Education (Early Childhood Services) Amendment Regulations 2025

New Zealand Kindergartens

New Zealand Kindergartens (NZK) is a For-Purpose Charitable Peak Body. It represents nineteen of the twenty six local Kindergarten Associations (73%) across Aotearoa. This submission is published on behalf of NZK Member Associations: Ashburton, Central Kids, Dannevirke, Dunedin, Geraldine, Heretaunga, Hutt City, Kindergartens South, Marlborough, Napier, NelsonTasman, Northland, Oamaru, Ruahine, South Canterbury, Te Aroha, Waikato, Waimate, and Westport.

Executive Summary

New Zealand Kindergartens welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the Education (Early Childhood Services) Amendment Regulations 2025.

We support the Government’s intent to strengthen the regulatory framework by ensuring enforcement is proportionate, transparent, and firmly focused on safeguarding the health, safety, and wellbeing of Tamariki. The protection of Tamariki must always remain paramount.

These amendments respond to the findings of the 2024 sector review, which identified an over-reliance on blunt enforcement tools such as licence reclassification, suspension, and cancellation. By introducing a broader suite of graduated tools, clarifying thresholds for intervention, and strengthening transparency measures, the amendments create opportunities to address non-compliance in a way that better supports safe, high-quality early learning environments.

At the same time, a contemporary regulatory framework must also protect the quality and sustainability of teacher-led early childhood education (ECE) provision. If implemented without sufficient flexibility, the amendments risk creating unintended pressures – rigid timelines, reputational harm from public notices, inequitable impacts on smaller or rural services, and additional administrative burdens. Such outcomes could weaken service stability and undermine access to high-quality, teacher-led ECE, ultimately affecting Tamariki and their whānau.

NZK’s recommendations therefore emphasise the need to strike a balance between strong regulatory oversight and enabling services to provide safe, nurturing, teacher-led early learning.

This includes:

• Quality, teacher-led ECE provision – ensuring that regulatory change strengthens, not undermines, the delivery of high-quality, teacher-led early childhood education.
• Health and safety – embedding Tamariki wellbeing as the central driver of all regulatory action.
• Clarity and proportionality – clear, consistent thresholds and expectations that reflect the seriousness of the issue.
• Flexibility and fairness – allowing reasonable extensions and discretion where providers face unavoidable disruptions or are making genuine progress.
• Transparency with safeguards – informing parents and whānau with factual, timely updates while preventing undue reputational harm and protecting confidentiality.
• Supportive implementation – providing guidance, training, and resources so enforcement drives improvement rather than failure.
• Accountability and trust – publishing anonymised case examples and annual reporting to demonstrate consistent, fair application of the framework.

In summary, NZK endorses the intent of the proposed regulatory amendments. If implemented with flexibility, safeguards, and a balanced approach, they have the potential to strengthen Tamariki health and safety, build public confidence, and sustain the provision of high-quality, teacher-led early childhood education across Aotearoa.

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-for-purpose, teacher-led, quality education that enhances social, emotional, economic and environmental impact.

Submission Feedback on the Education (Early Childhood Services) Amendment Regulations 2025

Section 4: Regulation 15 Amended – Reclassification of Licences as Provisional

The amendment to regulation fifteen seeks to raise the threshold for reclassifying probationary or full licences as provisional. The goal is to ensure that licence downgrades are reserved for repeated or unresolved non-compliance, rather than being used as a blunt instrument for minor breaches. This intent is appropriate, given the concerns raised in the 2024 sector review about over-reliance on licence reclassification.

While this change promotes proportionality, there are risks if the criteria are not applied consistently. Providers may still find themselves reclassified based on multiple minor incidents, particularly if records of non-compliance or warnings accumulate over time. This creates uncertainty and may contribute to a sense of unfairness in the system. At the same time, the amendment provides an important opportunity to align enforcement with the seriousness of the issue, ensuring that reclassification only follows when other measures have failed or where compliance concerns are persistent.

