Personal Injury

A series of high-profile arrests across early childcare centres exposes an isidious culture of abuse and neglect within Australia’s childcare system. These cases, though deeply distressing, are not anomalous – instead, they are symptomatic of a broader problem predicated on systemic shortcomings and regulatory deficiencies.

Despite numerous inquiries and the comprehensive findings of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, the regulatory framework governing Australia’s childcare system is largely unresponsive. Consequently, the workforce has been infiltrated by repeat offenders who are able to retain close proximity to children even after credible allegations of abuse.

As public sensibilities towards the issue continue to grow – and outrage builds in the media – broader conversations have arisen regarding the role of the government and the scope for reform. To restore trust  in Australia’s childcare system, it is essential to ascertain the factors that have eroded it so that future action can be formulated in the best interests of children and their parents.

Background

Recent reports by the Guardian expose just how pervasive the issue of abuse and misconduct is within childcare centres. In NSW alone, more than 1800 reports were made to the state regulator between  2020 and 2025.

Although investigations were launched into all of the incidents of alleged physical and sexual abuse reported in 70% of cases the investigation was completed and “no further action” was taken.

Herein lies a fundamental issue with the reporting of abuse- that allegations – especially those lacking physical evidence—often result in no disciplinary action. Too often State-based regulatory bodies, operating under varying legal thresholds, dismiss cases without notification to law enforcement or prospective employers.

For example, in South Australia, nearly 60% of the 147 reports of physical and sexual abuse of a child by a childcare worker from 2020 until the end of 2024 were not investigated by the regulator. It did not issue a single compliance notice for sexual or physical abuse of children in nearly five years.

What’s even more problematic is the fact that record-keeping and reporting standards vary drastically across the country.

In some jurisdictions, such as the NT, as few as two reports of child sexual abuse in a childcare setting were made in a year.

High Profile Cases

Against this broader context, a series of high-profile cases have elucidated the many issues that beleaguer Australia’s childcare system – helping to bring them to the forefront of public discourse.

Joshua Dale Brown

Recently, Joshua Dale Brown, a 32-year-old educator employed by a major childcare provider in Melbourne, was charged with more than 70 offences pertaining to the sexual abuse of infants and toddlers. The abuse allegedly occurred across multiple early learning centres between 2022 and 2025.

In most of these instances of abuse, Brown was left alone with children in rooms without surveillance.

Following his arrest, the Victorian Department of Health issued public alerts recommending urgent STI testing for more than 1,200 children. A crisis hotline was established, and families across multiple centres were advised to seek trauma support.

Parents are now pursuing civil litigation against the childcare provider and government bodies, alleging negligence, breach of statutory duty, and failure to prevent foreseeable harm.

Prior to his arrest, the 26-year-old was also the subject of two separate internal investigations at G8 Education, both unrelated to sexual abuse and occurring after the alleged incidents he had been charged over.

The two events were substantiated and reported to state authorities, but Brown’s Working with Children approval was not revoked.

David Williams James

Only weeks after the Brown case came to light, a former childcare and after-school care worker, David William James was charged with multiple serious child sexual abuse offences. He is accused of producing child abuse material involving 10 boys aged between five and six over a period spanning from 2021 to 2024.

James, 26, is accused of committing the abuse while working across several out-of-school hours care (OOSH) facilities in Sydney. He was employed via an agency and worked casual shifts at 58 different centres between 2018 and 2024.

As of now, charges have been laid in relation to six centres. Authorities have confirmed there is no evidence of offending at the other 52, but they have been named to assist families in identifying potential connections.

James had previously been stood down from a childcare centre following concerns from a staff member. However, his WWCC remained active and unflagged, and no notifications appear to have been issued to his employers or to the NSW Office of the Children’s Guardian regarding his criminal status.

Regulatory Gaps 

Both cases highlight that the current regulatory framework is not sufficient to safeguard children. Whilst interim reforms have been floated in response, they are largely reactive and do not address the structural conditions that facilitate child sex abuse. The main shortcomings can be demarcated across four key dimensions.

The WWCC

Although the Royal Commission recommended reforms to the  Working with Children Check (WWCC) almost 10 years ago, effective change is yet to materialise.

The most glaring shortcoming of the WWCC is the lack of a national register. At the moment, there are significant inconsistencies in the reporting, enforcement, and portability of WWCC decisions. Each state applies differing criteria for assessing risk and triggering revocation, and there is no legal obligation for state regulators to notify each other of adverse findings or active investigations.

