Submission 88 — Parents of Deaf Children — Submissions to Foundational and disability supports available for children and young people in New South Wales

Submission

No 125

INQUIRY INTO FOUNDATIONAL AND DISABILITY

SUPPORTS AVAILABLE FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG

PEOPLE IN NEW SOUTH WALES

Organisation: Parents of Deaf Children

Date Received: 17 September 2026

(call/sms)

Wwww.podc.org.au

E. W.

PARENTS OF

DEAF CHILDREN

Supporting families for over 60 years

Submission on Thriving Kids and Foundational Supports in NSW

Parents of Deaf Children (PODC) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the NSW Parliamentary inquiry into Foundational and Disability Supports for Children and Young People, including the development of Thriving Kids.

PODC is a parent-led organisation that has supported Deaf and hard of hearing children and their families for more than 60 years. We provide information, peer support, advocacy and community connection. Our perspective is informed by families navigating hearing services, early intervention, education, disability supports and the broader systems that shape children’s development and wellbeing.

Deaf and hard of hearing children are diverse. They may use Auslan, spoken language or both; use hearing aids, cochlear implants or other assistive technology; identify as Deaf, hard of hearing or neither; have Deaf or hearing parents; and have additional disabilities. Effective policy must respond to this diversity without directing every child into a single language, communication or intervention pathway.

PODC supports a coordinated system of mainstream, foundational and specialist supports. That system must be guided by Deaf people, children and families, current developmental and psychological knowledge, and evidence-based practice.

Our central message is simple: every child needs early, consistent and meaningful access to language. Hearing technology and speech intervention can be valuable, but they do not guarantee complete language or communication access in every setting. Children and families must have genuine access to Auslan, spoken-language and bimodal-bilingual pathways, supported by skilled professionals, Deaf mentors, assistive-technology mentors and peer networks.

The objective is not merely for a child to hear or speak. It is for the whole child to develop language, thinking, relationships, identity, emotional wellbeing, independence and full

participation in family, education and community life.

W.

E

Wwww.podc.org.au

PARENTS OF

DEAF CHILDREN

Supporting families for over 60 years

Priority recommendations

PODC recommends that NSW:

Guarantee early access to an accessible language, with equitable pathways for Auslan, spoken language and bimodal-bilingual development.

Monitor language access and receptive and expressive language development—not only hearing levels, device use or speech production.

Establish coordinated pathways across hearing, health, early childhood intervention, education, Foundational Supports and the NDIS.

Fund Deaf-specific family support, Deaf mentoring, assistive-technology mentoring, parent-to-parent support and independent navigation.

Build specialist capacity in Deaf child development, Auslan, language deprivation, Deaf Plus and Deafblind practice, psychology, mental health and assistive technology. Protect individual NDIS supports until a suitable, accessible and sustainably funded alternative is operating.

Embed Deaf people, young people and families in governance, commissioning, implementation and evaluation.

Measure success through language, communication, developmental, social

emotional, identity, participation and family outcomes.

(call/sms)

Wwww.podc.org.au

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

1. What role do these services and supports play in a child’s overall development, health and wellbeing?

For Deaf and hard of hearing children, early and ongoing services play a critical role in language development, communication, learning, social and emotional wellbeing, relationships, identity and participation. Their purpose must extend beyond identifying hearing loss or developing speech to ensuring that every child has consistent access to language and the support required to participate fully in family, education and community life.

Early and consistent language access is fundamental to development.

The early years are a critical period for language acquisition. Children need consistent access to an accessible language to develop communication, thinking, relationships and learning. Where language access is delayed or inconsistent, the consequences can extend across multiple areas of development and wellbeing. [15, 16, 32]

“We were told to wait before introducing Auslan. By the time we were encouraged to start, our child had already lost years of access to language. We cannot give those years back.”

PODC supports a bimodal bilingual approach, providing Deaf children with access to Auslan and spoken language where appropriate. Hearing technology can provide important access to sound and spoken language, but it does not guarantee complete or consistent access for every child, in every environment. Auslan provides a visual language pathway that does not depend on hearing.

Auslan should therefore not be treated as a fallback introduced only when spoken-language development has not progressed as expected. Waiting for a child to fall behind before providing another accessible language can mean losing valuable developmental time. [22, 32, 33]

Services must monitor language development and language access, not simply whether a child has been fitted with hearing technology or is attending therapy. Where language development is not progressing as expected, services must respond early with appropriate assessment and support.

This is consistent with the National Best Practice Framework for Early Childhood Intervention, which emphasises individualised, family-centred support, the development of identity and participation, and the importance of adapting environments rather than attempting to fix or cure disability. [1]

(call/sms) .

W. www.podc.org.au

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

Effective early intervention must recognise the diversity of Deaf children.

Children with similar hearing levels may have very different functional needs. A child may communicate effectively in a quiet, one-to-one setting while experiencing substantial barriers in group conversations, background noise or more complex environments.

Another child may primarily use Auslan, while another may use both Auslan and spoken English. The support required will depend on the child’s individual language development, communication preferences, environment and any additional disabilities.

Children with additional disabilities, including autism, cerebral palsy, intellectual disability or vision impairment, require particular attention. Their Deaf-specific language and communication needs do not disappear because another disability is considered their primary diagnosis.

Services must consider the whole child and bring together Deaf-specific, developmental, health and disability expertise where required.

Children who have already experienced language deprivation may also require specialised assessment and multidisciplinary intervention. Their needs cannot necessarily be addressed through standard speech and language services or general developmental programs alone. [16, 21]

Australian research by McRae and colleagues (2025) found associations between limited childhood communication access and poorer mental health outcomes reported by Deaf adults. The findings highlight the importance of accessible family communication, inclusive education and Deaf community connection in supporting mental wellbeing [25, 26].

A systematic review of research involving Deaf and hard of hearing young people also identified communication barriers, social exclusion and stigma as factors associated with mental health difficulties, reinforcing the importance of accessible communication, relationships and appropriate support during childhood [24].

Developmental intervention and communication access serve different purposes.

Early intervention may help a child develop language, communication and other skills. Communication access enables that child to use those skills and participate in everyday environments.

(call/sms) as E:

W. www.podc.org.au

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

A child who develops strong language skills may require less direct intervention over time while continuing to need Auslan, interpreting, assistive technology, visual communication or environmental adjustments.

These requirements are not evidence that intervention has failed. They are the conditions that enable the child to communicate, learn, develop relationships and participate independently.

Similarly, a child who is highly capable and developing appropriately may continue to experience substantial communication barriers. Strong developmental outcomes should not be interpreted as an absence of access needs.

For PODC, the effectiveness of services must therefore be measured by more than hearing levels, speech production, technology use or progress against individual therapy goals.

Success should be measured by whether a child:

e has consistent access to an accessible language and is developing language appropriately;

¢ can communicate effectively with family, peers and the wider community; e has access to appropriate support across everyday environments; e can develop relationships and participate in education and community life;

e has opportunities to connect with Deaf peers, Deaf adults and the Deaf community; and

e is supported to develop their identity, independence and social and emotional wellbeing.

Ultimately, the role of early and ongoing services is to establish the conditions in which Deaf and hard of hearing children can develop, communicate and participate on an equitable basis.

The measure of success is not simply whether a child can hear or speak, but whether they have the language, communication access and support needed to thrive.

(call/sms) [i E.