To mitigate risks, it will be important to establish and publish clear guidance on how thresholds will be assessed, including examples of circumstances that would or would not trigger reclassification. Providers should be given the chance to respond before reclassification is confirmed, and an appeal pathway should be available to ensure fairness and accountability.

Overall Position

NZK supports the intent of raising the threshold for reclassifying probationary or full licences as provisional. This change responds to the sector review’s finding that enforcement tools have been used too bluntly, and it provides a more proportionate and transparent approach to managing non-compliance. The introduction of a graduated set of tools is an important step in ensuring fairness and alignment with the seriousness of compliance issues.

Specific Recommendations

Based on the questions raised in the Discussion Document dated 22 September 2025, specific recommendations to enhance the proposed regulatory changes and mitigate risks are outlined below.

Clarity of Threshold

• Amend wording to confirm that isolated or minor non-compliances, once remedied, will not trigger reclassification.
• Explicitly link reclassification to persistent, unresolved, or serious issues.
• Provide plain-language examples of when reclassification would and would not apply.

Implementation and Guidance

• Develop consistent national guidance and training for decision-makers.
• Ensure providers receive clear notices explaining how each enforcement tool applies and its potential role in reclassification.
• Establish a right for providers to respond before reclassification is confirmed.
• Ensure an independent and transparent appeal pathway is available.

Transparency and Monitoring

• Publish anonymised case summaries to illustrate application of thresholds.
• Report annually on the number and grounds of reclassifications.

Unintended Consequences

• Safeguard against accumulation of minor issues unfairly triggering provisional status.
• Monitor for any chilling effect on self-reporting or proactive improvement efforts.
• Manage administrative burden, especially for smaller providers.

Health and Safety Safeguards

• Introduce fast escalation protocols for immediate risks to children’s safety and wellbeing.
• Ensure that higher thresholds do not delay urgent interventions.

Section 5: Regulation 16 Amended – Conditions of Provisional Licence

The amendments to regulation sixteen aim to improve clarity around the conditions of provisional licences. By requiring revised provisional licences with specified dates for compliance, the regulation is intended to create transparency for providers and families, and to reduce ambiguity around what is required to regain full or probationary status. This is an appropriate and useful step, as it provides certainty where the previous framework was less explicit.

Nevertheless, there are risks that the imposition of additional conditions, with tight and prescriptive deadlines, could overwhelm providers already operating under stress. Smaller services in particular may lack the capacity to meet multiple new conditions within short time frames, leading to inadvertent non-compliance and escalation of enforcement actions. On the other hand, the change offers an opportunity to make compliance expectations clearer, reducing disputes and giving parents greater visibility of the regulatory status of their child’s service.

To make the amendment workable, compliance dates should be applied with flexibility, reflecting the provider’s circumstances and the complexity of the issue. Plain-language guidance and examples of typical conditions would also support providers in understanding their obligations. Alongside enforcement, there should be a focus on compliance support, for example, through dedicated advisors or resources to ensure that conditions drive improvement rather than pushing services into failure.

Overall Position

NZK supports the intent of the amendments to Regulation 16, as it aims to provide greater clarity and certainty for service providers by requiring additional conditions be issued through a revised provisional licence with clearly specified compliance dates. This is an appropriate step that addresses previous ambiguity and will help ensure that both providers and parents understand the requirements needed to return to full or probationary licence status.

Specific Recommendations

Based on the questions raised in the Discussion Document dated 22 September 2025, specific recommendations to enhance the proposed regulatory changes and mitigate risks are outlined below.

Clarity of Amendments

• Publish plain-language guidance and examples of typical provisional conditions.

Wording Adjustments

• Include explicit reference to reasonable and proportionate compliance dates.
• Allow deadlines to reflect provider size, context, and complexity of the issue.

Implementation Considerations

• Train regulators to ensure consistent application across regions.
• Require written explanations for each condition imposed.
• Establish mechanisms for extensions or negotiated timelines where justified.

