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

Date: 3rd October 2025

Dear Committee Secretary,

On behalf of Every Australian Counts, I am pleased to submit our response to the Inquiry into the Thriving Kids Initiative. Every Australian Counts is a community-driven organisation advocating for the rights, inclusion, and wellbeing of people with disability across Australia.

This submission draws on extensive feedback gathered through our recent Thriving Kids community survey, representing the lived experience and views of families, children, and carers nationwide. Every Australian Counts is committed to supporting effective, evidence-based changes so that all children with disability are supported.

Please find attached our submission, which has been authorised by the Independent Chair, Every Australian Counts. redacted
redacted
redacted
redacted
redacted

Thank you for your consideration of our submission and for your work to support Australian children.

Yours sincerely,

Dr George Taleporos

Independent Chair, Every Australian Counts, on behalf of the EAC Steering Committee

1

Every Australian
Counts

Every Australian Counts’ Submission to the Inquiry into the Thriving Kids initiative

Executive Summary

Every Australian Counts (EAC) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this inquiry. This submission draws on our September 2025 community survey, which captured over 1,000 responses, including 612 parents and carers, 389 people with disability, 315 allied health professionals, and 92 advocates and support workers.

Survey results are clear:

• 80% fear reduced access to therapies and supports.
• 75% anticipate significant loss of choice and control.
• 70% found the Government’s plans unclear.
• Only 18% supported Thriving Kids in its current form.
• 86% said co-design with families and people with disability is “extremely important.

Families told us that without therapies their children would regress, “fall through the cracks,” and face long-term impacts on education, wellbeing, and mental health.

2

Providers warned that block funding would force small practices to close, especially in rural areas. People with disability described feeling excluded, stigmatised, and scapegoated.

EAC believes reforms must be:

• Co-designed, led by disabled people and families.
• Rights-based, consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), and the original purpose of the NDIS Act.
• Evidence-based, building on what works - individualised, inclusive, and strengths-based supports.

While foundational supports are welcome in principle, they cannot replace the NDIS, nor should children be removed from it before those supports exist in practice.

Without genuine consultation and investment, Thriving Kids risks regression - undermining the supports that the community hard fought for.

3

Introduction

Every Australian Counts is a national, community-driven movement that has long championed the rights and inclusion of people with disability and their families.

This submission is built on survey responses from more than 1,000 people across Australia. The survey captured the experiences of parents and carers, children and young people with disability, allied health professionals, and advocates. Their voices form the backbone of this submission. We use both quantitative data and direct quotes to highlight how proposed reforms will play out in real lives.

The survey demonstrates widespread concern that Thriving Kids:

• Will reduce access to therapies,
• Strip away choice and control,
• And push families back into one-size-fits-all systems that failed in the past.

We assess Thriving Kids against three guiding principles:

Human rights obligations: Australia is bound by the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of People with Disability (UNCRPD) and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Both require that children with disability are supported equally and that reforms do not diminish existing rights.

Nothing about us without us: Disabled people and families must be directly involved in designing, governing, and delivering reforms that affect them. This principle is echoed by 86% of survey respondents.

Evidence-based reform: Reforms must invest in what works - early, individualised supports embedded in inclusive mainstream settings - not surveillance, not deficit-based labels, and not budget-driven cuts.

We also note that Australia already has a National Autism Strategy (NAS), which sets out a whole-of-government, whole-of-life plan co-designed with Autistic people,

4

families, and communities. The Strategy and its First Action Plan include clear actions to improve early identification, access to inclusive supports, and culturally safe practice. Thriving Kids risks creating a parallel system rather than building on this framework.

Addressing Terms of Reference

Examine evidence-based information and resources that could assist parents identify if their child has mild to moderate development delay and support parents to provide support to these children.

What we know works

Children with developmental differences, including Autistic children, might show signs through how they talk, play, move, interact or manage emotions. These differences often become more noticeable as children grow and interact with others. Parents are usually the first to notice.

Clear, plain-language resources already exist to help families spot early signs. The Raising Children Network has helpful guides that explain what to look for over time — and what to do if concerned. Their information empowers families to trust their instincts and seek help early through their GP, child health nurse, or early childhood educators.