W. www.podc.org.au

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

2. What types of services and supports are currently available, and how can their effectiveness, availability and access be improved across metropolitan, regional, rural and remote NSW?

Deaf and hard of hearing children in NSW currently access services across several systems, including newborn hearing screening, diagnostic audiology, Hearing Australia, ENT and hospital services, cochlear implant programs, allied health, specialist early intervention, NDIS supports, education, assistive technology, interpreting, family support and advocacy.

While these services provide important support, they operate across different systems, eligibility criteria and funding arrangements. Families are often left to navigate these systems themselves, determine which services are appropriate and coordinate support between providers.

“We needed someone to help us understand what support our child required and where to find it. Instead, we had to become the experts, coordinate the services and work out which government system was responsible.”

The NDIS Review identified unclear responsibilities, poor information sharing, cost shifting and weak accountability between disability and mainstream services. These problems are particularly significant for Deaf and hard of hearing children whose needs may span health, language development, communication access, education and disability support. [2, 3]

Availability does not necessarily mean accessibility or suitability.

A service may exist but still be inappropriate for a Deaf child if the professionals involved lack relevant Deaf-specific knowledge or the service cannot accommodate the child’s language and communication requirements.

Generic speech pathology, occupational therapy, psychology and early childhood services may provide valuable support, but practitioners do not necessarily have expertise in Deafness, Auslan, bimodal bilingual development, language deprivation or Deaf Plus children.

The availability of a generic developmental service should therefore not be considered evidence that a child’s Deaf-specific support needs can be met.

NSW needs a coordinated service system that combines accessible mainstream provision with specialist Deaf expertise, rather than expecting individual families to locate and coordinate that expertise themselves.

(call/sms)

Wwww.podc.org.au

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

Regional, rural and remote families face additional barriers.

Specialist Deaf services and appropriately qualified professionals are often concentrated in metropolitan areas. Families outside these areas may experience limited provider choice, extended travel, delayed access to assessment and intervention, and difficulty obtaining ongoing specialist support.

Telehealth and telepractice can improve access, but they are not a complete substitute for local services, face-to-face support or opportunities for children and families to connect with Deaf peers and adults.

NSW requires a combination of local services, visiting specialist outreach, regional hubs, telepractice, funded travel where necessary and access to statewide Deaf-specific expertise.

Service planning must consider the practical accessibility of support, including travel time, waiting periods, communication requirements and whether families can access professionals with the expertise needed for their child.

Families need balanced information, navigation and genuine communication choice.

Most parents enter the hearing and disability service systems with limited prior knowledge of childhood Deafness. They may receive information from different professionals whose expertise, service models and approaches to language and communication vary.

Research into parental decision-making in childhood Deafness has identified difficulties understanding available options, conflicting or unbalanced advice, and limitations in shared decision-making. [17]

Families need timely, accessible and balanced information about Auslan, spoken language, bimodal bilingual approaches, hearing technology, specialist intervention and available community supports.

Information should explain the benefits, limitations and practical requirements of different pathways without directing families towards a predetermined communication approach.

Families should also have access to independent navigation and parent-to-parent support. Parent-led organisations provide lived-experience knowledge, practical guidance, connection and advocacy capacity that complement professional services. [18]

These supports should be recognised as part of the service system rather than relying solely on volunteer capacity or short-term funding.

Deaf-specific capability must be built into service commissioning.

PARENTS OF

DEAF CHILDREN

Supporting families for over 60 years

The development of Thriving Kids and broader Foundational Supports presents an opportunity to establish clear requirements for the services governments fund and commission.

Increasing the number of generic early childhood providers will not, by itself, address the specialist needs of Deaf and hard of hearing children.

PODC recommends that commissioning arrangements and service specifications require providers to demonstrate appropriate capability to support Deaf and hard of hearing children and their families.

This should include:

e access to appropriately qualified Deaf-specific professionals and specialist referral pathways;

e capacity to support Auslan, spoken language and bimodal bilingual approaches; ¢ appropriate communication access for Deaf children and Deaf parents;

e understanding of language deprivation and the additional needs of Deaf Plus children;

e involvement of Deaf people and families in service design and evaluation;

¢ appropriate service coverage across metropolitan, regional, rural and remote NSW; and

e monitoring of language, communication, access, participation and family outcomes.

Where a provider does not have the specialist capability required by a child, there must be a clear and funded pathway to an appropriate service.

Clear pathways are also required for children who fall outside Thriving Kids. [8]

Not all Deaf and hard of hearing children will meet the eligibility criteria for targeted Thriving Kids supports. Others may require specialist or individualised disability supports beyond those available through general developmental services.

The NSW Government must clearly identify which services and funding arrangements will meet the needs of children who are not eligible for Thriving Kids, including children whose primary needs relate to Deafness and communication access rather than developmental delay or autism.

W.

(call/sms) E

Wwww.podc.org.au

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

This must include clear responsibilities between health, education, Foundational Supports

and the NDIS so that children are not left without appropriate support because they fall

between eligibility criteria or funding arrangements.

PODC recommends that NSW:

Establish clearer, coordinated pathways between hearing services, health, early intervention, education, Foundational Supports and the NDIS.

Ensure Deaf-specific expertise is available statewide through local services, specialist outreach, regional hubs and telepractice, with funded travel where required.

Provide families with balanced information, independent navigation and access to parent-to-parent support.

Incorporate Deaf-specific capability, communication access and specialist referral requirements into government commissioning and service specifications.

Establish clear support pathways for Deaf and hard of hearing children who fall outside Thriving Kids eligibility or whose individual needs cannot be met through Foundational Supports.

Measure service availability according to accessibility, timeliness, suitability, specialist capability and outcomes, rather than simply counting the number of services or providers.

A service should not be considered available simply because it exists somewhere in NSW. It

must be accessible within a reasonable timeframe, appropriate to the child’s individual

needs and delivered by professionals with the necessary expertise.

WWwW.pPOdC.org.au

all/sms

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

3. What is the role of diagnostic services, what gaps and barriers exist, and how can their effectiveness, availability and access be improved?

NSW has established newborn hearing screening and diagnostic audiology services, but identification of hearing loss must be connected to a broader system of follow-up, referral and ongoing monitoring.

A diagnosis identifies hearing loss. It does not establish whether a child has consistent access to language, whether their language is developing appropriately, whether their communication requirements are being met, or whether they can participate effectively in the environments around them.

Diagnostic services therefore have an important role in connecting children and families with appropriate support, identifying emerging needs and ensuring that children are not lost between health, hearing, early intervention, education and disability services.

Identification must extend beyond newborn hearing screening.

Not every Deaf or hard of hearing child is identified through newborn screening. Some children have progressive, fluctuating, unilateral or later-acquired hearing loss, while others may not be identified until concerns emerge around speech, language, learning, behaviour or participation.

NSW needs clear referral pathways for these children through GPs, community health, early childhood services and schools, with timely access to diagnostic audiology and Deaf-specific follow-up.

Families should not have to navigate multiple systems or repeatedly seek referrals to obtain appropriate assessment and support.

Identification should also trigger access to balanced information about available communication and language pathways, specialist services, family support and opportunities to connect with Deaf people and parent-led organisations.

Language access and development must be monitored alongside hearing.

A significant gap in the current system is the absence of consistent statewide information about the language development and communication access of Deaf and hard of hearing children.