Certainty and Administrative Burden

• Monitor impacts on smaller and rural services to prevent undue strain.
• Provide compliance support (advisors, resources, guidance) to help providers meet conditions.

Transparency for Parents and Whānau

• Encourage providers to share accessible summaries of provisional conditions with families.

Other Feedback

• Frame conditions as improvement-focused rather than punitive.
• Pair enforcement with practical supports to ensure conditions drive positive change.

Section 6: Regulation 17 Amended – Duration of Provisional Licence

The amendment to regulation seventeen is designed to reinforce that provisional licences are temporary measures, requiring services to meet additional conditions before returning to full or probationary status. This is appropriate in principle, as it prevents services from remaining in a prolonged state of partial compliance.

The risk, however, lies in the rigidity of the timelines and the potential for licences to be cancelled when providers are close to meeting their conditions but encounter unavoidable delays. Infrastructure upgrades, staffing challenges, or supply chain disruptions may extend beyond the prescribed periods, leaving services vulnerable to cancellation despite genuine efforts to comply. At the same time, the amendment creates an opportunity to strengthen accountability and reduce the risk of provisional licences becoming a semi-permanent status with insufficient incentive for compliance.

Mitigating these risks requires flexibility in how timelines are applied, allowing for extensions in justified cases beyond emergencies. A supportive review process before cancellation decisions would help to differentiate between willful non-compliance and providers who are making genuine progress but need more time. This would balance the regulatory imperative for timeliness with fairness and practical reality.

Overall Position

NZK supports the intent of the amendments to Regulation 17, which reinforces that provisional licences are temporary measures and that services must meet their conditions to return to full or probationary status. This is an important safeguard against providers remaining in a prolonged state of partial compliance, ensuring that children’s education and care occur in safe and high-quality environments.

However, the amendments as drafted risk being overly rigid. Providers who are close to meeting their conditions but encounter unavoidable delays such as staffing shortages, infrastructure works, or supply chain disruptions could face cancellation despite genuine good-faith efforts. Without flexibility, this may result in unfair outcomes and unintended disruption for children and families.

Specific Recommendations

Based on the questions raised in the Discussion Document dated 22 September 2025, specific recommendations to enhance the proposed regulatory changes and mitigate risks are outlined below.

Clarity of Amendments

• Provide guidance on how progress will be assessed and when extensions can be considered.

Wording Adjustments

• Specify that compliance timeframes must be reasonable and proportionate to the nature of required changes.
• Permit extensions beyond emergencies for providers making genuine progress.
• State that cancellation is a last resort, after fair opportunities for remedy and support.

Implementation Considerations

• Introduce a structured review before cancellation decisions.
• Train regulators to ensure consistent application across regions.
• Provide targeted support (advisors, technical assistance, relief funding) to help providers comply.
• Require transparent communication of decisions, including rights to extension and appeal.

Other Feedback

• Differentiate between wilful non-compliance and good-faith efforts.
• Publish annual reporting on provisional licence outcomes (cancellations, extensions, average durations).

Section 7: New Regulations 29A – 29F – Graduated Enforcement Tools and Public Notices

The introduction of regulations 29A to 29F is intended to broaden the regulator’s enforcement toolkit. Instead of relying almost exclusively on licence reclassification, suspension, or cancellation, the Director of Regulation will be able to use a range of graduated responses, such as recording non-compliance, issuing formal warnings, requiring specialist help, mandating improvement plans, or issuing public notices. This change is appropriate and timely, responding directly to the regulatory review’s finding that the existing tools were too blunt. It also aims to provide parents and whānau with clearer information about compliance matters.

