Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill

Executive Summary

New Zealand Kindergartens (NZK) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill which seeks to modernise New Zealand’s early childhood education (ECE) regulatory system, clarify legislative objectives and principles, establish an independent Director of Regulation, and streamline licensing responsibilities.

The proposed changes offer a significant opportunity to improve regulatory clarity, strengthen accountability, and align with international best practice. They also carry operational and policy risks that must be carefully managed to ensure the reforms achieve their intended outcomes without compromising service quality or continuity.

Key Positives

• Clearer legislative objectives supporting child well-being, educational outcomes, parental labour market participation, and informed parental choice.
• Good regulatory practice principles embedded in legislation, emphasising proportionality, transparency, and minimising unnecessary costs.
• Stronger governance through a statutory, partially independent Director of Regulation with defined powers and responsibilities.
• Policy–operations separation in licensing criteria, reducing political influence over compliance decisions.
• Seamless transitional provisions designed to maintain service continuity during the changeover.
• Legislative alignment across primary and secondary frameworks for consistency and clarity.

Key Risks

• Conflicting objectives may create tensions between child safety, cost-efficiency, and accessibility.
• Possible over-emphasis on parental workforce participation at the expense of service quality.
• Implementation complexity in transferring responsibilities and live cases to the new Director.
• Potential rigidity in licensing criteria that could stifle innovation.
• Centralisation risks from concentrating authority in a single role.
•  
• Stakeholder uncertainty during the transition period and early implementation.

Proposed Mitigations

• Establish clear priority rules giving primacy to child well-being when objectives conflict.
• Phase implementation with detailed operational guidance to balance competing objectives.
• Provide dedicated transitional resourcing and stagger case transfers to manage workload spikes.
• Introduce regular review cycles for licensing criteria, with stakeholder consultation and scope for pilot models.
• Implement checks and balances for the Director role, including audits and public reporting.
• Maintain dual references (“Secretary/Director”) in guidance documents during the adjustment period.

Additional Comments

We note that the Bill does not include reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi or to equity obligations, which risks overlooking the foundational partnership responsibilities of the Crown.

Embedding Te Tiriti principles within the objectives and guiding principles would strengthen the Bill’s alignment with obligations to Māori and ensure accountability. Likewise, an explicit commitment to reducing inequities in access, participation, and quality for Māori, Pasifika, and disadvantaged communities is essential. We also recommend requiring the Director of Regulation to report on outcomes for Māori and to ensure that regulatory decisions actively uphold Te Tiriti partnership.

In addition, while the Bill focuses on governance and regulation, the operational impact on the education workforce is not strongly addressed. Regulatory changes can unintentionally drive additional administrative workload for teachers and those in leadership/management roles, at a time when this burden is already significant. We therefore urge that licensing criteria and regulatory settings be aligned with workforce realities, including teacher supply, qualification pathways, and the sustainability of administrative demands, to avoid undermining the capacity of educators to focus on teaching and learning.

Conclusion

The Bill is a welcome step toward a modernised, transparent, and accountable ECE regulatory system. With the recommended mitigations in place, it has the potential to deliver lasting benefits for children, parents, and service providers while maintaining highquality standards and public confidence.

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.

Submission Feedback on the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill

General Policy Statement

The Bill provides a clearer set of legislative objectives for early childhood education regulation, explicitly supporting child well-being, improved educational outcomes, parental participation in the labour market, and informed parental choice. This clarity will give regulators, service providers, and families a more consistent framework for decision-making. The inclusion of principles of good regulatory practice such as proportionality, transparency, and the minimisation of unnecessary costs should help to ensure that regulatory requirements are fair, balanced, and efficient.

Importantly, these reforms address the Ministry for Regulation’s 2024 review findings that New Zealand’s early childhood education system has been lagging behind comparable countries, thereby aligning the framework more closely with international standards.

However, the breadth of the Bill’s objectives carries inherent risks. The need to balance child safety and well-being with cost-efficiency may create tensions in regulatory decision-making. There is also a concern that the focus on enabling parental labour market participation, while valuable, could inadvertently shift the emphasis from improving service quality to simply increasing accessibility. Furthermore, transitioning to the proposed new regulatory structure presents implementation challenges, particularly in ensuring continuity in licensing, compliance monitoring, and enforcement during the changeover.