10

(call/sms) E

W. www.podc.org.au

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

NSW collects information about hearing levels, audiology and hearing technology, but there is no consistent statewide dataset showing which languages children use, whether they have reliable access to an accessible language, or how their language is developing over time.

This limits the ability to identify children who are not receiving appropriate language access and to respond before difficulties become more significant.

The consequences of delayed or inconsistent language access can extend beyond communication into learning, social development, emotional wellbeing, relationships and later participation. [15, 16, 21]

Children who have already experienced language deprivation may require specialised assessment and multidisciplinary intervention that is not adequately captured by standard audiological or developmental data.

PODC recommends that language development and language access be routinely considered as part of ongoing monitoring, with clear pathways for specialist assessment and intervention where concerns are identified.

This should include appropriate assessment of children who use Auslan, spoken language or both, rather than relying exclusively on spoken-language measures.

Deaf Plus children must be visible in diagnostic and service data.

Children with hearing loss and additional disabilities, including autism, cerebral palsy, intellectual disability or vision impairment, may be recorded primarily under their additional disability.

As a result, their Deaf-specific language and communication requirements can disappear from reporting and service planning.

Without better data, NSW cannot adequately identify how many Deaf Plus children require specialist support, what their individual needs are, or whether services are meeting both their Deaf-specific and additional disability-related requirements.

Diagnostic and referral pathways must consider the whole child and ensure that the identification of an additional disability does not result in Deaf-specific needs being overlooked.

NSW needs a minimum dataset that measures what happens after diagnosis.

11

all/sms) is

W. —

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

The Committee’s own research identifies inconsistent data collection as a barrier to monitoring outcomes and evaluating the relationship between identification and early intervention.

The NSW Parliamentary Research Service reports that, based on 2022 data, approximately 57,200 NSW children under 18 were estimated to have a sensory or speech disability. This broad category does not identify Deaf and hard of hearing children separately or provide sufficient information about their language development, communication access or individual support requirements [5].

PODC recommends the establishment of a NSW minimum dataset and coordinated referral pathway for Deaf and hard of hearing children, including children identified through newborn screening and those identified later.

The dataset should capture:

e age and pathway of identification

type and degree of hearing loss

e progressive, fluctuating, unilateral and later-acquired hearing loss ¢ Deaf Plus and Deafblind status

¢ communication approach and languages used

e access to Auslan and/or spoken language

e age of first consistent access to an accessible language

• receptive and expressive language outcomes e risk and impact of language deprivation

® communication access requirements across home, early learning, school, health and community settings

e whether those access requirements are actually being met e access to Deaf peers, Deaf adults and the Deaf community e social connection, identity and belonging; and

e child and family wellbeing.

12

all/sms

W. www.podc.org.au | | PARENTSOF

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

Data should also be disaggregated by geography to identify differences in access and outcomes across metropolitan, regional, rural and remote NSW.

Information collection must be accessible to Deaf children and Deaf parents, involve families in identifying their child’s language and communication requirements, and include appropriate privacy safeguards.

The purpose of this dataset should be to improve service planning, identify unmet needs and monitor outcomes, not to restrict a child’s communication options or determine support solely on the basis of diagnosis or hearing levels.

PODC recommends that NSW:

1. Establish coordinated diagnostic, referral and follow-up pathways for Deaf and hard of hearing children, including those identified after newborn screening.

2. Introduce routine monitoring of language development and language access alongside audiological assessment.

3. Ensure timely access to specialist assessment and multidisciplinary support for children experiencing or at risk of language deprivation.

4. Develop a statewide minimum dataset that captures Deaf-specific language, communication, access and developmental outcomes, including the needs of Deaf Plus and Deafblind children.

5. Ensure diagnostic services provide balanced information and clear referrals to appropriate Deaf-specific services, family support and community connections.

6. Use disaggregated data to identify service gaps, inform workforce and service planning, and evaluate whether children’s individual access requirements are being met.

NSW must move beyond identifying hearing loss and measuring technology use. The effectiveness of diagnostic and follow-up services should be measured by whether children are identified early, connected with appropriate support and able to access language and communication throughout their development.

13

Wwww.podc.org.au

all/sms

PARENTS OF

DEAF CHILDREN

Supporting families for over 60 years

4. What gaps and barriers exist in accessing early childhood intervention, and what impact do those barriers have on the child, their family or carers, and other government services and systems?

For Deaf and hard of hearing children, the central problem is not simply access to individual services. It is the absence of a coordinated system that provides continuity of support as a child develops and their needs change.

Health, hearing services, early intervention, the NDIS and education often operate separately. Information does not consistently move with the child, different systems apply different eligibility criteria, and families are left to coordinate services and resolve gaps in responsibility.

These barriers can delay access to appropriate support, interrupt established services and leave children without the specialist expertise required to meet their individual needs.

Fragmented services create gaps at critical stages of development.

Children may experience difficulties when moving between diagnostic services, early intervention, early childhood education and school. Different systems may require new assessments, apply different funding criteria or expect another service to take responsibility.

Without clear coordination, children can lose access to established supports or experience significant delays while families attempt to secure new arrangements.

This is particularly concerning where a child requires specialist Deaf expertise that is not readily available through mainstream services.

Early intervention should provide a foundation for continued development, not become an isolated period of support followed by uncertainty about which system is responsible.

NSW needs clear responsibility for coordinating transitions, sharing relevant information with appropriate consent and ensuring continuity of support when children move between

services. Children’s functional needs are not always recognised or appropriately assessed.

The impact of Deafness changes according to the environment. A child may communicate effectively in a quiet, one-to-one setting but experience substantial barriers in classrooms, playgrounds, group activities or other environments where communication is more complex.

Where services rely heavily on hearing levels, speech production or performance in controlled assessment settings, these everyday barriers may be underestimated.

14

(call/sms) E

W. www.podc.org.au

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

A child may meet therapy goals while continuing to have difficulty following incidental conversation, understanding group communication, building peer relationships or accessing information independently.

This can result in support being reduced or withdrawn because a child appears to be developing well, without recognising that their progress may depend on the accessibility arrangements already in place.

Removing those arrangements can remove the conditions that enabled the child to succeed.

“Our child was making progress because the right supports were in place. When those supports were removed, the barriers returned. His progress did not mean he no longer needed communication access.”

Assessment and support planning must therefore consider the child’s functional needs across everyday environments and distinguish between developmental progress and continuing access requirements.

Language deprivation and additional disabilities require specialist responses.

Limited understanding of language deprivation across mainstream services can result in children’s needs being misunderstood or inadequately addressed.

Its effects may be evident across language, learning, behaviour, emotional regulation, relationships and social development. Without appropriate expertise, these difficulties may be interpreted as individual developmental or behavioural deficits without sufficient consideration of the child’s history of language access. [16, 21, 25]

Children who have already experienced language deprivation may require specialised multidisciplinary assessment and intervention. Delays in accessing that expertise can compound existing difficulties and reduce opportunities for timely support.

The same problem is magnified for Deaf Plus children.

Their needs may span several services, but systems are frequently organised around a primary diagnosis. A child may receive support for autism, cerebral palsy, intellectual disability or another condition while their Deaf-specific language and communication requirements remain inadequately addressed.

The existence of support for one disability should not be taken as evidence that all of the child’s needs are being met.

The cumulative burden on families is substantial.

