The safety, rights and best interests of children must be the paramount consideration in every decision and action across early childhood education and care (ECEC).

This principle, known as the paramountcy principle, is legislated in Section 3A of the Children (Education and Care Services) National Law (NSW) and applies to all individuals working in ECEC in NSW.

Why paramountcy matters

The paramountcy principle is the cornerstone of high-quality early childhood education and care.

Prioritising children’s safety, rights, and best interests in every decision fosters environments where children thrive, feel valued, and are protected, and their wellbeing and developmental needs are consistently supported.

What paramountcy looks like

Demonstrating paramountcy means consistently showing that children’s interests come first, always. Services should be able to show that:

• children’s safety, rights, and best interests are actively considered in every decision
• when conflicts of interest arise, children’s interests are prioritised above all else
• documentation around decisions demonstrate to show how paramountcy informed those decisions
• actions taken based on decisions align with the paramountcy principle
• practice, policies and culture reinforce the paramountcy principle.

In practice, this means being able to clearly answer: How did this decision or action prioritise the child’s rights and best interests?

The paramountcy principle will look different for each person depending on their role. For example, how the paramountcy principle applies to a board or committee member of an approved provider will differ from how it applies to an educator working directly with children, but both must prioritise children’s interests above all else.

Embedding paramountcy in day-to-day practice

The paramountcy principle should guide all aspects of service delivery and be embedded in all actions and decisions made in the service and in all the documents that guide how staff work with children.

Below are some ways approved providers and services can consider applying the paramountcy principle in their service context.

1. Decision-making

Every decision should clearly prioritise children. In practice, this could look like:

• adjusting routines, environments and expectations to meet the child’s individual needs
• escalating concerns without delay where safety or wellbeing may be at risk
• taking preventative action to promote the rights and best interests of children, even where it may impact operations.

A key test to demonstrating paramountcy is asking whether a reasonable person would see that children’s interests were the primary driver of a decision.

2. Documentation and records

Approved providers, nominated supervisors and family day care (FDC) educators are responsible for compliance with record-keeping requirements. Records must be up to date and accurate and include information required under the National Law.

Record keeping is a critical way to demonstrate that the paramountcy principle has been applied in practice. Where decisions or actions are documented, records should clearly show:

• what was considered
• how children’s safety, rights and best interests informed the decision
• what action was taken as a result.

Records should be sufficiently clear that a reasonable person can understand how the paramountcy principle was applied.

In practice, services can:

• include prompts in incident reports, for example, how were the child’s best interests prioritised?
• embed reflections on paramountcy in meeting minutes and supervision discussions
• document decision-making rationales in quality improvement planning
• update templates and guidance to support staff to consistently record how children’s interests were prioritised.

Where a record is already required (for example, including those captured in Regulation 177, staffing records or your quality improvement plan), you might like to consider how it clearly demonstrates how children’s safety, rights and best interests were the paramount consideration.

If it is not recorded, it may be difficult to demonstrate that the paramountcy principle was applied. The more complex or significant the decision is, the more value there is in recording the reasons for a decision.

3. Policies and procedures

Under Regulation 168, approved providers must ensure their services have policies and procedures in place. Under changes to Regulation 168(2)(h)(i) in NSW, from 24 April 2026 approved providers must review their policies and procedures relating to child safe environments to reflect and reinforce the paramountcy principle.

Paramountcy should be clearly embedded in policies that are a statutory requirement.

This means policies must:

• clearly prioritise children’s safety, rights and best interests
• make it clear how the service will address conflicts of interest as they arise, which is required under Section 4 of the National Law
• support staff to take appropriate and timely action where risks to children arise
• provide clear, practical guidance on how to apply the paramountcy principle in decision-making.

Policies should be written and structured so that a reasonable person can see that children’s interests are the primary consideration in all scenarios.

As part of regular policy review processes, services should assess whether paramountcy is clearly embedded, consistently applied and reflected in both the intent and practical guidance of their policies. Documents should be updated where required to strengthen alignment with the principle.

4. Culture and capability

Paramountcy should be actively understood, discussed and applied by everyone, regardless of the role they play in delivering ECEC. A strong child-safe culture is essential for the consistent application of the paramountcy principle across all levels of a service. This can be demonstrated through:

• onboarding and training that clearly set out expectations for applying paramountcy in everyday decisions and interactions
• regular discussion in team meetings, supervision, and reflective practice that reinforces children’s safety, rights, and best interests as the primary consideration
• leadership teams that model decision-making that prioritises children and reflects the paramountcy principle in action
• staff confidence and empowerment to speak up, escalate concerns and challenge decisions when children’s interests may not be fully considered.

Open and intentional conversations about paramountcy help embed the principle into the everyday culture and practice of the service.

Examples of paramountcy in practice

Below are some examples of how the paramountcy principle can apply in practice.

Supporting children’s individual needs

• Situation: A child is well enough to attend the service but appears to be tired, unable to manage their emotions and struggling to engage with peers.
• Paramountcy not being applied: The level of care and support provided to the child is not adjusted.
• Paramountcy being applied: Educators are flexible with their approach and are available to the child. Expectations, routines and activities for the day are adapted to meet their individual needs. Educators communicate with child’s family to plan for any other supports required and ensure open communication to support the child’s transition between home and the service.