The Autism CRC has also brought together strong evidence showing what works to support children and families — focusing on participation, learning through everyday life, and building family confidence. Supports that work are usually those that build on children’s strengths, in familiar environments, with trusted adults.

What families told us in our survey

Many parents in our September 2025 survey shared that they rely on instinct but struggle to have those instincts validated. One mother told us:

5

“I knew something was different before anyone else did, but I was told to wait. That waiting meant my child fell further behind.”

Families emphasised that screening should not require a diagnosis and that professionals must be trained to listen to parents. Several parents expressed frustration that early supports are often only available after a diagnosis, even when delays are obvious.

What helps families take action

• Developmental screening should happen as a routine part of early childhood health checks — it shouldn’t require a formal diagnosis to start supporting a child and their family.
• Families should feel confident to ask for support if their child is struggling with things like communication, sensory needs, or emotional regulation.
• Services should meet families where they are — in their local community, homes, playgroups, and early learning settings.
• Mainstream environments must be inclusive and welcoming, with staff trained to adjust routines, sensory environments, and social activities so every child can participate.

National Autism Strategy crossover

The NAS First Action Plan 2025-2026 commits funding to develop improved pre- and post-diagnosis resources, co-designed with Autistic people and families, and delivered in multiple formats and languages

Thriving Kids should align with these commitments rather than duplicate, delay or undermine them.

Examine the effectiveness of current (and previous) programs and initiatives that identify children with development delay, autism or both, with mild to moderate support needs and support them and their families.

What’s working

• The NDIS Early Childhood Early Intervention (ECEI) pathway allows children under 7 to access support early, sometimes without a formal diagnosis. This has helped families to act early and get the right supports in place, and importantly, exercise choice and control in engaging the supports that work for their child and their family
• The Autism CRC provides strong guidelines and evidence summaries to help families and services focus on what works — supports that build confidence and real-world skills, not programs that aim to “fix” difference.
• Inclusive education initiatives, like those in Victoria, provide online training and resources to help early childhood educators include children on the autism spectrum in everyday activities.
• Support that is community-based, flexible and inclusive — like playgroups, workshops and drop-in sessions — helps families learn and connect without needing a formal therapy referral.
• Free, regular and consistent, neuro-affirming and strength-based individualised therapy supports.

What’s not working

• Access is patchy. Rural and remote areas often don’t have enough services, and families face long waits to see a specialist or get support.
• The Medicare rebate for diagnostic assessments is insufficient and inequitable. Families face high out of pocket costs for private diagnostic assessments, and families of undiagnosed Autistic children face an additional barrier not required for diagnosis of other disabilities - Paediatrician or Psychiatrist referral, rather than General Practitioner.

• Current Medicare items for access to therapeutic support and intervention, mean inequitable gap payment expectations that exclude many families. Any plans to expand Medicare for these cohorts must ensure there are no gap fees so that access to therapy does not incur unfair gap fees.
• Mainstream settings like schools and child care still miss kids with less visible needs. Staff don’t always have the training or support to make appropriate accommodations and be more inclusive.
• Access to supports still relies too heavily on getting a diagnosis first — which delays help and adds pressure (including financial pressure) to families.
• Cultural responsiveness is lacking. Many programs aren’t available in other languages or don’t reflect different views on development, play or parenting.
• Workforce shortages result in extensive wait times to access diagnostic assessment and allied health supports - the impact of these shortages is significantly worse in regional and remote communities. Workforce shortages are also impacting access to child care for children with developmental delays and disability. While funding for additional support in child care centres is available, the workforce shortages often result in children with developmental delay and disability being excluded.
• Training for mainstream service staff (eg. Teachers, Child Care workers, Health and Mental Health workers) in trauma responsive practice, and in making accommodations for children with developmental delay and disability is optional, rather than mandatory. Children with developmental delay and disability and their families face a roulette when trying to access mainstream supports - staff may be adequately trained and supportive, but too often are not.

Survey evidence

70% of families in our survey said the Government’s plans were unclear. Many reported long waits or inconsistent pathways. Parents also described teachers misinterpreting needs.

