availability of appropriate furniture are considered together. It also supports services by reducing the number of separate rules to follow, which is particularly helpful for smaller, part-day providers.

However, this change introduces several risks if not well supported. First, the broad phrasing of the environmental design elements such as “minimise fluctuations in temperature, noise, and lighting” could lead to variable interpretations. Without specific guidance or benchmarks, some services may fail to provide an adequately restful environment, particularly in busy or shared spaces.

Additionally, while the 1:5 ratio of sleep items is retained, the removal of explicit references to cots (as the most developmentally appropriate furniture for many under-2s) may result in services choosing less suitable sleep options like stretchers or floor mats for very young children, compromising safety and sleep quality.

To mitigate these risks:

• the Ministry should publish clear guidance reinforcing best practices for sleep environments, including acceptable temperature ranges, noise reduction strategies, and lighting control measures
• the guidance should also recommend that cots remain the standard for most children under 2, especially non-walkers or infants under 12–18 months, even if other options are technically compliant
• Licensing officers should be trained to assess both the quality of the sleep space and the appropriateness of sleep furniture relative to children’s developmental stages
• services should be encouraged to review their under-2 sleep policies regularly and consult with whānau about each child’s individual sleep needs and routines.

With these supports in place, the merged criterion can successfully balance regulatory simplicity with the essential protections needed to safeguard the wellbeing of pēpi in sessional care environments.

2.4.18 All-Day Services – Under 2 Sleep Space

The proposed merger of PF37 and PF38 into a single, consolidated criterion provides a clearer and more efficient framework for all-day services to manage sleep provisions for children under 2 years of age. By bringing together environmental design requirements and the furniture-to-child ratio, this change simplifies compliance and aligns with practical operational considerations.

The retention of the 1:2 ratio of sleep items maintains a high standard of care and ensures that infants and toddlers in all-day settings have predictable access to individual sleep spaces when needed.

However, this simplification also introduces several risks. The broader wording, particularly the flexibility around furniture types (e.g. “cots, beds, stretchers, or mattresses”), may result in inappropriate sleep surface choices for very young or non-mobile children. While the 1:2 ratio is sound, it could be undermined if services substitute cots with less developmentally appropriate options, such as stretchers or mats, without considering the child’s mobility and safety needs.

Furthermore, the absence of specific detail about what constitutes “minimised fluctuations” in temperature, lighting, and noise could result in environments that fall short of optimal sleep conditions, particularly in busy, multi-use spaces.

To mitigate these risks:

• guidance should strongly recommend cots as the default sleep furniture for children under 2, especially for infants who are not yet able to stand or move safely on their own
• the Ministry should issue clear examples and minimum expectations for environmental design features that reduce noise, control light levels, and maintain consistent temperature
• services should be supported with layout planning tools or sample floorplans showing how designated sleep areas can be integrated while ensuring supervision and separation from busy activity zones
• licensing assessments should evaluate not only compliance with ratios and presence of sleep space, but also the developmental appropriateness and environmental quality of sleep provision.

With these mitigations in place, the merged criterion can enhance clarity and efficiency without compromising the health, safety, or wellbeing of Aotearoa’s youngest Tamariki in allday early learning settings.

Section 2.5 – Centre-Based Early Learning Governance, Management, and Administration Licensing Criteria

2.5.1 Display of Information

The proposed amendment to GMA1 significantly simplifies the display requirements for early learning services by focusing only on the current licence certificate and contact details for a designated person responsible for handling parent, whānau, or visitor inquiries and complaints. While this reduction in mandatory displays may ease administrative burden and improve visual clarity within service foyers, it also introduces important risks that could impact transparency and parent engagement.

One key risk is that removing the requirement to display the Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations 2008, Licensing Criteria, and the qualifications of teaching staff may reduce parents’ ability to easily access critical regulatory and accountability information.

Displaying this information prominently not only reassures families of a service’s compliance and professionalism, but also supports informed engagement and trust. By relocating these requirements to GMA2 (presumably under documentation or information access provisions), there is a risk that parents and whānau may no longer know these resources are available or feel confident asking to view them.

To mitigate these risks:

• the Ministry should ensure GMA2 explicitly requires services to make the Regulations, Licensing Criteria, and staff qualification details readily available on request, and that parents are informed of this right through enrolment materials or signage
• services could be encouraged (but not required) to continue displaying this information in common areas where space and context allow, reinforcing transparency without mandating it
• Licensing assessors should verify not just that the required contact information is posted, but that the service has clear processes for handling inquiries and complaints, and that families know how to access key regulatory information when needed.

