Submission 241 — Name Withheld — Inquiry into the Thriving Kids initiative

02/10/2025

Committee Secretary

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

Subject: Submission to the Thriving Kids Inquiry

Dear Committee Secretary,

Please find attached my written submission to the Thriving Kids Inquiry. This submission is prepared solely for the purposes of the Inquiry. It draws on my personal experience as a parent of a child with mild to moderate support needs, as well as my professional expertise as an Early Childhood Educator.

I am happy for my submission to be published in full on the Inquiry’s website though that my name and location be withheld from publication.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important work.

Yours sincerely

Submission to the Thriving Kids Inquiry – Critical Response

Introduction

As an ex-Early Childhood Teacher with decades of experience across a wide range of early childhood education settings, I have worked directly with children with diverse developmental profiles — including those with developmental delay, autism, trauma-related challenges, and complex support needs. Families navigating these systems every day know what works and what doesn’t. We have lived through the consequences of underfunded programs, inconsistent services, and systems that ask too much of parents while delivering too little in return.

I also write this submission as a parent of a neurodiverse child.

These two perspectives — professional and personal — have shown me both the immense potential of children when given the right support, and the profound flaws in systems that claim to serve them but too often fall short.

While the Thriving Kids Inquiry appears, on paper, to offer a framework for inclusive and effective support, in practice it risks reinforcing the same structural weaknesses that families and educators have been battling for years. Many current and proposed approaches remain underfunded, fragmented, and disconnected from what works on the ground. They overlook the daily realities of families navigating complex systems and fail to value the experience and expertise of educators, health professionals, and most importantly — parents.

Children and families deserve better. They need systems that are safe, inclusive, trauma informed, culturally respectful, and properly resourced — not ones that place the burden of coordination and advocacy onto already stretched families and under-supported educators.

This submission outlines our concerns with current approaches to developmental support, identifies where real reform is needed, and calls for a shift away from fragmented, diagnosis driven systems toward holistic, inclusive and child-centred support.

1. Evidence-Based Resources for Parents: A Lived Experience Perspective
   

My daughter was born with Intrauterine Growth Restriction (IUGR), and we were fortunate to have a supportive and proactive medical team involved in her early care. During a routine consultation with our paediatrician when she was around 10 months old, I expressed concerns that she was not yet sitting upright unassisted — unlike the other babies in our mother’s group. This conversation led to an early referral for physiotherapy, marking the beginning of our early intervention journey, which continues to this day.

Despite regular weigh-ins with our GP, her inability to sit unaided at 8 months was not identified as a developmental concern — a clear missed opportunity. It was only because of the ongoing appointments with our paediatrician for IUGR monitoring that this developmental delay was picked up early.

By 13 months, we were also experiencing significant feeding challenges. On the advice of my sister — who had been through a similar journey — I put my daughter’s name down at the local early childhood health clinic in case speech and language issues emerged. She warned me of the long wait times — often up to two years — and encouraged us to act early. Fortunately, we were able to see a speech pathologist within eight weeks for her feeding difficulties and began therapy. However, we were only allocated six sessions through the public clinic, after which we were placed back on the waiting list.

With feeding challenges ongoing, we had no choice but to seek private therapy. We began funding weekly sessions with a feeding therapist and physiotherapist, costing around $450 per week — an amount that placed our family under growing financial strain.

At 14 months, my daughter began attending the same Early Childhood Centre my son had attended. I entered with confidence, trusting that if any concerns emerged, the qualified educators would notice and share them with us. But despite daily contact, no concerns were raised. When I — as both her mother and a trained early childhood educator — raised my own concerns, the responses were minimising: “But she’s so cute,” or “She’s got plenty of time.” Meanwhile, her developmental milestones were clearly not being met.

Thanks to the ongoing support of our paediatrician, we pursued a developmental assessment, which confirmed that she had a developmental delay.