Identify equity and intersectional issues, in particular, children who identify as First Nations and Culturally and Linguistically Diverse.

Children from First Nations and Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CaLD) backgrounds often face more barriers to getting the support they need.

For First Nations children, key barriers include:

• Distance and limited services in remote areas
• Mistrust of government systems
• Few First Nations staff in health and education services.

For CaLD children and families, barriers include:

• Lack of translated resources or bilingual staff
• Stigma or lack of understanding of developmental difference
• Services that don’t reflect cultural values or experiences.

We also know that First Nations and CaLD children are more likely to be flagged as developmentally vulnerable when starting school. Access to preschool helps, but attendance is lower in some communities — and services aren’t always culturally safe. Programs must be co-designed with communities, and delivered by people they trust.

Survey evidence

As cited in the AIHW Closing the Gap data, Only 34% of First Nations children are developmentally on track at school start, dropping to just 16% in very remote areas.

Identify gaps in workforce support and training required to deliver Thriving Kids.

The Thriving Kids vision won’t work without a strong, well-trained, local workforce, available to provide the right support, at the right place and at the right time

• Mainstream educators, child health nurses, GPs and early learning staff need better training to identify developmental differences and accommodate

children’s individual needs. Mandatory training must be trauma-responsive, neuro-affirming and strengths-based, not focused on deficits.

• There is a need for timely access to early supports provided by allied health professionals — especially in regional and remote areas. The Government needs to invest in increasing the allied health workforce and incentivising allied health professionals to live and work in regional and remote communities.
• The workforce must reflect the diversity of our communities. We need more First Nations and multilingual professionals.
• Families need help navigating systems. A trusted person — a key worker or family liaison — can make all the difference.
• Choice and control must be protected. Block funding leads to a lack of choice and reduced safety - where children and families are only able to access support through a single provider, it’s significantly harder to complain about poor or harmful services, due to the risk of being left without support.

Survey evidence

315 allied health professionals responded to our survey. Many warned that block funding would destabilise current services.

Draw on domestic and international policy experience and best practice.

Internationally, stepped or tiered models are used widely — like in Canada or the UK. These let kids access increasing levels of support depending on need, without jumping straight to specialist systems.

In Australia, we already have good examples:

• The Autism CRC guidelines help families and services focus on inclusion and strengths.
• Victoria’s early childhood autism inclusion modules help educators confidently include autistic children in kinder settings.

• Some state programs fund community-based supports, embedded in early learning, instead of separate clinic-based models.

These models show what’s possible when we combine evidence with lived experience and local know-how.

Survey evidence

Families overwhelmingly rejected behavioural-focused programs that have not been led or co-designed by the community. Parents expressed particular concern about programs such as Inklings, describing them as outdated, harmful, and inconsistent with neurodiversity-affirming practice.

“I am scared of the effects of any structured program delivered in a systematic way without the input of neurodivergent people or their carers. I know programs and research based on [Applied Behaviour Analysis] ABA style therapies such as Inklings may not actually reduce the care needs of people as they get older- just teach them to mask the symptoms which will then get worse as they transition at times in their lives for instance in adolescence or during the transition to high school.”

“Unclear on what the supports will be, why they are using a program (Inklings) that has been called out as problematic for years. Why it has been announced before the community consultations”

Identify mechanisms that would allow a seamless transition through mainstream systems for all children with mild to moderate support needs.

Families need systems that talk to each other — not ones that pass them from service to service, without access to much needed support.

What would help:

• Clear referral and support pathways – from child health checks to playgroups to preschool and school.
• Funding that supports inclusion from day one – not just after a diagnosis.
• Information that follows the child, with consent, so supports don’t have to start from scratch every time.
• Transition plans that start well before school, and include families, educators and therapists working together.
• Schools that are resourced and ready to adapt – with flexible classrooms, skilled staff, and inclusive mindsets.
• Intentional support avenues for families who have disengaged from mainstream early childhood and education settings, due to the inaccessibility of these environments for many children. Neglecting to put these in place further risks marginalising and/or excluding this cohort.
• Clear timeframes must be established around the introduction of programs under ‘Thriving Kids’, as both early childhood and education settings will require culture change and capacity building. There will need to be clear planning, monitoring, incentivising and evaluation strategies to ensure national consistency and to prevent postcode lotteries.
• There is currently a knowledge-gap in terms of the numbers and scale required for programs funded under Thriving Kids. There is a need for a scoping review of need prior to advancing the Thriving Kids concept, to enable population-level estimation of need upon which programs, budgets and concrete and accessible support pathways can be built.