15

(call/sms)

W. www.podc.org.au | | PARENTSOF

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

Parents are frequently required to identify gaps, coordinate services, repeatedly explain their child’s needs, secure communication adjustments and challenge decisions across multiple systems.

Where appropriate services are unavailable or delayed, families may also face additional travel, private expenditure, unpaid care and the need to independently develop knowledge that should be available through specialist services.

These responsibilities can affect family wellbeing, employment, financial security and the time parents have available for their other children and family responsibilities.

For Deaf parents, inaccessible appointments, information or service processes can create additional barriers to participating directly in decisions about their child.

The burden is not limited to the early years. As children grow older, responsibility for navigating inaccessible systems may increasingly transfer to the young person themselves.

Children should be supported to develop independence and self-advocacy, but this must not become a substitute for government and service-provider responsibility to ensure accessibility.

A successful system should reduce the need for families to continually advocate for support and access that should already be available.

Unmet needs have consequences across government systems.

When early intervention is fragmented, delayed or incomplete, unmet needs do not disappear. They may instead become more apparent as children enter school, navigate increasingly complex communication environments or require support from other services.

Schools, mental health services, allied health, disability services and family support systems may subsequently be required to respond to needs that were not adequately addressed earlier.

Poor coordination can also create duplicated assessments, repeated referrals, inconsistent support arrangements and disputes about which government system is responsible.

These consequences demonstrate why effective early intervention requires more than funding individual services. It requires continuity, accountability and appropriate specialist capability across systems.

16

(call/sms)

W. www.podc.org.au

PARENTS OF

DEAF CHILDREN

Supporting families for over 60 years

The impact of these barriers can therefore be summarised as follows:

For children: delayed or interrupted support, unmet language and communication needs, avoidable barriers to participation, and potential impacts on learning, relationships, independence and wellbeing.

For families: repeated advocacy, administrative and financial burdens, stress, additional care responsibilities and difficulty securing appropriate support.

For government: duplicated assessments, fragmented responsibility, cost shifting and increased demand on other services when needs are not addressed appropriately or in a timely way.

PODC recommends that NSW:

Establish clear responsibility for coordinating support across health, hearing services, early intervention, education, Foundational Supports and the NDIS.

Ensure children experience continuity of support during transitions between services, funding arrangements and stages of development.

Require assessment and support planning to consider functional communication needs across everyday environments, rather than relying solely on hearing levels, speech outcomes or performance in controlled settings.

Ensure access to specialist multidisciplinary assessment and intervention for children experiencing language deprivation or requiring coordinated Deaf Plus support.

Establish accessible, family-centred navigation and coordination arrangements that reduce the need for parents to repeatedly advocate for essential services and adjustments.

Monitor the impact of service gaps on children, families and other government

systems, including delayed access, interrupted support, repeated assessments and unmet needs.

The goal should be a coordinated system that provides continuity, recognises the

environmental impact of Deafness and addresses children’s needs before gaps in support

create additional barriers for children, families and other services.

17

Www.podc.org.au

all/sms

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

5. What opportunities are there to improve engagement and collaboration across sectors? The development of Thriving Kids and broader Foundational Supports presents an opportunity to establish stronger collaboration between government, Deaf people, families, specialist services and the organisations that support them.

For Deaf and hard of hearing children, effective collaboration must extend beyond coordination between existing service providers. It must ensure that Deaf-specific language, communication, cultural and developmental expertise is incorporated into policy, service design, commissioning, implementation and evaluation from the beginning.

Deaf-specific expertise must be represented in governance and decision-making.

PODC is not currently aware of a Deaf specialist on the Foundational Supports taskforce or

within key design structures. This raises concerns about whether the distinct needs of Deaf and hard of hearing children are being adequately considered in the development of these reforms.

Without appropriate representation, there is a risk that services will be designed primarily around generic developmental and therapeutic models, with insufficient consideration of Auslan, bimodal bilingual development, language deprivation, Deaf Plus children, communication access and Deaf identity.

Deaf-specific expertise should not be sought only after major policy and service design decisions have been made.

PODC recommends formal representation of Deaf people, Deaf young people, parents of Deaf children and parent-led Deaf organisations within the governance, design, implementation and evaluation of Thriving Kids and broader Foundational Supports.

This representation must extend beyond service providers to include people with lived experience of navigating the systems being reformed.

Consultation must lead to genuine co-design and shared decision-making.

Deaf people and families hold knowledge about communication access, service gaps, barriers to participation and the practical consequences of decisions made across health, education and disability systems.

Their involvement should not be limited to providing feedback on proposals that have already been developed.

18

(call/sms)

Wwww.podc.org.au

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

Genuine co-design requires meaningful participation from the earliest stages of planning, with opportunities to influence priorities, service models, commissioning requirements, implementation and evaluation. [18]

Participation must also be accessible. Deaf people and Deaf parents should have access to appropriately qualified interpreters, information in their preferred communication methods and sufficient time to consider proposals and contribute meaningfully.

Deaf and hard of hearing young people should be supported to participate directly in decisions that affect them, using communication approaches appropriate to their individual needs.

Government should also recognise the expertise and contribution of parent-led and Deaf community organisations through appropriately funded participation, rather than relying on organisations to provide ongoing consultation and policy expertise through unpaid work.

Collaboration must recognise the diversity of Deaf children and families.

Deaf and hard of hearing children are not a homogeneous group. Their experiences and requirements are shaped by language, culture, geography, additional disabilities and family circumstances.

Collaboration must therefore include organisations and communities with expertise in the different barriers children and families experience.

In particular, stronger partnerships with Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations are needed to ensure Aboriginal Deaf and hard of hearing children and their families can access culturally safe, locally informed services.

Service design should also recognise the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse families, Deafblind children, Deaf Plus children and families living in regional, rural and remote NSW.

These groups must have meaningful opportunities to influence the development of services, rather than being considered only after a general service model has been established.

19

E

W. www.podc.org.au

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

Cross-sector collaboration must result in clear responsibility and coordinated support.

Thriving Kids and broader Foundational Supports will involve multiple government systems and service providers. Effective collaboration requires more than referral arrangements or information sharing.

Health, hearing services, early childhood intervention, education, disability services and the NDIS must have clearly defined responsibilities for meeting children’s needs and coordinating support.

Where a child requires expertise across several sectors, services should work together to develop appropriate responses rather than expecting families to coordinate separate professionals and funding arrangements themselves.

This is particularly important for Deaf Plus children and children who have experienced language deprivation, whose needs may require coordinated input from Deaf-specific, developmental, language, health and disability professionals.

Clear arrangements are also needed for transitions between services, including responsibility for maintaining support when a child’s needs change or they move between different eligibility and funding systems.

Commissioning and evaluation should support genuine collaboration. Collaboration must be reflected in how services are funded, commissioned and evaluated.

PODC recommends that Thriving Kids commissioning arrangements recognise the role of Deaf-specific organisations, Deaf professionals and parent-led organisations in service delivery, workforce development, family support and service design.

Where mainstream providers are commissioned to deliver services to Deaf and hard of hearing children, there should be clear expectations about access to specialist expertise and appropriate referral and partnership arrangements.

Government should also establish mechanisms for Deaf people and families to provide ongoing feedback about service accessibility, suitability and outcomes.

This feedback should inform service improvement and commissioning decisions, with transparent reporting on whether identified gaps are being addressed.