While the new suite of tools provides greater proportionality, there are risks if they are applied in ways that create additional burden or inequity. For example, the requirement to employ specialist help could be particularly challenging for small or rural services, which may lack access to the necessary expertise. Similarly, public notices of non-compliance could inflict reputational harm that is disproportionate to the severity of the issue, especially where the matter has already been remedied. At the same time, the tools offer opportunities to address non-compliance more constructively, avoiding the need for heavy sanctions where issues can be rectified with targeted interventions. They also enhance transparency for parents, who will gain a clearer understanding of how their child’s service is performing.

Mitigating these risks will require a balanced approach. The Ministry could establish a funded pool of approved specialists to ensure equitable access across the country, reducing disparities between urban and rural providers. Public notices should be contextualised with information about the nature of the issue and the steps taken to remedy it, so parents can distinguish between minor and serious breaches. A right of reply for providers would also protect fairness, allowing them to explain their perspective alongside official notices. Taken together, these measures would help ensure the new tools achieve their intended purpose without causing unintended harm.

Overall Position

NZK supports the introduction of regulations 29A to 29F, which broaden the regulator’s enforcement toolkit and creates a more proportionate set of responses to non-compliance. This responds directly to the regulatory review’s finding that enforcement had relied too heavily on blunt instruments such as licence reclassification, suspension, or cancellation. The new tools, including recording non-compliance, issuing warnings, requiring specialist help, mandating improvement plans, and issuing public notices creates opportunities to manage compliance issues in a fairer and more constructive way.

These changes have the potential to improve outcomes both for services and for children by ensuring that regulatory responses are aligned with the seriousness of the issue.

However, there are risks that some tools could be applied in ways that create inequity or unintended harm. Smaller or rural services may struggle to access specialist help, while public notices may cause reputational damage disproportionate to the severity of the breach. To achieve their intended impact, these tools must be implemented with fairness, consistency, and clear safeguards.

Specific Recommendations

Based on the questions raised in the Discussion Document dated 22 September 2025, specific recommendations to enhance the proposed regulatory changes and mitigate risks are outlined below.

Clarity of Tools (29A-29E)

• Provide plain-language guidance on thresholds for escalation.
• Clarify expectations for improvement plan content and timeframes.
• Define how “specialist help” requirements will be applied in areas with limited access.

Clarity of Public Notices (29F)

• Require plain-language summaries of non-compliance.
• Indicate whether the issue has been resolved or remains ongoing.
• Include a right of reply from providers.

Wording Adjustments

• Insert explicit references to proportionality and reasonableness in applying tools.
• Ensure public notices include contextual information (severity, remediation steps).

Implementation Considerations

• Establish a funded pool of approved specialists for equitable access.
• Provide regulator training and case study-based guidance to ensure consistency.
• Require annual reporting on use and outcomes of each enforcement tool.
• Develop templates and advisory support for improvement plans.

Impact on Health and Safety

• Maintain focus on interventions that directly improve children’s safety and wellbeing.
• Guard against resource diversion through disproportionate enforcement.

Other Feedback

• Introduce appeals processes and timeframes for each enforcement tool.
• Publish anonymised case summaries to illustrate fair use.
• Frame tools, especially improvement plans, as supportive and improvement-focused.

Section 8: Regulation 30 Amended – Suspension of Licences

This amendment raises the threshold for suspending licences by requiring evidence of an immediate risk to children’s health, safety, or wellbeing, in addition to the existing criteria. The intent is to reserve suspension for the most serious circumstances, ensuring proportionality in regulatory responses. This is an appropriate adjustment, as suspension disrupts children, families, and staff, and should not be used lightly.

Despite this positive intent, risks remain. Even with the higher threshold, the sudden suspension of a licence can cause immediate disruption for children and families, who may find themselves without care options at short notice. Providers may also struggle to address risks within the time available, particularly if they involve structural or systemic issues. Nevertheless, the amendment provides an important opportunity to strengthen confidence in the regulatory system, demonstrating that enforcement will only reach the level of suspension when children’s safety is genuinely at stake.