Every step of a child’s journey should build on what’s come before, not set them back.

Summary of Community Survey Feedback

Community feedback collected in September 2025 demonstrates widespread concern across the disability community regarding the proposed changes of the Thriving Kids initiative. The survey, conducted by Every Australian Counts, captures the voices and experiences of families, carers, and providers nationwide.

12

Quantitative Overview

• Loss of choice and control over supports and/or providers: 814 survey respondents (75.1%) expressed grave concerns about a move towards block funding or centrally allocated services.
• Lack of clarity/poor communication and uncertainty: 760 survey respondents (70%) reported feeling anxious and uninformed about the nature and future of supports. 36% stated that they are worried they could have reduced access to necessary supports, and 17% said there has not been enough information about the initiative.
• Fear of limited funding allocation: 676 respondents (62.4%) shared that they are concerned that there will be funding caps or budget limits as a result of the Thriving Kids program.
• Co-design as a basic requirement: 97% of survey respondents stated that it is extremely or very important that people with disability and their families are fully involved in designing future changes to the NDIS.

Key Themes

1. Reduced Access to Supports and Therapies

Families spoke about losing the supports that allow their children to progress, participate at school, and maintain wellbeing. Many described fears that changes would lead to setbacks, isolation, and daily struggles. Several said losing therapies would result in children “falling through the cracks,” with lasting effects on both their futures and on their families.

“Without the NDIS and the therapy and support that my child is receiving now, I am terrified for his future. What once looked bright - a future where he could be supported to achieve his goals, live with dignity, contribute to society, and one day work and pay taxes - now feels uncertain. Taking this away would mean he is left to fall through the cracks, and that thought breaks me.”

13

“My child needs intense therapy. What will we lose? How will my child get the therapy needed to live? It’s already hard enough.”

“I honestly don’t know what our life would look like without our therapies, my kids would start getting behind in school, the aggression could get worse, all their needs wouldn’t be being met. Our therapies help us with everyday life, any new challenges that arise and keep us on track mentally, emotionally and socially. Without these supports I’m worried that parents would suffer more and more burnout with having to hold the family up with these challenges. I’m worried children will fall behind. I’m worried they won’t get the support they all deserve.”

Parents warn of regression, unmet needs, academic struggles, and more severe mental health impacts if supports are lost.

2. Loss of Choice and Control

Parents and carers consistently emphasised how critical it is to match supports and services to the individual needs of each child. The survey revealed significant distress at proposals that limit choice, describing how families thrive when they are empowered to choose their team and therapies. Centralised or block funding, respondents argued, fails to recognise each child’s unique circumstances and can lead to harmful outcomes.

“Moving to a block funding model removes choice and control and individualised services for children. Parents need to be able to match providers to their child/family needs – not be forced to attend a centre-based program of parent coaching.”

“Choice and control is fundamental to disability rights. Parents have come to rely upon neuro-affirming supports rather than being directed towards programs which aren’t individually tailored. This risks, once again, the most vulnerable kids and families being unable to afford choice and control in supports.”

14

“The changes recently announced about Thriving Kids destroys everything the autistic community has been working to achieve, including support, equality, having their voices heard, stopping harm to autistic people, and community participation. Choice and control no longer exists for NDIS participants. Stated supports, block funding, and NDIS staff having inadequate knowledge about disabilities removes any flexibility required by NDIS participants to meet their current or changing needs.”

“Going back to large organisations to provide one size fits all supports is not appropriate in many ways, and removes choice and control from families about who they bring into their world, share their personal information and develop a trusting relationship to assist them in their/their child’s journey.”