With these mitigations, the simplified GMA1 can reduce compliance complexity while preserving the intent of transparency, accountability, and partnership with families in early childhood education settings.

2.5.2 Parent Access to Information

The proposed merger of GMA2 and GMA3 into a single, consolidated criterion is a practical step toward reducing duplication and simplifying the regulatory framework. By combining access to operational, financial, and engagement information into one list, the revised criterion provides a clearer picture of what early learning services must make available to parents and whānau. Allowing for both digital and written formats offers flexibility and supports services in using communication methods that suit their communities.

However, this simplification also introduces a few key risks. First, the breadth of information now covered in one criterion may dilute the visibility and perceived importance of certain elements such as changes to licence status or how parents can participate in governance or programme planning. Second, while flexibility in format is positive, it may unintentionally lead to inequities in access particularly for parents who face digital barriers (e.g. limited internet access or literacy challenges). There is also a risk that, without clear expectations, some services may provide information passively (e.g. through an online portal) rather than actively communicating important updates or opportunities for engagement.

To mitigate these risks:

• the Ministry should issue guidance specifying minimum standards for communication, including when and how services must proactively inform parents (e.g. about licence changes, planned reviews, or funding use)
• services should be encouraged to routinely check how families prefer to receive information and ensure accessibility, particularly for those with limited digital access or language barriers
• Licensing assessors should confirm not only that the information is technically available, but that it is communicated in a timely, culturally appropriate, and userfriendly way
• where possible, templates or sample notices could be developed to support consistency in areas like complaint procedures, fee explanations, or review consultations.

With these supports, the merged criterion can streamline compliance while still ensuring parents and whānau are informed, involved, and empowered to engage in their child’s early learning experience.

2.5.4 Parent Involvement

The proposed amendment to GMA4 retains the intent of encouraging parent and educator involvement in the development and review of service operational documents, while offering greater flexibility by explicitly allowing evidence to be provided in either written or digital format.

This supports more inclusive and accessible engagement processes, particularly for services that use digital platforms for communication and documentation. The change also maintains a clear focus on whānau partnership, aligning with Te Whāriki’s emphasis on collaborative relationships between families and early learning services.

However, there are risks associated with this change especially in light of the Ministry for Regulation’s initial recommendation to remove the criterion entirely. The most significant risk is that, by softening the requirement and signalling that parent involvement relates more to quality than minimum standards, services may deprioritise engagement with parents and educators in governance and decision-making. This could result in more topdown operational practices, reducing responsiveness to family needs and diminishing trust, particularly in diverse or high-needs communities.

To mitigate these risks:

• the Ministry should retain GMA4 as a regulatory criterion rather than relegating it to guidance only, reinforcing that family and staff voice is a minimum expectation, not an optional quality add-on
• clear guidance should be provided on what constitutes “opportunities to contribute”—including examples such as surveys, hui, digital feedback forms, or consultation meetings—so services understand the range of valid engagement methods
• Licensing assessors should verify that consultation processes are active and meaningful (not just tokenistic), and that services can demonstrate how feedback has informed reviews or updates to philosophy, policies, or procedures.

By retaining the criterion with the proposed flexibility, and supporting it through meaningful guidance and oversight, the Ministry can uphold a core principle of early childhood education: genuine partnership with whānau and Kaiako in shaping the learning environment.

2.5.5 Philosophy Statement

The proposed removal of GMA5 reflects the Ministry for Regulation’s position that a philosophy statement falls outside the scope of minimum regulatory standards and instead relates to quality practice. While this may appear to reduce compliance burden, the removal of GMA5 carries significant risks given the foundational role a philosophy plays in guiding the values, pedagogy, and operations of early learning services.

One key risk is that, without a regulatory requirement to maintain a written philosophy, some services, particularly those under new management, undergoing rapid change, or with limited governance experience, may operate without a clearly articulated set of beliefs and values. This could result in inconsistent practice, misalignment with Te Whāriki, and weakened professional identity among staff.

A missing or outdated philosophy also reduces transparency for parents and whānau, who often look to a service’s philosophy to understand its approach to learning, care, culture, and community engagement.