20

(call/sms E

W. www.podc.org.au

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

PODC recommends that NSW:

Establish formal Deaf-specific representation within the governance, design, implementation and evaluation of Thriving Kids and broader Foundational Supports, including Deaf people, Deaf young people, families and parent-led Deaf organisations.

Ensure genuine co-design from the earliest stages of policy and service development, with accessible and appropriately funded participation.

Strengthen partnerships with Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations and ensure the needs of First Nations, CALD, Deafblind, Deaf Plus and regional families are represented in service design.

Establish clear responsibilities and coordinated planning arrangements between health, hearing services, early intervention, education, disability services, Foundational Supports and the NDIS.

Recognise and fund the contribution of Deaf-specific and parent-led organisations in service design, delivery, family support, workforce development and evaluation.

Incorporate appropriate specialist partnerships and referral arrangements into service commissioning, with mechanisms for ongoing feedback and public accountability.

The development of Foundational Supports should move beyond consultation towards

genuine partnership, ensuring that Deaf people and families have meaningful influence over

the services intended to support them.

21

(call/sms)

Wwww.podc.org.au

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

6. What other government or best-practice child development and early childhood intervention models and programs operate outside NSW, and what can NSW learn from them?

Queensland provides one of the strongest Australian examples of a Deaf-specific service system that extends beyond diagnosis and early intervention into education, language access and mental health [14]

Its Healthy Hearing system links identification of hearing loss with family support and early intervention. Queensland also has formal Minimum Standards of Practice for early intervention for children who are Deaf or hard of hearing, providing an agreed baseline for service quality across providers.

Importantly, Queensland’s approach recognises a range of communication pathways. Early intervention can support Auslan, spoken language, or both, as well as social and emotional development. [9, 10, 11, 12, 13]

The strongest lesson for NSW is what happens after the early years.

Queensland Department of Education has a defined Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services structure supporting Deaf students across the state. This includes:

e Teachers of the Deaf

e Advisory Visiting Teachers

e Principal Advisors: Auslan

e Educational Interpreters

e Deaf Auslan Language Models

e targeted funding for bilingual education using Auslan.

Queensland explicitly funds state schools to implement bilingual education for Deaf students using Auslan, and recognises that Deaf students who use Auslan require specific educational planning and specialist support. . [9, 10, 11, 12, 13]

The use of Deaf Auslan Language Models is particularly important. It gives Deaf children access to fluent Deaf adults as language and cultural models, rather than relying solely on hearing professionals or interpreters. [29, 30, 31]

22

(call/sms) as E:

W. www.podc.org.au

PARENTS OF

DEAF CHILDREN

Supporting families for over 60 years

Queensland also recognises that direct teaching in Auslan is different from interpreting. Its education guidance identifies direct teaching in Auslan, Auslan interpreting, captioning, classroom adjustments and assistive listening technology as different forms of access.

This matters because interpreting alone does not automatically make education accessible. Deaf children may need direct language models, specialist teaching, bilingual instruction, visual access and appropriately adapted educational material.

Queensland has also invested in Auslan-accessible curriculum and learning resources, including Auslan translations and specialist pathways for Deaf students. It has supported bilingual and bimodal approaches in state education and developed statewide specialist roles to support schools, including in regional, rural and remote areas.

Another important feature is workforce structure. Queensland has recognised that Deaf education requires specialist roles rather than expecting generic teaching staff to absorb Deaf-specific expertise. This includes dedicated Auslan advisory roles and Educational Interpreters, with defined expectations around Auslan communication and Deaf cultural knowledge.

Queensland’s Transition to Auslan Project is also relevant. It was designed to build capacity around Auslan across schools and families through specialist personnel, rather than treating Auslan access as an individual responsibility for families to solve themselves.

Queensland has also retained specialist expertise into adulthood through its Deafness and

Mental Health Statewide Consultation and Liaison Service. The service supports Deaf and

hard of hearing people directly and also builds the capability of mainstream mental health services. It provides specialist consultation, education and training on Deaf culture, language and assessment issues, hearing loss and mental health, and appropriate interpreter use. [14]

Its multidisciplinary team includes mental health clinicians, a Deaf bicultural worker, NAATI certified Auslan interpreters with mental health experience and access to Deaf interpreters. Queensland Health describes it as the only government service of its kind in Australia.

This is significant because it recognises that providing an interpreter to a mainstream service is not always the same as providing Deaf-informed care. Specialist knowledge may be required around language, culture, assessment and communication.

Taken together, Queensland shows the value of treating Deaf-specific expertise as infrastructure rather than an optional add-on.

23

(call/sms E

W. www.podc.org.au

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

NSW should examine the Queensland model as a whole, particularly:

Deaf-specific minimum standards for early intervention

e clear referral pathways following diagnosis

e recognition of Auslan, spoken language and bilingual/bimodal pathways

e Deaf Auslan Language Models

e direct teaching in Auslan as distinct from interpreting

e bilingual and bimodal education in state schools

e Auslan-accessible curriculum and learning resources

e defined standards and specialist roles for Educational Interpreters

e Principal Advisors and Teachers of the Deaf with statewide responsibility e specialist support for regional and remote students

e Deaf-specific mental health expertise

e Deaf bicultural workers and Deaf interpreters within specialist health services e workforce training that builds Deaf capability across mainstream services.

PODC recommends that NSW undertake a formal jurisdictional review of Queensland’s Deaf specific service architecture, rather than examining individual programs in isolation.

The key lesson is that Queensland has recognised that Deaf children require more than generic disability support or hearing technology. It has retained specialist capability across early intervention, education, language access and mental health as children grow.

24

WWwW.pPOdC.org.au

all/sms

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

7. What workforce issues exist in child development and early childhood intervention? For Deaf and hard of hearing children, the central workforce issue is the limited availability of professionals with specialist expertise in language, communication and development.

NSW requires a workforce capable of supporting the full diversity of Deaf and hard of hearing children, including those who use Auslan, spoken language or both, children who have experienced language deprivation, and Deaf Plus children with additional disabilities.

While mainstream early childhood and allied health professionals play an important role, general qualifications do not necessarily provide the specialist knowledge required to assess and support Deaf children’s language development, communication access and participation.

The development of Thriving Kids presents an opportunity to address these gaps through a coordinated Deaf and hard of hearing workforce strategy.

Families need genuine access to different language and communication pathways.

NSW currently lacks a statewide bimodal bilingual early intervention framework that provides an equivalent pathway for language development through Auslan.

Existing early intervention services are predominantly structured around listening and spoken-language development. While these services are important for many children and families, the limited availability of equivalent Auslan and bimodal bilingual services restricts genuine choice.

Families may be told that they can choose their child’s communication pathway, but choice is not meaningful if the professionals, programs and resources required to support that pathway are unavailable.

The Shepherd Centre and NextSense are established early intervention providers for Deaf and hard of hearing children in NSW and are members of First Voice, an organisation focused on listening and spoken-language development [19].

PODC’s experience indicates that families seeking Auslan or bimodal bilingual early intervention can face difficulties accessing equivalent specialist services. Further statewide service mapping is needed to establish the availability, capacity and geographic distribution of different language pathways.

25

ai/sms) iii

W. a

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

NSW should ensure that families have access to appropriately funded Auslan, spoken language and bimodal bilingual pathways, regardless of provider philosophy or geographic location.

