Beyond Minimums: Children’s Right to Space and the Integrity of the National Quality Framework
Written by Lee Gane
The National Quality Framework (NQF) establishes children’s safety, health, wellbeing, and learning as central regulatory objectives. Under the Children’s Services Regulations, approved Education and Care services are required to provide 7 square metres of unencumbered outdoor space per child, recognising that adequate space is fundamental to children’s development.
By comparison, Australian free-range poultry standards allocate approximately 6.72 square metres per chicken, explicitly linking space to stress reduction and the ability to express natural behaviours (Australian Government, 2022). While this comparison is not a claim about daily practice, it highlights a regulatory inconsistency: systems recognise space as a welfare imperative for animals yet permit allowances within children’s regulatory frameworks that fall well below this benchmark. While sun safe practices in many services see children indoors for most of the day in as little as 3.25 square meters of unencumbered space per child, around half of what is considered adequate for a chicken.
This inconsistency sits in direct tension with Quality Area 2 (Children’s Health and Safety). Extensive research demonstrates that spatial density is a primary driver of behaviour escalation, injury risk, and stress in children. Crowded environments are associated with increased aggression, conflict, noise stress, and impaired self-regulation (Evans, 2006; Maxwell, 2003). Children are biologically primed for movement; when space is constrained, they compete for territory and resources, resulting in more frequent incidents and a greater reliance on reactive behaviour management. This undermines the NQF’s preventative approach to safety and wellbeing and places children at avoidable risk.
The issue also directly engages Quality Area 3 (Physical Environment), which requires environments to be fit for purpose, inclusive, and supportive of children’s learning and play. High-quality play, particularly gross motor, cooperative, and imaginative play, requires space. Design and environmental research in early childhood settings consistently shows that when minimum spatial thresholds are compromised, play becomes chaotic, collisions increase, and learning opportunities are reduced (Olds, 2001). Adequate space is not an aesthetic or discretionary consideration; it is a pedagogical and developmental requirement. Environments that restrict movement contradict QA3’s intent by limiting children’s ability to engage in active, self-directed, and developmentally appropriate learning.
The impacts of spatial compression extend beyond children to the workforce, engaging Quality Area 4 (Staffing Arrangements). Educators working in high-density environments experience increased supervision complexity, heightened vigilance demands, and greater emotional labour. Research links crowded early learning environments with educator stress, fatigue, burnout, and increased turnover intentions (McGrath et al., 2020; OECD, 2020). The Australian Productivity Commission (2023) has identified workforce sustainability as a critical system risk, noting that working conditions are a key driver of attrition. When space is inadequate, the burden of managing predictable behaviour escalation and safety risks is transferred to educators, undermining workforce wellbeing and stability and, ultimately, the quality of care and education provided to children.
The comparison with free-range animal welfare standards is therefore instructive, not rhetorical. Agricultural regulations explicitly acknowledge that adequate space reduces stress, injury, and harmful behaviours (Australian Government, 2022). The same principles are well-established in child development science (Evans, 2006). Yet children, who have greater body mass, limb span, mobility, and social complexity than livestock, are subject to regulatory allowances that do not consistently reflect these needs. This contradiction weakens the integrity of the NQF and risks normalising conditions that are inconsistent with its stated purpose.
If the NQF is to meaningfully uphold its commitments under QA2 (health and safety), QA3 (supportive physical environments), and QA4 (a sustainable and supported workforce), then minimum space expectations must be developmentally defensible, ethically coherent, and aligned with evidence. Children require more space than animals, not less.
Adequate space is a foundational condition for safe behaviour, effective pedagogy, educator wellbeing, and the realisation of children’s rights within early learning and care settings.
Key references
- Evans, G. W. (2006). Child development and the physical environment. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 423–451.
- Maxwell, L. E. (2003). Home and school density effects on children. Environment and Behavior, 35(4), 566–578.
- Olds, A. R. (2001). Child Care Design Guide. McGraw-Hill.
- McGrath, B. J., et al. (2020). Early childhood educators’ well-being. Early Childhood Education Journal.
- OECD (2020). Early Learning and Child Well-being (IELS).
- Productivity Commission (2023). A Pathway to Universal Early Childhood Education and Care.
- Australian Government (2022). Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Domestic Poultry.