Even with my professional background in early childhood development, navigating the next steps was daunting. I lacked confidence that our GP or early learning centre had the knowledge or capacity to support my daughter appropriately. I often wondered — if I was feeling this lost and overwhelmed, how were other parents coping? What about families who don’t have a background in child development, who speak English as a second language, live in remote areas, or lack family support?

To access any meaningful support for my daughter within her Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) setting, I had to take the lead — advocating directly with the service and coordinating with her allied health professionals to attend the centre and train educators on how to support her developmental needs. These visits, like much of her care, were privately

funded and organised by me. Although the centre did apply for Inclusion Support Program (ISP) funding, the implementation raised serious concerns.

Rather than allocating additional support directly to my daughter’s room, the centre used the funding to provide a floating staff member across the entire service. I observed daily that staff to-child ratios in her room did not change before or after the funding was approved. Despite repeated attempts to understand how the funding was being used to support my daughter specifically, I was never given a clear answer. To this day, I still don’t know where or how the funds intended to support her inclusion were spent.

Reflections and Systemic Implications: My story is not unique — it is one example of how early developmental concerns can be overlooked, even by professionals, and how families are often forced to carry the burden of coordination, advocacy, and funding.

This experience highlights:

• The inconsistent identification of developmental delays across healthcare and early education

• The lack of accessible, sustained early intervention supports for mild to moderate needs due to limited public therapy access and high out-of-pocket costs for private support.

• The inadequate training of early childhood educators and GPs in identifying early developmental concerns

• The unacceptable financial pressure placed on families who fall outside the narrow eligibility bands for long-term funded support

• And the inequity faced by families without knowledge of the system, English language fluency, or the means to self-advocate

Systems must be designed to support all families — not just those who know how to push back, ask the right questions, or afford private services. That begins with consistent, evidence-based developmental screening, increased investment in public allied health services, and workforce training that empowers professionals to act early and with confidence.

2. Effectiveness of Current and Previous Programs In my experience, many early childhood programs still approach inclusion through a lens of compliance and conformity — prioritising routine, uniform behaviour, and classroom “manageability” over responsiveness to individual developmental and sensory needs.

For my neurodivergent child, this created ongoing distress. Expectations to sit still, follow group routines, or engage in activities in a specific way led to regular meltdowns and significant emotional strain — not only for her, but for our entire family.

It wasn’t until her sensory needs and neurodivergent identity were acknowledged, advocated for, and respected that we saw a noticeable shift. With flexible, responsive support and a shift away from rigid expectations, she began to thrive — emotionally, socially, and developmentally.

These experiences align with emerging evidence that traditional behavioural or “normalising” approaches not only lack long-term benefit, but can cause harm, particularly for autistic and neurodivergent children.

From my personal experience and within my community, I know families whose children have been asked to reduce their attendance hours at early childhood centres or schools — or in some cases, to leave entirely — because their behaviours were deemed “non-compliant.”

These children might:

• Move frequently or unpredictably

• Refuse to sit still

• Engage in self-soothing behaviours like chewing on clothing

• Resist following instructions

• Hide under tables during group activities

• Scream or become distressed in loud environments, especially when supports like noise-cancelling headphones are forgotten by support staff

• Rather than receiving understanding and tailored support, these children are penalised for behaviours that are often manifestations of sensory needs or emotional dysregulation.

If Thriving Kids is to succeed, it must reject outdated models of behaviourism and instead:

• Promote neurodiversity-affirming practices

• Invest in educator training that centres emotional regulation, sensory needs, and developmental diversity

• Recognise that inclusion is not about “fitting in” — it’s about being welcomed as you are

3. Equity and Intersectional Barriers to Advocacy Throughout my time attending appointments with my daughter and engaging with other parents, I have observed that families for whom English is a second language, as well as First Nations families, are significantly less likely to advocate effectively for their children within schools and early childhood settings.