NSW needs to develop and fund a workforce capable of providing equitable access to Auslan, spoken-language and bimodal bilingual pathways.

Specialist language assessment and intervention capacity must be strengthened.

A particularly significant workforce gap concerns the assessment and support of children who have experienced language deprivation.

PODC’s experience indicates that there is extremely limited specialist capacity nationally to undertake appropriate linguistic assessment and provide intervention for children affected by language deprivation.

There is also limited availability of professionals who can appropriately assess the language development of Deaf children who use Auslan or both Auslan and spoken language.

Standardised assessments developed for hearing children, or assessments focused exclusively on spoken language, may not adequately capture a Deaf child’s language abilities, developmental profile or support requirements.

Children who have experienced language deprivation may require coordinated input from professionals with expertise in Deaf language development, psychology, mental health, education and other relevant disciplines.

NSW needs to build specialist assessment and multidisciplinary intervention capacity rather than relying on a small number of individual practitioners or expecting generic services to address these needs without appropriate expertise.

Deaf professionals and fluent language models are essential to workforce development.

A Deaf-specific workforce must include Deaf professionals and fluent Auslan language models, not only hearing professionals who have completed introductory Auslan training.

Deaf Auslan Language Models provide children with access to fluent language, Deaf cultural knowledge and opportunities to develop identity and connection.

Families may also require access to appropriately qualified Auslan educators and professionals who can support parents to develop the language skills needed to communicate effectively with their children. [4]

26

(call/sms)

Wwww.podc.org.au

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

These roles serve different purposes from interpreting and should be recognised as distinct components of early intervention and family support.

NSW needs dedicated pathways to recruit, train, employ and retain Deaf professionals, including Deaf Auslan Language Models, Deaf early childhood practitioners, Deaf mentors and Deaf bicultural workers.

These positions must be appropriately funded and embedded within service delivery, rather than relying on informal arrangements or short-term projects.

Mainstream workforce capability must improve without replacing specialist expertise.

Professionals working in early childhood intervention, health, education and disability services require a greater understanding of Deafness, language access and communication diversity.

Workforce development should include training in: e Deaf awareness, Deaf culture and communication access e Auslan and bimodal bilingual language development e the identification and impact of language deprivation e the needs of Deaf Plus and Deafblind children e the appropriate use of interpreters and communication supports

e the functional impact of Deafness across different environments; and

accessible and culturally responsive practice with Deaf children and Deaf parents.

However, general workforce training must not be treated as a substitute for specialist qualifications or expertise.

A practitioner who has completed Deaf awareness training is not necessarily qualified to assess Auslan language development, provide specialist intervention for language deprivation or deliver Deaf-informed mental health services.

Mainstream workforce development must therefore be accompanied by access to specialist consultation, supervision, referral pathways and multidisciplinary support.

Workforce planning must address regional, rural and remote NSW.

27

(call/sms) ae Cs

W. www.podc.org.au

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

Specialist workforce shortages are particularly significant outside metropolitan areas, where families may have limited access to Deaf-specific early intervention professionals, Auslan fluent practitioners, Teachers of the Deaf and other specialist services.

NSW requires a statewide approach that combines locally available expertise with specialist outreach, regional workforce development and telepractice where appropriate.

Workforce planning should also support opportunities for Deaf children and families to access Deaf professionals and language models in person, rather than relying exclusively on remote service delivery.

Recruitment and training initiatives should be linked to identified regional needs and accompanied by sustainable funding for specialist positions.

Thriving Kids commissioning must support the workforce required to deliver appropriate services.

Increasing the number of generic early childhood providers will not, by itself, resolve the specialist workforce shortages affecting Deaf and hard of hearing children.

PODC recommends that workforce capability be incorporated into Thriving Kids commissioning and service specifications.

Providers delivering services to Deaf and hard of hearing children should be required to demonstrate access to appropriately qualified professionals, Deaf-specific expertise and suitable referral arrangements.

Where specialist expertise is unavailable within a commissioned service, there must be a clear and funded pathway to an appropriate specialist provider.

Government should also collect workforce data to identify shortages, monitor service capacity and inform future recruitment, training and commissioning decisions.

28

all/sms

Wwww.podc.org.au

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

PODC recommends that NSW:

1. Develop and fund a dedicated Deaf and hard of hearing workforce strategy that supports Auslan, spoken-language and bimodal bilingual early intervention pathways.

Establish specialist language assessment and multidisciplinary intervention capacity for Deaf children, including those who have experienced language deprivation.

Create funded recruitment, training and employment pathways for Deaf professionals, Deaf Auslan Language Models, Deaf mentors and Deaf bicultural workers.

. Strengthen access to Deaf-informed mental health professionals, Auslan-fluent early

childhood practitioners, Teachers of the Deaf and professionals experienced in supporting Deaf Plus and Deafblind children.

Provide Deaf-specific professional development across mainstream health, early childhood, education and disability services, while maintaining access to appropriately qualified specialist practitioners.

. Address geographic workforce shortages through regional recruitment, specialist

outreach, telepractice and sustainable funding for Deaf-specific positions.

Incorporate specialist workforce capability, appropriate qualifications and funded referral pathways into Thriving Kids commissioning and service specifications.

Establish workforce data collection and monitoring to identify shortages and evaluate whether children and families can access professionals with the expertise required to meet their needs.

Genuine communication choice requires more than informing families that different

pathways exist. NSW must develop and sustain the specialist workforce needed to make

those pathways accessible in practice.

29

(call/sms)

WWwW.pPOdC.org.au

PARENTS OF

DEAF CHILDREN

Supporting families for over 60 years

8. What measures are needed to implement the recommendations of the NDIS Review Final Report and the Disability Royal Commission Final Report in relation to Foundational Supports?

For Parents of Deaf Children (PODC), the implementation of Foundational Supports must ensure that Deaf and hard of hearing children and their families can access appropriate services without losing essential individual disability supports or experiencing new gaps between government systems.

The NDIS Review recommends a continuum of mainstream, foundational and specialist supports. For Deaf and hard of hearing children, this must include Deaf-specific services and expertise rather than assuming that their needs can be met through generic disability or developmental services.

The Disability Royal Commission also identified the importance of accessible communication, appropriately skilled interpreters, individual advocacy, genuine co-design and stronger accountability across government systems. [2, 3, 4]

PODC supports the development of Foundational Supports but considers that implementation must be guided by clear responsibilities, sustainable funding, specialist capability and safeguards that protect children and families throughout the transition.

Foundational Supports must include Deaf-specific services and clearly defined responsibilities.

Deaf and hard of hearing children require access to a range of supports that may extend beyond those available through general early childhood intervention programs.

These may include Deaf-specific family support, Deaf mentors, parent-to-parent support, Auslan education for families, specialist language and communication expertise, assistive technology guidance and individual advocacy.

These services require specialist knowledge and should be recognised within the design and funding of Foundational Supports.

There must also be a clear distinction between general foundational services, targeted specialist services and individual NDIS supports.

A family information service, peer program or general early childhood intervention service cannot replace a child’s individual requirement for interpreting, assistive technology, specialist assessment or other personalised disability supports.

Where a child’s needs cannot be appropriately met through Foundational Supports, individual NDIS supports must remain available.

30

(call/sms)

WWwW.pPOdC.org.au

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

NSW and the Commonwealth must clearly define which system is responsible for funding and delivering each type of support, including arrangements for children who fall outside Thriving Kids eligibility.

