Australia’s Anti-Bullying Rapid Review has put a national spotlight on the need for consistent, timely and evidence-based responses to bullying. Although the Review is framed around schools, its message reaches further: safe, respectful, inclusive environments do not happen by accident; they are designed and maintained across the education continuum. That makes early childhood education and care (ECEC) central to the national response, because the dispositions and skills that prevent bullying later in life take root in the years before school. The Review itself calls for a principles-based National Standard and a coherent program of implementation so that wherever a child learns, adults act quickly, transparently and in ways that actually change behaviour and culture. The goal is not a one-off campaign but a sustained approach that blends prevention, early intervention and proportionate response, grounded in what works and adapted as new risks emerge.
At the heart of the Review is a Suggested National Standard on Bullying in Australian Schools. It is principles-based and deliberately interconnected, emphasising that schools should implement the elements together, not in silos. These elements stress consistent anti-bullying requirements, whole-of-school and locally tailored approaches, visible and transparent policies, early and appropriate intervention, workforce capability and continual improvement. The Standard views bullying on a continuum of harmful behaviours, both physical and psychosocial, that undermine a safe learning environment. Although written for schools, its logic aligns with the ECEC quality architecture under the National Quality Framework: culture is set by leaders, shared expectations are co-designed with families and communities, and practice is adjusted for local context and diverse learner needs.
One element has already captured public attention: speed and clarity of response. The Review proposes that all school systems and schools make a reasonable effort to initiate a response to observed or reported harmful behaviour within two school days, including immediate safety and support planning and initial communication with those affected. This expectation is coupled with transparent policies that are publicly available and clearly explain how to report, what happens next, what supports are offered and how matters escalate. Families told the Review they want less ambiguity and more closure; they are frustrated by acknowledgements without follow-through or by cases closing without resolution. The National Standard’s timeliness requirement is a direct response to those concerns and a practical step that ECEC services can adapt to their own context through clear behaviour guidance, incident communication protocols and timely follow-up.
Just as important is the call to intervene early and appropriately. The Review rejects a binary view that waits until behaviour meets a narrow definition of “bullying” before adults act. Instead, it urges an evidence-based continuum: primary prevention, early proactive intervention and then proportionate response and recovery, with supports for everyone involved. That approach aligns with well-established ECEC practice in social and emotional learning, co-regulation and restorative conversations. It also recognises that punitive measures alone are ineffective and that adult behaviours, school climate and consistent modelling matter. For ECEC, this validates daily relational work: naming feelings, teaching problem-solving, rehearsing help-seeking, coaching “upstander” behaviours and redesigning environments to reduce flashpoints.
The Review also emphasises leadership and whole-community engagement. It highlights that comprehensive, locally tailored, whole-of-school approaches—driven by visible leadership and co-designed with students, families and the workforce—are most effective. For ECEC services, this translates to educators and leaders setting a tone of inclusion and respect; engaging families in co-authored expectations; strengthening transitions with schools so shared language and strategies carry across; and ensuring that practice is responsive to First Nations children, children with disability, children who identify as LGBTIQA+ and other groups facing elevated risk. In practical terms, that means embedding anti-bullying expectations into everyday practice, communications and the physical environment, not just in a policy folder.
A less visible—but vital—pillar is data and continual improvement. The Review urges systems to support schools to analyse student-level data to understand local risks, target prevention and intervention, and monitor whether actions are working. It also points to the need for consistent data collection nationally so that trends can be identified and practice adjusted over time. ECEC services can mirror this stance by tracking behavioural incidents, help-seeking patterns, environmental triggers and the timeliness of responses; by reviewing the data with staff and approved providers; and by sharing insights with local school partners to strengthen continuity for children. This is not surveillance; it is structured learning so that adults do better next time.
The workforce sits at the centre of implementation. Teachers and school leaders told the Review they are committed but constrained by time and complexity, and that they need practical, trauma-informed professional development, access to specialist support and clearer guidance on effective interventions. The Standard therefore calls for capability building, protected time for professional learning and clear accountabilities so that staff understand the procedures they must follow. In ECEC, this direction is familiar: educator capability, reflective supervision and psychologically safe teams are the bedrock of high-quality practice. Services can extend their professional learning plans to include coaching on early intervention language, de-escalation, culturally safe practice and managing online harms with families, while ensuring staff wellbeing is protected.
The Review does not shy away from complexity. It repeatedly notes higher rates of bullying and discrimination experienced by diverse cohorts and calls for responses that are locally tailored and genuinely inclusive. It also points to the role of wider social narratives and media practices and the need for primary-prevention campaigns that build community understanding and shift norms, much like successful national efforts in other areas. For ECEC, that means partnering with families to ensure shared messages about kindness, consent, respect and digital citizenship; engaging community services; and advocating for accessible supports when children have unmet needs that escalate risk.
So what does “adapting the Standard” look like in an early learning setting right now? First, codify timeliness. Services can set clear expectations that any incident of harmful behaviour triggers same-day safety planning, communication with families and a debrief for involved staff, with a documented follow-up within two working days. This mirrors the Standard’s intent while fitting ECEC operational rhythms. Second, make the policy visible. Families should know exactly how to raise concerns, what information they will receive and how matters escalate, and this should be conveyed in plain language during enrolment and revisited regularly. Third, invest in the workforce. Leaders can timetable short, high-frequency practice clinics on spotting early signs, coaching pro-social behaviours, and running restorative conversations, and they can arrange access to specialist support when complexity is high. Fourth, design for prevention. Review room layouts and outdoor supervision zones to remove blind spots; plan for predictable “hot times” of the day; and embed rituals that build peer connection. Finally, measure and learn. Track patterns, test small changes, and share what works with partner schools so that children experience consistent approaches in the year before school and the year after.
For school leaders and system stewards reading this in parallel, the Review’s implementation architecture also matters. It calls for Education Ministers to endorse a National Standard, to lead public awareness work focused on primary prevention and behaviour change, and to back schools with practical guidance, trauma-informed training and targeted resources on cyberbullying and deepfakes, developed with the eSafety Commissioner. It also recommends a scheduled review of implementation by 2027 and a commitment to build the evidence base so actions can adapt to emerging risks. That scaffolding is relevant for ECEC peak bodies and governments as they consider ECEC-specific adaptations and cross-sector alignment, especially for transitions and joint family engagement.
Ultimately, the Review describes a national “reset” rather than a rebadge. Australia has strong practice in many places, but results are inconsistent, and too many children, families and educators are left to navigate harm without clear, timely and effective support. ECEC services are uniquely placed to make the biggest difference at the lowest point of effort by teaching empathy, co-regulation and problem-solving before patterns harden; by partnering with families early; and by modelling transparent, timely responses when harm occurs. If we accept that bullying sits on a continuum of harmful behaviours and that early, proportionate intervention works best, then the path forward is clear: design for inclusion, act quickly, learn publicly and stay the course. The Anti-Bullying Rapid Review gives the nation a coherent plan. Early childhood education can help make it real.