Another risk is the loss of an explicit link between daily practice and the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, inclusion, and holistic child development, all of which are typically addressed in service philosophies. While Regulation 47 still requires services to implement a curriculum consistent with Te Whāriki, the absence of a guiding philosophy may diminish intentionality in curriculum planning and reflection.

To mitigate these risks:

• if GMA5 is removed, guidance should strongly recommend that all services develop and regularly review a written philosophy as a best-practice expectation, especially during licensing, review, and professional development processes
• the Ministry should provide templates or exemplars to support services in articulating and reviewing their philosophy, particularly those operating in diverse cultural contexts or under network governance models
• Licensing assessors and ERO reviewers should continue to consider the presence and use of a philosophy as part of broader curriculum and quality evaluation, even if it is not a stand-alone regulatory requirement.

While removing GMA5 may simplify the licensing framework, retaining a clear and intentional focus on philosophy through guidance, tools, and evaluation frameworks is essential to maintaining coherence, quality, and cultural responsiveness in early learning services.

2.5.6 Self-Review and Internal Evaluation

The proposed amendment to GMA6 simplifies the requirement for self-review and internal evaluation by reframing it as an “ongoing review process” focused on operational policies and practices. While this may reduce confusion and streamline compliance, it introduces several risks that require careful mitigation.

One significant risk is the potential loss of intentionality and depth in evaluative practice.

The current reference to “self-review and internal evaluation” reflects established terminology within the early childhood sector, aligning with the evaluative culture promoted by Te Whāriki and ERO. Removing this language may lead some services to adopt a more superficial or compliance-focused approach, reducing opportunities for critical reflection and quality improvement in teaching, learning, and service delivery.

Another concern is that the change could weaken accountability to continuous improvement and diminish responsiveness to the needs of Tamariki, whānau, and communities. The existing requirement encourages services to link their review processes to the former National Education and Learning Priorities (NELP), fostering alignment with national goals around equity and inclusion. Diluting this expectation may result in less structured engagement with those priorities.

The broader and less defined language may also present challenges for new or lessexperienced services, which might struggle to understand what is required or how to implement a robust review process. Without clear references to reviewing curriculum, policies, and philosophy, and without expectations around frequency or documentation, services may overlook key components of quality assurance.

To mitigate these risks, it will be important to provide detailed guidance that clarifies the intent of the amended criterion. This should include examples, templates, and links to resources such as the former NELP, and ERO indicators. Retaining an expectation for documented outcomes, whether written or digital, will also help ensure that services engage meaningfully in reflective practice.

Embedding review practice into professional learning and governance training will support the sector to maintain a culture of continuous improvement, even under a revised regulatory framework.

2.5.7 Human Resource Management

Removing GMA7 from the licensing criteria poses several potential risks, particularly around clarity, consistency, and accountability in human resource (HR) management within ECE services. While the Ministry’s intent is to reduce duplication and shift some quality-related expectations into guidance materials, there is a risk that services may deprioritise or inconsistently apply critical HR practices without a clear regulatory anchor.

GMA7 currently provides a structured and transparent benchmark for HR systems, including recruitment, induction, appraisal, professional development, and disciplinary processes.

These are foundational to ensuring a safe, effective, and professionally supported workforce.

Removing this criterion could lead to variable standards across services, particularly among newer or less experienced providers who may lack robust systems or awareness of best practice.

Another key risk is reduced visibility and enforceability of staff-related obligations. Although regulations 47(1)(e) and 56 continue to apply, these are higher-level provisions and may not provide sufficient detail or clarity for practical implementation.

In the absence of GMA7, the burden shifts to services to interpret what constitutes “suitable” HR practices, which could undermine quality and expose Tamariki and staff to avoidable risks including inconsistent employment practices, poor induction, and lack of performance oversight.

To mitigate these risks, any removal of GMA7 must be accompanied by clear, accessible, and detailed guidance for service providers, outlining expectations around recruitment, induction, appraisal, and disciplinary processes. Professional development opportunities and sector-wide tools should reinforce these practices, and ERO and the Ministry should monitor for any gaps in implementation.

Further, licensing assessment processes should continue to assess HR systems to ensure staff are well-supported, children are safe, and legal obligations are being met, even in the absence of a standalone criterion.

2.5.8 Annual Plan

The proposed change to GMA8 limiting the requirement for an annual plan to new or probationary applicants reduces compliance obligations for established services. However, this amendment introduces several potential risks, particularly in terms of continuity, accountability, and proactive service management across the sector.