Families should not be left to resolve disagreements between government systems about who is responsible for meeting their child’s needs.

Communication access must be funded as an essential component of service delivery.

The Disability Royal Commission recognised the importance of accessible information and communication, including access to appropriately skilled Auslan interpreters.

For Foundational Supports, communication access must be incorporated into service design, commissioning and funding from the outset.

Deaf children and Deaf parents should not have to organise or pay for interpreting themselves, nor should they receive less substantive support because part of an individual service budget has been used simply to make that service accessible.

Communication access funding should be sufficient to meet the actual requirements of the child or parent and should not reduce the amount of intervention or other support available to them.

Deaf parents must be able to participate directly in appointments, planning, parent education and decisions about their child. Their participation should not depend on another family member interpreting or on individual providers making ad hoc arrangements. Services must also recognise that interpreting, Auslan education, Deaf language models and direct service delivery in Auslan serve different purposes.

Providing an interpreter does not automatically mean a service has the specialist expertise required to assess or support a Deaf child appropriately.

Deaf-specific individual advocacy must remain available.

The Disability Royal Commission highlighted the importance of accessible complaints processes and assistance to access advocacy.

PODC considers Deaf-specific individual advocacy an essential component of an effective support system.

Representation in policy development and individual advocacy are not the same thing. Having Deaf organisations or disability representatives involved in consultation does not

31

(call/sms E

W. www.podc.org.au

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

provide direct assistance to a family experiencing difficulties with education, communication access, NDIS funding or other services.

Families need access to advocates who understand Deafness, Auslan, language development, interpreting, education and the specific barriers experienced by Deaf and hard of hearing children.

General disability advocacy remains important, but it should not be treated as a substitute for Deaf-specific individual advocacy where specialist knowledge is required.

Advocacy must also be accessible to Deaf parents and Deaf young people in their preferred communication methods.

Co-design must continue through implementation and evaluation.

The Disability Royal Commission recognised co-design and co-production as approaches that involve people with disability and other stakeholders as meaningful partners in the development and delivery of services.

For Foundational Supports, this means Deaf people, Deaf parents, parents of Deaf children and Deaf and hard of hearing young people must have an ongoing role in governance, commissioning, implementation and evaluation.

Their involvement should extend beyond consultation on proposals that have already been developed.

Government should establish formal mechanisms through which Deaf people and families can identify emerging service gaps, contribute to improvements and evaluate whether services are delivering appropriate outcomes.

Participation must be accessible and appropriately funded so that meaningful involvement does not depend on unpaid contributions from individuals and community organisations.

Existing NDIS supports must not be withdrawn before appropriate alternatives are available.

The transition to Foundational Supports must not create a gap between the withdrawal of an existing NDIS support and the availability of an appropriate alternative.

PODC is particularly concerned that the existence of a general developmental service may be interpreted as evidence that a child’s individual disability-related needs can be met outside

the NDIS.

A service should not be considered an appropriate alternative unless it can meet the child’s actual support and communication access requirements.

32

(call/sms)

W. www.podc.org.au | | PARENTSOF

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

Before an existing NDIS support is reduced or transferred, there must be clear evidence that the proposed alternative:

e already exists and is sustainably funded;

eis available within a reasonable timeframe and accessible regardless of postcode;

e has the Deaf-specific expertise required by the child;

e can provide the appropriate language and communication access;

e has sufficient capacity to deliver the required level of support; and

e provides continuity without leaving the child or family to manage a gap between

systems.

Families must receive clear and accessible information about any proposed changes, including which services will replace existing supports, who is responsible for arranging those services and how continuity will be maintained.

Where an alternative is unavailable, inaccessible or unable to meet the child’s individual needs, existing supports must not be reduced on the assumption that Foundational Supports will eventually become available.

“I’m worried about what will happen if my child’s NDIS supports are taken away. We rely on

those supports every day, and | don't know where we would turn if there was nothing

available to replace them. | just want to know my child won't be left without the help they

need.”

Implementation must not transfer responsibility from government to families through increased unpaid care, private expenditure or repeated advocacy. Accessible complaints and review pathways must be established.

Families need clear information about how decisions affecting access to Foundational Supports will be made, who is responsible for those decisions and what options are available when a service is unsuitable or unavailable.

Complaints and review processes must be accessible to Deaf children and Deaf parents, including through their preferred communication methods and access to appropriately qualified interpreters.

Families should also have access to independent advocacy when seeking to resolve disputes about eligibility, service availability, accessibility or the suitability of proposed supports.

Government must establish clear responsibility for responding to complaints that involve

more than one system, rather than requiring families to approach multiple agencies to resolve the same issue.

33

(call/sms)

WWwW.pPOdC.org.au

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

Where an individual NDIS support is proposed to be reduced or transferred, families must receive clear information about the relevant decision-making and review arrangements.

Implementation must be monitored through measurable outcomes and public accountability.

The Disability Royal Commission called for stronger coordination, monitoring and public accountability across government systems.

PODC recommends that the implementation of Foundational Supports include transparent monitoring of whether Deaf and hard of hearing children and their families are receiving appropriate services.

Evaluation should consider more than the number of services commissioned or children accessing a program.

It should examine whether services are accessible, whether Deaf-specific expertise is available, whether individual support requirements are being met and whether families experience gaps or interruptions during transitions.

Data should also identify differences in access and outcomes for regional, rural and remote families, First Nations children, culturally and linguistically diverse families, Deafblind children and Deaf Plus children.

Findings should be publicly reported and used to inform ongoing service improvement, commissioning and funding decisions.

PODC recommends that NSW and the Commonwealth:

1. Establish clear funding and service responsibilities across mainstream services, Foundational Supports and the NDIS, ensuring Deaf and hard of hearing children have an appropriate pathway regardless of Thriving Kids eligibility.

2. Recognise and sustainably fund Deaf-specific services within Foundational Supports, including family support, Deaf mentoring, Auslan education, specialist language and communication expertise, and individual advocacy.

3. Ensure communication access is adequately funded as part of service delivery, without reducing the substantive support available to Deaf children or Deaf parents.

4. Maintain access to Deaf-specific individual advocacy and establish accessible complaints and review processes.

5. Ensure Deaf people, Deaf young people and families have an ongoing, appropriately funded role in governance, commissioning, implementation and evaluation.

34

Wwww.podc.org.au

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

6. Require evidence that appropriate alternative services are available, accessible, sustainably funded and capable of meeting a child’s individual needs before any existing NDIS support is reduced or transferred.

7. Establish clear transition arrangements that maintain continuity of support and prevent responsibility for service gaps being transferred to families.

8. Monitor and publicly report on service accessibility, specialist capability, unmet needs, transition outcomes and the experiences of Deaf and hard of hearing children and their families.

Conclusion

PODC welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry and supports the development of a stronger, more inclusive system for Deaf and hard of hearing children and their families.

We encourage the NSW Government to ensure that the development of Thriving Kids and broader Foundational Supports is informed by Deaf-specific expertise and the lived experiences of children and families.

Our hope is that these reforms create lasting improvements in language access, communication, participation and wellbeing, ensuring every Deaf and hard of hearing child has the opportunity to thrive.