The WWCC also relies primarily on an individual’s criminal history, which may not capture all individuals with concerning behaviours or histories of child exploitation.  Offenders may not have prior convictions but still pose a risk. 

Mandatory Supervision Standards

Current regulations in many jurisdictions permit educators to be alone with children, including infants, for extended periods. Unlike other professions involving vulnerable populations (e.g., aged care or disability support), there is no federal legal requirement for minimum staffing ratios based on child age or risk factors.

Reporting Obligations

Mandatory reporting laws vary by jurisdiction. In some states, childcare providers are not required to report alleged abuse to police if the conduct does not meet a statutory threshold of “reasonable belief.” In others, providers may settle matters internally without triggering any regulatory or criminal response.

Legal Redress

In criminal law, the evidentiary requirements for successful prosecution—particularly in cases involving non-verbal or very young children—are often insurmountable. As a result, many cases do not proceed beyond investigation.

Civil litigation remains an underutilised avenue, although some legal practitioners are now exploring class actions on the basis of breach of statutory duty, negligence, and vicarious liability.

The Profit Motive

The shortcomings of the current framework arise within the context of a burgeoning profit motive.

At the moment, Australia’s early childhood education and care sector is valued at over $20 billion annually. This growth can largely be attributed to government subsidies.  In total, it is estimated that the federal government spent over $15 billion on childcare subsidies through the Child Care Subsidy (CCS) program.

As a result, there has been a rapid rise in the number of for-profit providers opening childcare centres across the country. Currently, at least 75% of long-day care services are operated by for-profit or private providers, including large corporations and venture capital-backed chains.

For these for-profit childcare providers, there is an incentive to drive down operating costs in order to maximise returns on investment. This often comes at the expense of child safety and welfare. For example, a 2023 ACCC inquiry found that for-profit providers spend significantly less on staff, have a higher proportion of casual employees and employ less experienced educators than not-for-profit providers

Considering this, it’s not surprising that for-profit centres are consistently rated lower quality than not-for-profit providers. The latest report into the sector by the Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) found that only 13 per cent of for-profit childcare providers exceed national minimum standards for the provision of ECEC, which is less than half that of non-profit providers.

Despite the glaring issues facing the sector, regulation remains underfunded and ineffective. Reports by the Productivity Commission have found that industry regulators are significantly under-resourced, which prevents compliance inspections from being performed on a frequent basis. In fact, almost one in ten providers have never been given a quality rating yet are allowed to continue operating and enrolling children.

Political Response

In light of all this, attempts have been made to fast-track regulatory reform both at a federal and domestic level.

The government introduced the Early Childhood Education and Care (Strengthening Regulation of Early Education) Bill 2025, empowering the Commonwealth to refuse, suspend, or withdraw the Child Care Subsidy (CCS) from centres that fail to meet safety or quality standards. Authorities can now also conduct unannounced spot checks and require services to “show cause” if they breach regulations.

In NSW, The Labor government has moved to strengthen the Working with Children Check (WWCC) by removing the oppurtunity for people to appeal the denial of a Working with Children check. The strict one-strike policy removes external pathways of appeals such as the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), and comes after reports that sex offenders and other criminals have been granted the checks on appeal.

Further Reform

Despite these attempts, children are likely to remain vulnerable until more meaningful reform comes to fruition. The government is yet to engage in more substantial undertakings, such as establishing a national childcare commission, as recommended in September 2024 by the Productivity Commission, or conducting an independent review into the National Quality Standards and its oversight body, the Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority (ACECQA).

Other more effective means of reform that may strengthen the regulatory framework include;

• Establishing a National WWCC Register to track all WWCC applications, suspensions, cancellations, and disciplinary findings.
• Implementing standards that would require that no child be left alone with a single educator, particularly in early learning environments.
• Standardising mandatory reporting laws across jurisdictions so that all allegations are reported promptly and investigated independently.
• Lowering evidentiary burdens in civil law and improving support for victims and families to increase the availability of legal redress.

Looking Ahead

The recent cases concerning Joshua Bown and David James provide clear evidence of a broader trend within Australia’s childcare industry. As the profit motive grows, concern for the safety and welfare of children diminishes, exposing the inability of current regulatory frameworks to adapt to the increasingly commercial nature of childcare. Without institutional safeguards and further reform, the system will continue to fail the very children it exists to protect.

For further information or assistance, please call us on +612 9283 5599 or complete the free and confidential call-back form below. We’re here to help.