Prioritising the interests of a child

• Situation: An educator notices a long-term change in the behaviour of a child. They are withdrawn and don’t interact or engage with other children when they previously had done so.
• Paramountcy not being applied: The educator ensures that their minimum requirements under child protection and the National Law are met but otherwise does not change the way they interact with the child or consider additional supports or changes that may help. They mention the change in the child’s behaviour in passing to their nominated supervisor but do not follow up.
• Paramountcy being applied: The educator escalates their concerns and follows up with the nominated supervisor if necessary. The educator, in collaboration with their room leader, puts forward ideas about supports that may be relevant, including asking the child questions about their interests, worries or concerns and speaking to the child’s family about what they’ve observed.

Staffing

• Situation: An approved provider operates a service that has waivers in place for early childhood teachers. The waivers were previously granted by the NSW Early Learning Commission after the provider demonstrated reasonable efforts to recruit qualified staff. The service is in a tight labour market.
• Paramountcy not being applied: The approved provider receives applications from educators who are trained and certified but do not have as much experience as they would like and might require support and development at first. They treat the waiver as an ongoing solution rather than a temporary measure.
• Paramountcy being applied: The approved provider and service recognise the genuine tension between having no early childhood teacher present and employing one who may require support and development initially, and are guided by the principle that children’s rights and best interests must take precedence when these factors compete. They critically reflect on their assumptions and take balanced but decisive action to prioritise children’s outcomes by taking action to:
  • actively review staffing and professional development needs
  • recruit for an early childhood teacher, while being transparent with families about progress.

Managing hazards in the environment

• Situation: Heavy rainfall has caused water damage and visible mould in a low-traffic room of a service. The room is not currently used to provide education and care to children. However, it does store toys, learning materials and staff resources that are frequently used in daily activities across the service. Initial advice suggests the mould appears superficial and contained. The service is already operating at capacity, with limited spare resources and no immediate budget to replace materials.
• Paramountcy not being applied: The approved provider and service leaders make a judgement that the risk is low and manageable, based on the room not being accessed by children and the visible mould appearing minor. They decide to:
  • continue using resources from the room after wiping them down
  • delay professional assessment to avoid immediate costs and disruption
  • keep the room accessible to staff only
  • manage the issue internally without notifying families or the Early Learning Commission.

These decisions are framed as proportionate and practical, balancing risk with continuity of care and resource constraints. However, they rely on assumptions about the level of risk and prioritise operational continuity and cost over eliminating a potential health hazard. As a result, contaminated materials may continue circulating through learning environments, unknowingly exposing children and staff to mould spores, and demonstrating a failure to prioritise children’s health and safety.

• Paramountcy being applied: The approved provider and service leaders immediately recognise that any potential risk to children must be eliminated or minimised without delay. They take precautionary and child-centred action by:
  • immediately isolating the affected and adjoining areas, restricting all access
  • ceasing use of all materials stored in the room, treating them as potentially contaminated
  • promptly notifying families and the Early Learning Commission with transparent information about the issue and actions being taken
  • engaging qualified professionals to assess the extent of the mould contamination and environmental risk, including less visible or airborne risks
  • safely disposing of all affected materials where safety cannot be assured, despite financial impact.

Following remediation, the provider embeds stronger preventative measures, including reviewing the service’s maintenance practices, storage of materials and risk management procedures.

Policies and procedures

• Situation: The board of a large ECEC provider is planning to recruit senior managers within the organisation to act as Persons with Management or Control. As part of their efforts, they are offering specific goals-based incentive schemes in their employment contracts.
• Paramountcy not being applied: The employment contracts include significant performance bonuses related to profit for the provider, creating a strong incentive to prioritise profit over the safety and quality of education and care. This would explicitly create the kind of conflict of interest which is outlined in Section 4 of the National Law.
• Paramountcy being applied: The employment contract does not include any incentive or bonus schemes that create an incentive for any employee to prioritise and concern above the interests and wellbeing of children. Section 4 of the National Law clarifies that, in any conflict of interests between the interests of an approved provider and the rights and best interests of a child/children, the rights and best interests of the child must prevail. This includes explicitly prevailing over any obligations under the Corporations Act 2001.

Reflective questions

For approved providers and service leaders

• How do your governance and operational decisions demonstrate children’s interests are the paramount consideration in all that you do?
• How do you document and review decisions to show paramountcy is consistently applied in all decisions and actions?
• How are conflicts of interest identified, managed and resolved to ensure children’s interests prevail at all times?
• How do policies and procedures guide staff to apply paramountcy in practice?
• How do you monitor whether financial or operational pressures from stakeholders affect paramountcy?
• How do you ensure paramountcy is applied consistently across multiple services or settings?
• How do you foster a culture where staff are empowered to discuss, challenge and escalate concerns relating to paramountcy?

For educators and service staff

• How do your daily decisions and interactions demonstrate that children’s safety, rights and best interests always come first?
• How do you ensure children’s voices are heard and acted upon in planning and routines? How do you identify and respond to risks or hazards?
• How do you balance routine duties with meaningful engagement that prioritises children?
• How do you encourage children’s autonomy and participation while putting the rights and best interests of children first?
• How do you ensure your interactions uphold children’s dignity and rights, even under stress?
• How do you reflect on and adapt your practice to ensure decisions always align with paramountcy?
• How do you identify and manage personal biases or assumptions that may affect your approach to children's safety, rights and best interests?

More information

Read ACECQA’s information sheet on understanding paramount consideration.