Acknowledgement of Family Experiences

The family perspectives included throughout this submission are based on experiences shared with Parents of Deaf Children (PODC). They have been anonymised to protect the privacy of children and families

x of Deas x

BS Ue,

4 § % &

&

4ap,: 5) WMrilies for 2

35

(call/sms) So i

W. www.podc.org.au

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

References

Australian Government, NDIS and NSW policy

Australian Government Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. (2025). National

best practice framework for early childhood intervention.

framework-for-early-childhood-intervention?language=en

Independent Review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme. (2023). Working

together to deliver the NDIS: Final report. https://www.ndisreview.gov.au/resources/reports/working-together-deliver-ndis

Independent Review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme. (2023). Working

together to deliver the NDIS: Supporting analysis. https://www.ndisreview.gov.au/resources/reports/working-together-deliver-ndis supporting-analysis

Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023). Final report: Volume 6 — Enabling autonomy and access. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final-report-volume-6 enabling-autonomy-and-access

NSW Parliamentary Research Service. (2025). Foundational and disability supports for children and young people. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/parliamentary-business/committees/inquiry-details ?committeelnquiryld=3080

NSW Legislative Council. (2026). Foundational and disability supports available for children and young people in New South Wales: First report. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/parliamentary-business/tabled-papers-details?id=192965

NSW Legislative Council. (2026). Government response to the First Report of the Select Committee on Foundational and Disability Supports. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/parliamentary-business/tabled-papers details ?id=193422

NSW Department of Communities and Justice. (2026). Thriving Kids. https://dcj.nsw.gov.au/community-inclusion/disability-and-inclusion/thriving kids.html

Queensland’s Deaf-specific services and frameworks

Children’s Health Queensland. (n.d.). Healthy Hearing Queensland minimum

standards of practice in early intervention. https://www.childrens.health.qld.gov.au/ _data/assets/pdf_file/0025/174805/hh

min-stds-prac-qld.pdf

10. Children’s Health Queensland. (2025). Healthy Hearing. https://www.childrens.health.qld.gov.au/our-work/healthy-hearing

36

WwWwW.podc.org.au

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

11. Children’s Health Queensland. (2024). Early Intervention Service. https://www.childrens.health.gld.gov.au/our-work/healthy-hearing/early intervention-service

12. Queensland Department of Education. (n.d.). Learning and Development — Auslan. https://education.qld.gov.au/about-us/budgets-funding-grants/grants/state-schools/targeted/auslan

13. Queensland Department of Education. (2021). Every Deaf and Hard of Hearing Student Succeeding Framework 2021-2025. https://education.qld.gov.au/student/Documents/every-deaf-hard-of-hearing-student-succeeding-framework.pdf

14. Queensland Health. (2026). Deafness and Mental Health Statewide Consultation and

Liaison Service. https://www.health.gld.gov.au/clinical-practice/referrals/statewide-

specialist-services/deafness-and-mental-health/about

Language deprivation and language development research

15. Hall, W. C. (2017). What you don’t know can hurt you: The risk of language deprivation by impairing sign language development in deaf children. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 21, 961-965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-017-2287

16. Hall, W. C., Levin, L. L., & Anderson, M. L. (2017). Language deprivation syndrome: A possible neurodevelopmental disorder with sociocultural origins. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 52, 761-776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-017-1351-7

17. Porter, A., Creed, P., Hood, M., & Ching, T. Y. C. (2018). Parental decision-making and deaf children: A systematic literature review. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 23(4), 295-306. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/eny019

18. Porter, A., et al. (2026). A coalition of parents of DHH children reframing involvement: From lived experience to global policy, research and practice. Deafness & Education International, 28(2), 127-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/14643154.2026.2637372

First Voice and specialist service provision

19. First Voice. (n.d.). First Voice Member Organisations. https://www.firstvoice.org.au/first-voice-member-organisations/

20. Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023). Final report: Volume 7 — Inclusive education, employment and housing. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final-report complete-volume-formats

37

(call/sms) E

W. www.podc.org.au

PARENTS OF

DEAF CHILDREN

Supporting families for over 60 years

Recent research on language deprivation

Sculley, C. K., Teller-Davis, |., & Barros-Lane, L. (2026). The plight of language

deprivation in deaf and hard-of-hearing children born to hearing parents: A call to action. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, 11, 325-332. doi.org/10.1007/s41134-026-00441-y Jarollahi, F., Fallahnezhad, T., & Aslibeigi, F. (2025). The effect of sign language on the language development of deaf and hard-of-hearing children: A systematic review. Journal of Modern Rehabilitation, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.18502/jmr.v19i4.19770 Jgnsberg, A. C., Hovland, T., Busch, T., Wie, O. B., & Torkildsen, J. von K. (2025). Language interventions for school-aged children who are d/Deaf and hard of hearing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 68(5), 2634-2655. https://doi.org/10.1044/2025 JSLHR-24-00456

Deafness and mental health research

Khalid, U., Majeed, N., Chovaz, C. J., Choudhry, F. R., & Munawar, K. (2025). Psychological well-being and mental health risks in deaf and hard of hearing youth: A systematic review. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 34(11), 3359-3373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-025-02795-6

McRae, R., Backholer, K., Adam, R., David, J., & O’Shea, A. (2025). “At home, | never

felt included, | always felt on the outside”: Deaf peoples’ perspectives on how

inadequate access to childhood communication influences mental health outcomes. BMC Public Health, 25, Article 2392. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-23456-y McRae, R., Zorbas, C., O’Shea, A., Adam, R., & Backholer, K. (2025). The association between early life access to communication and perceived mental health in a cross sectional study of deaf Australian adults. Critical Public Health, 35(1), Article

2497352. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2025.2497352 McRae, R., Zorbas, C., O’Shea, A., Adam, R., & Backholer, K. (2026). Through deaf eyes: Factors influencing suicidal behavior among deaf adults. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1093/jdsade/enag009

McRae, R., Backholer, K., Adam, R., & O’Shea, A. (2026). Positive mental health outcomes experienced by signing deaf adults in Australia. SSM — Qualitative Research in Health, 9, Article 100775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmar.2026.100775

38

(call/sms E

W. www.podc.org.au

DEAF CHILDREN \°,

Supporting families for over 60 years

Deaf mentors, role models and family support

29. Joy, A., Ledger, S., & Duncan, J. (2025). Deaf role-models for Deaf children in hearing families: A scoping review. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 30(1), 17-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/jdsade/enae028

30. Joy, A., Duncan, J., & McCormack, L. (2025). Integrating worlds: An interpretative phenomenological study on the influence of Deaf role models as expressed by hearing parents. American Annals of the Deaf. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2025.a988842

31. Deaf Connect. (2024). The story behind the Family Mentor Program. https://deafconnect.org.au/our-news/the-story-behind-the-family-mentor-program

Additional research by Wyatte C. Hall and colleagues

32. Hall, M. L., Hall, W. C., & Caselli, N. K. (2019). Deaf children need language, not (just) speech. First Language, 39(4), 367-395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723719834102

33. Hall, W. C., & Hecht, J. L. (2024). Primary health-care practices for deaf children should include early incorporation of a signed language. The Lancet, 404(10471), 2498-2500. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01564-2

34. Holcomb, L., Hall, W. C., Gardiner-Walsh, S. J., & Scott, J. (2025). Challenging the “norm”: A critical look at deaf-hearing comparison studies in research. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 30(1), 2-16.

https://doi.org/10.1093/jdsade/enae048

39