This is due to multiple, intersecting barriers including:

• Language barriers that make navigating complex systems, forms, and appointments difficult

• Cultural differences and historical mistrust of mainstream institutions, particularly for First Nations families who have experienced systemic discrimination

• Limited access to information and resources in culturally appropriate formats

• Lower levels of familiarity with rights, educational frameworks, and available support services

• Geographic isolation for some communities, reducing access to allied health and specialist services

• Socioeconomic disadvantage that compounds difficulties accessing private supports when public options are limited or delayed

These systemic inequities mean that children from these communities are at higher risk of missing out on early identification, intervention, and inclusive education, perpetuating cycles of disadvantage.

Addressing these challenges requires targeted, culturally safe, and accessible services, including:

• Community-led outreach and advocacy programs

• Provision of interpreters and translated materials

• Investment in First Nations-led early childhood and health services

• Training for educators and health professionals in cultural competence and anti- racism

• Policies designed to reduce systemic barriers rather than placing the onus solely on families

Without these focused efforts, Thriving Kids risks reinforcing existing inequities rather than closing the gap.

4. Workforce Support and Training: The success of any inclusive or developmental support program — including the goals of Thriving Kids — depends heavily on a well-trained, stable, and adequately supported workforce. However, the early childhood education and care (ECEC) sector is currently under significant strain. The Australian Childcare Alliance and other peak bodies have consistently highlighted that the sector is struggling to attract and retain qualified educators, let alone upskill them in areas like neurodiversity, developmental delay, or trauma-informed care. Chronic underfunding, low wages, excessive administrative burdens, and burnout are contributing to high turnover and vacancies across the country.

These workforce challenges are further compounded by extensive allied health waitlists, which can extend from 6 to 18 months in many regional areas, and community health nurses who are under-resourced for comprehensive developmental screening.

The early learning sector is a critical component in achieving the Australian Government’s broader objectives, including full employment, productivity growth, and advancing women’s economic participation and equality. However, these goals must not come at the expense of our neurodiverse children, who require consistent, high-quality developmental support to thrive.

Without urgent investment in workforce capacity, training, and allied health accessibility, programs like Thriving Kids risk falling short of their promise to deliver equitable, effective support to all children with developmental needs.

From my own experience as both a parent and former early childhood teacher, I’ve seen how this workforce shortage directly affects the ability of centres to:

• Identify and support children with developmental needs early
• Implement individualised inclusion plans effectively
• Engage with allied health professionals and families in meaningful collaboration
• Provide consistent, relational care essential for children who thrive with predictability and support

Even when centres are approved for inclusion funding, as in my daughter’s case, limited staffing capacity often means the funding is spread thin, or not delivered in the child’s room at all. Educators often don’t have the time, confidence, or supervision needed to carry out recommendations from allied health professionals.

Until the workforce is properly valued, funded, and trained, the inclusion goals of the Thriving Kids initiative will remain aspirational rather than actionable.

5. Mechanisms for Seamless Transitions Over the past five years, I have frequently had to restart therapy and services with new providers and therapists. Each time this happens, it is a traumatic experience for both my child and me. Critical context and information about her development, goals, and progress are often lost in the handover, and the important relationships and trust built with previous providers must be rebuilt from scratch.

This cycle of disruption:

• Destabilises families emotionally and practically
• Wastes valuable time and resources that could be better spent on consistent support
• Hampers the child’s progress and sense of security I have also explored group social skills programs led by qualified allied health professionals. While group therapy can have benefits, I observed that my daughter’s individual goals, strengths, and challenges often become lost in the group context.

In contrast, her regular allied health team provides tailored, consistent support, working closely with us to develop home strategies that promote meaningful growth and gradually reduce therapy needs.

She is making more significant gains through this personalised approach than she would likely achieve in group settings, and having a trusted, knowledgeable team is invaluable to her development and wellbeing.

