Opinion: Are Opt-In Intimate Care Waivers a Form of Discrimination Against Male Educators?

An opt-in intimate care waiver is a formal consent form offered by some early childhood education and care (ECEC) services that allows families to choose whether male educators can perform intimate care tasks—such as nappy changes, toileting, or dressing—for their child. On the surface, this seems like a reasonable compromise: empower families, protect children, and avoid blanket bans on male staff. But scratch beneath the surface, and a deeper question emerges: Are we quietly institutionalizing gender discrimination?

What Are Opt-In Intimate Care Waivers?

This approach has gained attention in Australia, particularly in Victoria, following high-profile abuse allegations in the sector. It is seen by some as a middle-ground solution that balances:

Parental choice and comfort
Child safety
The rights and inclusion of male educators

There is currently no formal national policy or regulation in Australia that mandates or prohibits the use of opt-in intimate care waivers in early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings. However, the concept has emerged in response to heightened concerns around child safety and gender equity—particularly following recent abuse allegations in Victoria.

What the Waiver Covers

The waiver typically asks families to indicate:

Whether they consent to any qualified educator, regardless of gender, providing intimate care
Whether they prefer female educators only
Whether they’d like to discuss their preferences with the centre director

Why It’s Controversial

While some families and advocates support opt-in waivers as a protective measure, others argue they may:

Reinforce gender stereotypes by implying male educators are inherently riskier
Contribute to indirect discrimination under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic)
Limit male educators’ roles, affecting their job satisfaction and career progression

The Gendered Double Standard

Let’s be clear—abuse is not gendered. Both men and women have been perpetrators, and both can be nurturing, safe, and professional caregivers. Yet, when fear takes hold, male educators often become the default suspects. A 2023 study from the University of Manchester found that intimate care remains a “key barrier to gender-diversifying the early years workforce,” with many male educators excluded from these tasks despite being fully qualified.

Opt-in waivers, while framed as a family choice, can reinforce the stereotype that men are inherently riskier. This not only undermines male educators’ professional identity but also sends a troubling message to children: that men are less trustworthy in caregiving roles.

A Legal Grey Zone

Under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), it is unlawful to discriminate against someone in employment based on their sex. If a male educator is routinely excluded from core duties like intimate care—especially if this affects their career progression or job security—it could constitute indirect discrimination.

Yes, families have the right to feel safe. But safety and inclusion are not mutually exclusive. The law requires us to find solutions that protect children without vilifying an entire gender.

What’s the Alternative?

Rather than relying on opt-in waivers that subtly marginalise male staff, services should invest in:

Transparent safeguarding protocols (e.g., Four Eyes Policy, CCTV)
Trauma-informed training for all educators
Clear documentation of care routines
Open communication with families about how safety is ensured for every child, regardless of who provides care

These strategies protect children without compromising gender equity.

Early childhood education is already facing a workforce crisis. If we continue to alienate male educators, we risk losing not only valuable staff but also the opportunity to model healthy, nurturing masculinity for young children.

Opt-in waivers may seem like a middle ground, but they walk a fine line between choice and prejudice. If we truly believe in inclusive, child-centred care, we must build systems that protect all children and all educators—not just the ones who fit our comfort zones.