To address these risks, it will be important to establish clear priority rules, including an explicit hierarchy of objectives to guide decisions when they conflict, with child well-being recognised as paramount.

The reforms should be introduced in a phased manner, accompanied by detailed operational guidance to assist regulatory staff and service providers in adapting to the new arrangements.

Dedicated transitional resourcing should be provided to maintain quality and oversight throughout the change process, ensuring that the shift in regulatory structure is both smooth and effective.

While transitional resourcing is important, we consider it equally critical to ensure sustained investment in regulatory capability. This should include dedicated training for regulatory staff, as outlined in Recommendation 7, given that such capacity building is often overlooked.

In addition, we recommend the introduction of regular external reviews of regulatory practice quality to strengthen accountability and public confidence in the system.

We also emphasise that the wellbeing of the child and the provision of quality learning must always form the baseline threshold for all services. Parental choice is important, but it cannot come at the expense of Tamariki receiving only services that meet minimum compliance standards without delivering rich and equitable learning opportunities for all children.

General Policy Statement Summary

Clarifying Purpose, Objectives, and Guiding Principles

This part of the Bill replaces the existing section 14 of the Education and Training Act 2020, and inserts a new section 14A to set out clear objectives for regulating early childhood education. It reinforces that the health, safety, and well-being of children is paramount, that their learning and development is essential for readiness to transition to school, and that the role of parents and caregivers is to be recognised and supported.

The legislation also highlights principles of good regulatory practice, including decisionmaking that is risk-based, proportionate, fair, and transparent, and which avoids imposing unnecessary costs on families and service providers.

The explicit inclusion of these principles and objectives offers a structured foundation for regulatory decision-making. This should improve consistency and accountability, as well as reassure parents and providers about the underlying priorities guiding regulation. It also enhances transparency, giving stakeholders a clearer understanding of how decisions will be made and evaluated.

However, the broad nature of the principles introduces some risks. Terms such as “wellbeing” and “development” are open to interpretation, which could lead to inconsistent application across different regions or cases. Without clear operational definitions, different regulators could take divergent approaches, undermining trust in the system. Furthermore, the absence of defined metrics for measuring progress against these objectives may make it difficult to assess regulatory effectiveness over time.

Mitigating these risks will require the development of operational definitions and indicators for each principle, supported by training for all regulatory staff to ensure consistent application. Additionally, publicly reporting on performance against these principles will strengthen accountability and help identify where further refinement is needed.

Clarifying Purpose, Objectives, and Guiding Principles Summary

Establishing the Director of Regulation Role

This section creates a new statutory position, the Director of Regulation, appointed by the Secretary for Education, with responsibility for key licensing, certification, monitoring, and enforcement functions in the early childhood education system.

Certain core functions such as issuing licences, certifying playgroups, and enforcing compliance are to be performed independently of the Minister of Education. Other duties include providing guidance to service providers, assessing complaints, conducting regular risk-based compliance monitoring, and collaborating with other regulatory bodies. The Director is also empowered to delegate functions, duties, or powers, subject to conditions and oversight.

The introduction of a single, clearly defined regulatory authority has significant benefits. It reduces role ambiguity between the Minister, the Secretary, and operational regulators, and strengthens accountability by vesting statutory independence in certain functions. This clarity should help improve consistency, responsiveness, and public confidence in compliance decisions. The ability to delegate allows for flexibility in managing workload and ensures the role can be responsive to emerging needs.

Despite these advantages, the role’s broad powers create potential risks. Centralising decision-making authority in a single office could lead to overreach if not appropriately balanced with oversight. The scope for delegation, particularly to individuals outside the Ministry, may expose the system to variable quality or reduced accountability. Furthermore, there is potential for overlap or conflict between the Director’s responsibilities and other Ministry functions, which could create inefficiencies or delays.

We strongly recommend that the Bill be strengthened to provide clear and enforceable protections for appeals and natural justice. This must include transparent, timely, and genuinely independent appeals mechanisms so that regulatory decisions can be tested and reviewed with integrity. In addition, explicit rights for both providers and parents to challenge regulatory decisions are essential to uphold fairness, ensure accountability, and maintain trust in the system. Without such safeguards, the regulatory framework risks appearing one-sided and lacking the balance necessary to protect the interests of all parties affected.