Mitigation should focus on ensuring suspension is not the default response. The regulatory framework should emphasise graduated escalation, using less disruptive measures before suspension unless there is an urgent and immediate danger. The Ministry should also support continuity of care for affected families, for example by facilitating temporary placements in nearby services or providing guidance on emergency arrangements. This would help balance child safety with minimising unnecessary disruption for families and communities.

Overall Position

NZK supports the intent of raising the threshold for suspension of licences by requiring evidence of an immediate risk to children’s health, safety, or wellbeing. This ensures that suspension is reserved for the most serious circumstances, providing greater proportionality in regulatory responses. Given the disruptive impact suspension can have on children, families, and staff, it is appropriate that this measure is used only when children’s safety is genuinely at stake.

However, even with the higher threshold, risks remain. Sudden suspension can cause immediate disruption for families and may place providers under significant pressure to address risks within short timeframes. This amendment therefore presents an opportunity to strengthen confidence in the regulatory system, but must be implemented carefully, with safeguards to minimise unnecessary disruption while maintaining a strong focus on child safety.

Specific Recommendations

Based on the questions raised in the Discussion Document dated 22 September 2025, specific recommendations to enhance the proposed regulatory changes and mitigate risks are outlined below.

Clarity of Amendment

• Define “immediate risk” with examples to ensure consistency of application.

Wording Adjustments

• Specify that suspension should only be used where risks cannot be managed through less disruptive tools.
• Require the Director to consider continuity of care for families when suspending a licence.
• Clarify the distinction between urgent suspension and suspension as a precursor to cancellation.

Implementation Considerations

• Provide regulator training and case study-based guidance.
• Facilitate continuity of care (e.g., temporary placements, emergency childcare support).
• Introduce a structured review process before cancellation decisions are made.

Impact on Health and Safety

• Ensure suspension protects children from serious risks without creating gaps in access to safe care.
• Establish rapid response systems to minimise disruption for children and families.

Other Feedback

• Situate suspension within a graduated escalation framework, not as a default response.
• Publish anonymised data on suspensions to monitor proportionality and build trust.

Section 9: Regulation 32 Amended – Cancellation of Licences

The proposed amendment to regulation thirty-two removes outdated references and aligns cancellation provisions with the new enforcement framework. Cancellation remains the most serious regulatory sanction, intended for cases where services fail to meet compliance requirements despite repeated interventions. The change is largely technical, but it clarifies and streamlines the regulatory language.

While appropriate in principle, cancellation carries significant risks for children, families, and communities. It can result in the sudden closure of a service, loss of trusted relationships, and reduced access to early childhood education in some areas. There is also a risk of inconsistent application if the thresholds for cancellation are not clearly communicated. At the same time, cancellation plays an important role as a last resort, ensuring that providers who repeatedly fail to meet minimum standards cannot continue to operate indefinitely.

To mitigate risks, the Ministry should publish clear guidance on the circumstances that warrant cancellation, including illustrative examples. This would enhance consistency and predictability. It is also important that providers retain robust rights of review and appeal, ensuring fairness and accountability in the most serious regulatory decisions.

Section 10: Regulation 39A Amended – Exceptional Circumstances

The amendment to regulation 39A allows the Director of Regulation to extend compliance timeframes by up to three months when a state of emergency or epidemic notice has been declared. This is intended to provide flexibility in extraordinary circumstances where providers cannot reasonably meet deadlines. The intent is appropriate, as it prevents services from being penalised during crises beyond their control.

However, the limitation of this power to declared emergencies may be too narrow. Services also face significant disruptions in other contexts, such as severe workforce shortages, unexpected property damage, or supply chain breakdowns. Without flexibility to extend timeframes in these situations, providers may be unfairly penalised despite making genuine efforts to comply. Nonetheless, the amendment highlights an important opportunity: to build resilience and responsiveness into the regulatory system, ensuring it can adapt to unforeseen events.