One key risk is the loss of a consistent planning mechanism for all services. Annual planning plays a vital role in ensuring that operational goals, service improvement initiatives, and responses to the national priorities for education are structured, reviewed, and implemented effectively. Removing this requirement for established providers may lead to reduced visibility of how services intend to develop, address challenges, or maintain quality over time, particularly in smaller or less experienced services that may lack robust governance or evaluation frameworks.

Another concern is the potential variability in how new and existing services manage risk and implement long-term improvements. Without a mandated planning tool, there is a risk that services may become reactive rather than strategic, with fewer mechanisms in place to document accountability for key tasks or ensure alignment with strategic priorities. This could result in uneven service quality and missed opportunities for improvement, particularly if planning is not embedded in the organisation’s culture.

To mitigate these risks, the Ministry could include strong guidance and sector support materials encouraging all services, not just new applicants, to maintain an annual plan as a best practice. ERO and the Ministry could also continue to monitor whether services, particularly those at risk of underperformance, are using appropriate planning tools to support delivery.

Licensing and monitoring processes should still consider evidence of forward planning as part of broader quality assurance, even if it is no longer a minimum requirement. This approach would strike a balance between reducing regulatory burden and maintaining a culture of intentional, reflective service improvement.

2.5.9 Annual Budget

The proposed amendment to GMA9, which limits the requirement for an annual budget to probationary or new licence applicants, aims to reduce unnecessary compliance for established services. However, this change carries notable risks, particularly around financial sustainability, governance accountability, and sector resilience.

One key risk is that removing a mandated budget requirement for all services may lead to weakened financial planning and oversight, particularly for smaller services or those lacking robust governance.

An annual budget is a fundamental tool for monitoring income and expenditure, anticipating financial challenges, and making informed decisions about staffing, professional development, maintenance, and resourcing. Without this requirement, some services may fail to systematically plan for known costs or contingencies, which can jeopardise their operational viability.

Another concern is the potential loss of financial transparency. An annual budget not only helps guide internal decisions but also provides a clear accountability tool for boards, managers, and auditors. In the absence of a regulatory requirement, the risk of inconsistent or informal budgeting practices increases particularly in services with limited financial expertise or oversight structures. Over time, this could reduce the sector’s resilience to funding fluctuations or unexpected cost increases.

To mitigate these risks, the Ministry could retain strong sector guidance recommending the use of annual budgets as a best practice, even for services that are not newly licensed.

Licensing assessors, ERO reviewers, or monitoring staff could also be encouraged to consider whether financial planning is evident when assessing service quality or risk. Additionally, boards and management committees could be provided with templates or training to ensure financial literacy and sound planning practices are maintained sector-wide.

This approach would preserve regulatory flexibility while still promoting financial responsibility and sustainability across all early childhood services.

2.5.10 Enrolment Records

Merging GMA10 and GMA11 into a single criterion that governs both enrolment and attendance records aims to streamline compliance and reduce duplication. However, there are several risks associated with this change that warrant attention, particularly around data clarity, accountability, and compliance oversight.

A key risk lies in the potential loss of clarity regarding the specific requirements for enrolment versus attendance records. The current separation helps distinguish between the two types of documentation; one focused on initial and medical information required at enrolment, the other on daily operational attendance tracking. Merging these into a single criterion may inadvertently blur the lines between these distinct administrative functions, increasing the risk of non-compliance through misunderstanding or omission. This could affect a service’s ability to meet both licensing and funding audit requirements, particularly where expectations diverge.

Another concern is that reducing the detail in the regulatory wording may lead to inconsistencies in record-keeping practices. While the ECE Funding Handbook remains the authoritative source for documentation requirements, not all services refer to it regularly or with confidence. Without explicit criteria in the licensing regulations, some providers, especially smaller or less experienced ones, may rely solely on the streamlined regulation and overlook the more detailed standards found in the Handbook.

To mitigate these risks, the Ministry should ensure the revised criterion continues to explicitly reference the Early Learning Funding Handbook as the definitive guide for required data elements and compliance obligations.

Accompanying guidance should outline, in clear language, the different purposes and contents of enrolment and attendance records, including examples and templates. Ongoing professional development and clear messaging during licensing visits and funding reviews would also support consistent understanding and application across the sector.

This approach would maintain the benefits of simplification while preserving the quality and reliability of essential documentation practices.