These risks can be mitigated by embedding clear checks and balances, such as regular independent audits and public reporting on the Director’s activities. Formal collaboration protocols between the Director and other parts of the Ministry should be established to prevent duplication and conflict. Additionally, any delegation outside the Ministry should be limited to suitably qualified individuals, subject to performance monitoring and clear accountability measures.

Establishing the Director of Regulation Role Summary

Licensing Criteria & Secretary’s Advisory Role

This part of the Bill clarifies that the Minister may prescribe licensing criteria, but the Director of Regulation, rather than the Secretary, will be responsible for applying those criteria when assessing compliance by early childhood services and playgroups.

The Secretary will act as the Minister’s principal policy adviser in relation to setting these criteria and must explicitly identify who will be affected by them. This separation of policy formulation from operational decision-making helps to reinforce impartiality in compliance enforcement.

The changes promote transparency by requiring that the impacts of proposed criteria be documented and considered before adoption. They also establish a clearer division between the advisory and enforcement functions, which can reduce perceptions of political interference in operational matters. This separation aligns with good governance practice and should strengthen stakeholder confidence in the fairness of compliance processes.

However, risks arise if licensing criteria become overly rigid, potentially limiting innovation or adaptation in service delivery models. Additionally, the process for reviewing and updating criteria may not be agile enough to keep pace with emerging best practices, leading to outdated regulatory requirements.

Mitigation strategies should include scheduled reviews of licensing criteria with structured stakeholder consultation to ensure relevance and proportionality. The framework could also include provisions for trialling or piloting alternative service models under modified criteria to encourage innovation while maintaining safety and quality standards.

Licensing Criteria & Secretary’s Advisory Role Summary

Transitional Arrangements

The transitional provisions in Schedule 1, Part 7 ensure that all relevant functions, duties, and powers currently exercised by the Secretary are smoothly transferred to the new Director of Regulation when the Bill comes into force. Any applications, investigations, appeals, or judicial reviews already underway at the time of commencement will be taken over by the Director without disruption. Decisions, notices, and records held by the Secretary before the commencement date will be treated as if they were made or held by the Director, ensuring continuity and legal validity.

This approach minimises service disruption for providers and parents, maintains the integrity of ongoing regulatory processes, and prevents duplication of work. By preserving regulatory history and providing a clear legal pathway for transferring responsibilities, the provisions offer stability and certainty for all parties during the implementation phase.

Nevertheless, the transfer of live cases and records will create a temporary spike in workload for the new Director’s office. If not managed carefully, this could lead to delays in decisionmaking, backlogs in processing, and confusion among stakeholders about who to approach for information or action during the changeover period.

To mitigate these risks, clear transition guidance should be published for providers, parents, and staff, explaining the process and timelines. Workload transfers could be staggered to prevent bottlenecks, and temporary additional resources should be allocated to the Director’s office for the first operational months to ensure service continuity.

Transitional Arrangements Summary

Consequential Amendments

Schedule 2 makes a series of consequential amendments to secondary legislation, primarily replacing references to the “Secretary” with “Director of Regulation” in relevant provisions of the Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations 2008 and the Education (Playgroups) Regulations 2008. It also confirms the Secretary’s role as the Minister’s principal policy adviser on licensing criteria and requires that this advice set out the likely effects of proposed criteria, including who will be affected.

These amendments are essential for consistency across the legislative framework. They ensure that regulatory documents, licensing processes, and compliance procedures all reflect the new governance structure, reducing ambiguity and improving legal clarity for regulated parties. By formally embedding the revised roles in existing regulations, the Bill ensures alignment between primary and secondary legislation.

The main risk lies in the possibility of overlooked cross-references or related provisions in other legislation, which could create inconsistencies and confusion. Additionally, early in implementation, providers and stakeholders who are accustomed to dealing with the “Secretary” may face some uncertainty about the new points of contact.

Mitigation measures include conducting a post-implementation review to identify and address any missed references or unintended inconsistencies. Communication and guidance materials should, for a transitional period, reference both the “Secretary” and “Director” titles to help stakeholders adjust to the change.

Consequential Amendments Summary