Mitigation requires broadening the scope of this discretion beyond formally declared emergencies. Allowing extensions in cases of significant operational disruption would reflect the realities services face. Transparent guidance on when and how extensions will be granted would also help ensure consistency and fairness. By embedding flexibility into the system, this amendment could better achieve its intent of fairness during extraordinary circumstances.

Overall Position

NZK supports the intent of the amendment to Regulation 39A, which empowers the Director of Regulation to extend compliance timeframes by up to three months during a declared state of emergency or epidemic notice. This is a sensible measure that ensures providers are not unfairly penalised in circumstances beyond their control. It recognises the disruption that crises can cause and offers flexibility to maintain fairness in enforcement.

However, the scope of this discretion is too narrow. Providers may face serious operational disruptions outside of formally declared emergencies such as severe workforce shortages, supply chain breakdowns, or unexpected property damage. Without the ability to grant extensions in these circumstances, services may be unfairly penalised despite making genuine efforts to comply.

The amendment presents an important opportunity to build resilience into the regulatory system, ensuring flexibility applies not only in declared crises but also in other extraordinary and disruptive events.

Specific Recommendations

Based on the questions raised in the Discussion Document dated 22 September 2025, specific recommendations to enhance the proposed regulatory changes and mitigate risks are outlined below.

Clarity of Extension Powers

• Broaden scope beyond declared emergencies to include significant operational disruptions (e.g., workforce shortages, property damage, supply chain breakdowns).
• Clarify criteria for when and how extensions may be granted.

Implementation Considerations

• Provide regulator training and case study guidance to ensure consistency.
• Require written notice with reasons for extension decisions.
• Notify families where extensions delay compliance related to health and safety.
• Limit extensions to three months with review checkpoints.

Unintended Consequences

• Avoid narrow application that penalises providers facing non-declared disruptions.
• Prevent overuse of extensions undermining accountability.
• Mitigate uncertainty for families through transparent communication.

Other Feedback

• Publish case examples of extensions to build provider and parent confidence.
• Require annual reporting on extensions granted, declined, and reasons.
• Embed flexibility as a resilience measure while ensuring accountability for child safety.

Section 11: Regulation 54A Revoked – Written Directions

The revocation of regulation 54A consolidates enforcement powers under regulation 29C, which allows the Director to issue written directions to remedy risks to health and safety. The intent is to simplify the framework and strengthen regulatory tools by replacing an older, more limited provision with a more flexible mechanism. This is a sound adjustment that reduces duplication and makes the regulatory framework clearer.

The main risk is practical. Regulation 29C requires that health and safety risks be remedied within 24 hours or, at most, ten working days. These short compliance windows may be unworkable for some providers, particularly if the issue involves infrastructure or staffing that cannot be resolved immediately. There is also the possibility of confusion during the transition from the old regulation to the new, especially for providers accustomed to the previous system. Yet the amendment presents a valuable opportunity to sharpen the focus on child safety, ensuring urgent risks are dealt with swiftly and decisively.

Mitigating the risks will require a tiered approach to compliance deadlines, matched to the severity and complexity of the risk. For example, imminent risks to children’s physical safety could appropriately require action within 24 hours, whereas less immediate risks could allow longer timeframes. Transitional guidance and communication will also be essential, helping providers understand how the new framework operates and ensuring consistency in its application.

Section 12: New Regulation 59A – Public Notice of Complaints/Incidents

The insertion of regulation 59A empowers the Director to give public notice, or require providers to inform parents, when an investigation into a complaint or incident is undertaken. The aim is to increase transparency and close information gaps, ensuring families are kept informed of high-risk issues under investigation. This is appropriate in principle, as it recognises the importance of trust and accountability in early childhood education.

The risks lie in timing and perception. Public notices about investigations could unfairly damage a service’s reputation before findings are reached, even if the complaint is unsubstantiated. This could reduce enrolments and undermine staff morale. There is also the danger that families or staff might hesitate to raise concerns for fear of triggering damaging publicity. At the same time, the amendment creates an opportunity to enhance parental awareness, empower families to make informed decisions, and reduce reliance on licence reclassification for serious complaints.

