Undervalued and Underpaid: The Battle to Redefine Worth in Early Childhood Education
In its review of the Children’s Services Award, the Fair Work Commission is examining whether the wages paid to early childhood educators reflect the true value of their work—or whether systemic gender-based undervaluation has shaped pay structures in a sector overwhelmingly staffed by women. The parties to this historic proceeding include unions, employer representatives, and the Commonwealth Government, each offering markedly different perspectives on how care work should be valued.
The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and the United Workers Union (UWU) argued unequivocally that the Children’s Services Award has been shaped by gender-based undervaluation and must be rectified. They proposed increasing the minimum rate for Certificate III-qualified educators (Level 3.1) to the Caring Skills benchmark of $1269.80 and increasing the pay for degree-qualified Directors (Level 6.1) to the C1(a) benchmark rate of $1525.90. These increases, they argued, would reflect the true work value of educators’ roles.
The ACTU contended that past wage-setting decisions—most notably the ACT Child Care decision—did not properly value educators’ work because they were restricted by historical wage-fixing principles that used 1990 as the baseline. According to the ACTU, that decision aligned ECEC wage rates with the C10 classification from the Metals Framework, a benchmark developed in a male-dominated industrial setting. This approach failed to consider the ‘invisible skills’ central to care work—such as emotional labour, dynamic workflow coordination, and communication—which, the ACTU argued, are undervalued precisely because they are feminised.
The UWU echoed these arguments, submitting that educators and support workers engage in a complex range of interpersonal, emotional and logistical tasks that are often overlooked in traditional work value assessments. These include navigating relationships with families, coordinating dynamic routines, managing children’s wellbeing, and adjusting to unpredictable circumstances—all of which require skilled judgment, sensitivity, and collaboration. The UWU described this as a form of expertise that is systemic and intentional, yet persistently ignored because of assumptions tied to gender.
While the unions advocated for a significant structural correction to the award, employer organisations took a more cautious approach. The Australian Childcare Alliance (ACA) acknowledged that the award’s minimum pay rates may not be properly set and agreed that the work of educators involves the use of “invisible skills.” The ACA accepted the reasoning in the Stage 3 Aged Care decision, which recognised caring skills as a legitimate work value consideration, and agreed that some increase to the rates in the award may be warranted. However, they argued that many of these skills are not truly “invisible,” as they are included in the competency requirements of Certificate III and Diploma qualifications.
The ACA rejected the unions’ call to apply the Caring Skills benchmark rate directly to educators. They argued that while both aged care and early childhood care involve interpersonal work, the two contexts are fundamentally different. For instance, aged care workers often operate in isolation, deal with comorbidities, palliative care, and adult dignity issues—scenarios the ACA said present different challenges than those encountered in childcare settings. On that basis, they recommended a more moderate increase—less than 15%—with the final figure falling somewhere between that awarded to direct and indirect care workers in aged care.
The ACA also supported applying the C1(a) benchmark rate to degree-qualified directors but proposed disaggregating diploma-qualified directors into a separate pay classification. They raised concerns about the current annual increment structure in the award, arguing that it lacks a principled connection to actual work value. Drawing from the Stage 3 Aged Care and Teachers decisions, the ACA proposed reforms that would introduce additional classifications for educators with four or more years of post-qualification experience.
Importantly, the ACA urged that any wage increases must be matched by government funding. They warned that the fragile economic state of the ECEC sector, coupled with its reliance on public subsidies, meant that increases without full Commonwealth support could jeopardise service viability. The ACA referred to the Commonwealth’s Retention Payment scheme as a limited and time-bound measure, pointing out that the funding only applies to services that apply before June 2025 and ends by November 2026. Therefore, they stressed, this should not be interpreted as an ongoing commitment to fund broader pay increases.
The ACA’s position was formally supported by both Australian Business Industrial (ABI) and the NSW Business Chamber (NSWBC), who adopted the ACA’s submissions in full.
In contrast, the Early Learning Association Australia (ELAA) strongly supported the unions’ position. ELAA argued that educators’ work had been historically undervalued due to gendered assumptions, particularly stereotypes around feminine care traits versus technical skills in male-dominated industries. They submitted that this undervaluation has led to a highly gender-segregated workforce with low pay and high attrition. ELAA characterised educators’ work as incredibly broad and dynamic, requiring significant levels of “code switching” and adaptability in unpredictable environments.
They supported the application of the Caring Skills benchmark rate to Level 3.1 and proportional adjustments across Level 3. ELAA also proposed removing Levels 1 and 2 from the classification structure, as they no longer reflect the requirement that all educators must hold or be working towards a Certificate III qualification under the National Quality Framework. Additionally, they recommended introducing a new classification for diploma-qualified educators who are not in leadership roles. While they acknowledged the need for an implementation timetable, they were clear that wage increases were essential to addressing chronic underpayment and workforce attrition.
The Australian Industry Group (Ai Group) took the most oppositional stance in the proceedings. It did not accept that educators’ work had been historically undervalued due to gender, nor that the minimum wage rates in the Children’s Services Award should be increased. The Ai Group argued that previous Fair Work reports (Stage 1 and 2) did not establish gender-based undervaluation and that the current award already accounted for the skills involved in care work.
Furthermore, the Ai Group warned that the ECEC sector's funding dependency and pricing constraints meant that any wage increases—particularly if unfunded—would increase fees for families, threaten business viability, and reduce accessibility to childcare. They opposed the adoption of both the Caring Skills and C1(a) benchmarks. Regarding any increase the Commission might award, the Ai Group advocated for a delayed start date or phased implementation, taking into account the broader economic and administrative implications, including changes to payroll and IT systems.
The Commonwealth Government submitted a position focused primarily on funding and economic impact. It clarified that the Retention Payment scheme, introduced under the Wage Justice Act, was designed to support a limited wage uplift while keeping fee growth in check. The scheme ensures a 10% wage uplift from December 2024, followed by a further 5% in December 2025—but only for eligible services that apply in time. The Commonwealth was explicit: this scheme should not be interpreted as a funding mechanism for any outcome determined by the Commission.
The Commonwealth noted that if the Commission awarded increases below the Retention Payment amounts, the payment would top up the difference. If the increases matched or exceeded those levels, the award itself would become a compliant wage instrument. However, the government warned that the Retention Payment is a short-term, interim measure, and it had not made any decisions regarding ongoing funding. Any further wage support would need to be weighed against broader economic and fiscal constraints. Should the Commission determine that wage increases are justified, the Commonwealth indicated that it would likely support a phased or staged implementation.
In addition to these institutional submissions, the Fair Work Commission also heard from a wide range of employer-side witnesses, including Approved Providers, Directors, and Registered Training Organisations. These witnesses—many affiliated with ACA—offered practical insights into the daily work of educators, service structures, and the challenges of sustaining operations under increasing cost pressures. Among them were Jackie Jackman from South Australia’s Treetops Early Learning, Majella Fitzsimmons of Educating Kids Early Learning in Queensland, and Gregory Hensman of Sagewood Early Learning in Western Australia. Their testimony reflected consistent themes: while educators perform complex, caring work, many of the associated skills are already reflected in training and qualification requirements, and any significant pay rises must be supported by government to avoid destabilising the sector.
Together, their evidence presented a nuanced view of the ECEC workforce—one where caring skills are central, expectations are high, and systemic underpayment is real, but so too are the financial constraints. As the Commission considers its next steps, it must weigh the historical gender inequities embedded in care work against the operational realities of a sector already under pressure. The outcome will not just determine pay packets—it will send a national message about how Australia values the people who care for its youngest citizens.
For More Information, Check Out The Full Preliminary Decision here