To effectively support children with mild to moderate developmental needs, the Thriving Kids program must:

• Fund personalised planning that centres the unique strengths, needs, and goals of each child and family

• Ensure relational continuity, enabling children to build and maintain trusted, long-term relationships with their therapists, educators, and support workers

• Promote cross-sector collaboration between health, education, allied health, and community services to provide coordinated, seamless support throughout the child’s development journey

These elements are essential to move beyond fragmented services and create a system that truly enables all children to thrive.

6. Carers and Family Burnout:
   

Families of neurodiverse children often take on a wide range of unpaid roles:

• Therapist – Reinforcing therapy plans (e.g., speech, OT, physio) at home, often daily.

• Case Manager – Coordinating appointments, services, NDIS plans, and paperwork.

• Educator – Supporting learning at home, advocating in schools, and adapting schoolwork.

• Advocate – Navigating systems, securing supports, and representing their child’s needs.

• Emotional Support – Managing meltdowns, anxiety, and behaviour through co- regulation.

• Full-time Carer – Providing 24/7 care, including personal, medical, and emotional support.

• System Navigator – Researching therapies, rights, and services; filling gaps in broken systems.

• Administrator – Managing budgets, NDIS funding, invoices, and extensive documentation

These unpaid roles often come at the expense of careers, financial security, personal health, and social connection. New Curtin University-led research has found caregivers of neurodivergent children are more likely to experience clinically significant levels of stress, poor mental health, financial hardship, and negative relationships. Nearly 80% of caregivers reported poor wellbeing, high levels of stress, and poor mental health.

The proposed Thriving Kids program risks adding further pressure to already overburdened families. It threatens to disadvantage neurodivergent children by reducing access to effective therapy and lowering the quality of supports—largely due to continued mismanagement of the NDIS system, particularly its oversight of service providers who exploit or misuse the scheme.

7. Implications for future success at living independently
   

If the Thriving Kids Program is not carefully designed and properly implemented, it risks undermining the future independence and quality of life of neurodivergent children. Access to early, consistent, and evidence-based support is essential to developing the communication, behavioural, social, and daily living skills that underpin long-term outcomes. Inadequate or inappropriate supports during childhood can result in greater dependence on government systems in adulthood, including the NDIS, health, housing, and social services. The implications of poor implementation extend beyond individual families—they represent a missed opportunity to invest in long-term capability, inclusion, and reduced lifetime cost to the public.

In summary, my recommendations are as follows:

1. Co-design the Thriving Kids Program with lived experience at the centre: Ensure that the program is co-designed with families of neurodivergent children, neurodivergent individuals, and independent experts—not just service providers—so it reflects real-world needs and avoids systemic bias.

2. Improve Early Identification and Screening: Implement universal, evidence-based developmental screening across early childhood education, health, and maternal-child health settings and Train GPs, early educators, and health nurses in early signs of developmental delay and neurodivergence, including sensory and emotional regulation differences.

3. Ensure Timely and Equitable Access to Support: Expand publicly funded allied health services to reduce wait times and out-of-pocket costs, especially for families with mild to moderate needs and ensure NDIS Early Childhood Early Intervention (ECEI) pathways are flexible, timely, and include families who may not meet narrow eligibility bands but still need support.

4. Ensure Timely and Equitable Access to Support: Expand publicly funded allied health services to reduce wait times and out-of-pocket costs, especially for families with mild to moderate needs and ensure NDIS Early Childhood Early Intervention (ECEI) pathways are flexible, timely, and include families who may not meet narrow eligibility bands but still need support.

5. Strengthen regulation and oversight of service providers Improve transparency, accountability, and quality standards for service providers funded through the NDIS or any future models to prevent misuse, waste, and exploitation of families.

6. Prevent cost-shifting to families through the Thriving Kids reform Ensure that any reform does not reduce funding or push additional burden onto already stretched families. Cost-saving should not come at the expense of long-term outcomes for children.

7. Invest in early support as a long-term economic and social strategy