To mitigate risks, public notices should be strictly factual, limited to the essential information, and non-prejudicial. Confidentiality protection must be in place for complainants and staff, to ensure concerns can still be raised safely. Once investigations conclude, follow-up updates should be provided to clarify outcomes and describe any remedial actions taken. This balanced approach would preserve transparency while minimising reputational harm and encouraging continued openness in reporting.

Overall Position

NZK supports the intent of Regulation 59A, which empowers the Director of Regulation to give public notice, or require providers to inform parents and caregivers, when an investigation into a complaint or incident is undertaken. This amendment responds directly to the regulatory review’s finding that existing enforcement tools lacked transparency, and it has the potential to improve trust, accountability, and parental awareness in the ECE sector.

However, while the intent is appropriate, the timing and perception of public notices carry risks. Investigations may ultimately prove unsubstantiated, but reputational harm can occur at the point of notification. This could reduce enrolments, undermine staff morale, and discourage families or staff from raising concerns for fear of triggering damaging publicity. At the same time, there is a clear opportunity to enhance transparency, empower families to make informed decisions, and avoid the blunt use of licence reclassification for serious complaints.

Specific Recommendations

Based on the questions raised in the Discussion Document dated 22 September 2025, specific recommendations to enhance the proposed regulatory changes and mitigate risks are outlined below.

Clarity of the Power

• Ensure notices are strictly factual, limited to essentials, and non-prejudicial.
• Protect confidentiality of complainants and staff.

Wording Adjustments

• Require follow-up updates when investigations are concluded, including outcomes and remedial actions.
• Clarify wording to prevent premature or implied findings of fault.

Implementation Considerations

• Develop clear guidance on notice content and format.
• Require providers to communicate alongside official notices for reassurance.
• Provide for review or appeal where notices may be inaccurate.

Unintended Consequences

• Guard against reputational damage from unsubstantiated complaints.
• Prevent chilling effects on reporting by safeguarding confidentiality.
• Avoid perceptions of punitive use of notices.

Transparency and Impact

• Increase transparency for parents and whānau by providing timely, accurate information.
• Reduce reliance on licence reclassification as the primary tool for serious complaints.

Impact on Children’s Health and Safety

• Strengthen child safety by ensuring families are informed of high-risk issues.
• Balance transparency with the need to maintain trust and service stability.

Conclusion

New Zealand Kindergartens supports the overall intent of the Education (Early Childhood Services) Amendment Regulations 2025.

The proposed amendments represent an important step toward creating a regulatory framework that is more proportionate, transparent, and effective in safeguarding the health, safety, and wellbeing of Tamariki.

We particularly welcome the introduction of a broader and more graduated set of enforcement tools, clearer thresholds for intervention, and stronger accountability measures. These reforms have the potential to reduce reliance on blunt sanctions and instead provide regulatory responses that are aligned with the seriousness of the issue.

At the same time, it is essential that implementation reflects the realities of early childhood education services. The risks of rigid timelines, inequitable impacts on smaller or rural providers, and unintended reputational harm must be carefully managed. Strong safeguards, flexibility, and clear guidance will be needed to ensure that these reforms strengthen confidence in the system without undermining service quality or sustainability.

For NZK, the central priorities remain clear:

• Tamariki wellbeing and safety must always be the paramount focus.
• High-quality, teacher-led ECE provision must be supported and sustained as the foundation of the sector.
• Regulation must balance accountability with fairness, transparency, and practical support for improvement.

If implemented in this way, the amendments will not only enhance trust in regulatory processes but also help ensure that Tamariki across Aotearoa have safe, nurturing, and high-quality early learning experiences.

NZK looks forward to working with the Ministry to ensure these changes deliver on their promise of a contemporary regulatory environment that strengthens both accountability and the provision of quality teacher-led ECE.