There is deep concern and alarm about returning to “one-size-fits-all” systems that failed children in the past.

3. Lack of Clarity and Communication

Survey responses describe a climate of uncertainty. Families and providers expressed frustration at unclear government messages about eligibility, timelines, and service models. Many shared feelings of anxiety about abruptly losing support with little or no information on alternatives.

“It’s very vague and very concerning.”

“We have no clarity on alternative supports for those losing access. Our community has not been involved in this decision or what the changes will look like. Yet again.”

“How will the government ensure consistent access to supports through Thriving Kids regardless of geographical location, socioeconomic status, health literacy, English as second language, etc? I am very concerned that supports will be located in metro areas/capital cities, and regional areas will receive outreach or online support, which is not appropriate nor equitable.”

15

“When they announce plans to implement change based on frameworks which don’t even exist yet it’s difficult to trust that any of those plans can work out. That and the number of announcements and changes in the last twelve months that have come with no community consultation just leave me generally distrustful. There’s definitely a fatigue factor associated with these rolling changes and cuts. Nothing is clear.”

4. Problems with “Mild/Moderate” Diagnostic Labels

Survey respondents criticised the use of non-standard terminology, noting that these labels do not match clinical practice or lived reality. Many shared that such terms oversimplify complex conditions and result in inadequate care for those who need it most.

“I am concerned about the language the government is using around autism, which is not neurodiversity affirming or flexible in terms of the nuances and differences in individual needs for supports and accommodations.”

“Calling autism mild or moderate is highly inappropriate. The DSM 5 does not recognise those terms nor do providers.”

“Minister Butler has singled us out based on numbers… suggesting that autism can be ‘mild’ and ‘not a permanent lifelong disability’.”

“They have no idea about Autism & the functional implications. The use of terminology such as mild & moderate is outdated, ignorant & insulting.”

“Autism is not curable. An autistic person’s capacity fluctuates. Providing less access to therapy supports in childhood increases costs - financially, socially, emotionally to individuals and their families and to society in the now, short and long terms. The world is not set up to accommodate autistic people’s needs in general and autistic people deserve to have every opportunity to experience a meaningful and fulfilling life by having access to support that fits their individual needs.

16

5. Fears of Block Funding and Legacy Systems

Concerns about returning to old models were widespread. Respondents cited negative past experiences with block funding as rigid and unsuitable for children with diverse developmental needs. They stressed that real progress only came with individualised funding and the ability to select trusted professionals.

“Children and families will again be forced back to a block funding model, where they are forced to engage in a model that is not individualised, not delivered by professionals that we get to choose for quality purposes and not encompassing all of our children’s individual needs.”

“ Those children now have zero supports. The only thing that might be worse is an experimental, non-individualised, “one-size-fits-all” block funding solution delivered by faceless corporate juggernauts - this is absolutely regressive, and to dress it up as “reform” is breathtakingly insulting to the disability community.”

“If they moved to the block funding model that’s being alluded to, my child who was extremely premature and was diagnosed with developmental delays and at risk of having [Cerebral Palsy] CP would not receive the timely and evidenced based support he needed and continues to need.”

6. Consultation and Co-Design

A recurring frustration came from the lack of meaningful involvement of families, people with disability, and experts in designing new systems. The community’s message was clear: decision-makers must listen to and include lived experience, following the principle “nothing about us without us.”

“Nothing about us without us. People with disabilities and their family should always be consulted for every suggestion.”

“These plans do not include any consultation with the disability sector. There does not seem to be commitment from the States, and there are still Foundational Supports consultations scheduled for September.”

17

“The government has not consulted with the disability or support community to work to collaboratively design a solution to addressing spending of the NDIS.”

“Thriving Kids could only work if designed by autistic people to meet autistic needs. I am tired of NDIS treating our disability as lesser than other disabilities.”

7. Workforce and Provider Challenges

A range of allied health practitioners and small providers described economic uncertainty and anxiety. Many fear business closures and job losses, especially in rural areas where access is already limited. Respondents called attention to the need for a stable, experienced workforce to deliver complex care.

“Highly experienced allied health practitioners were incentivised to move into the private sector… now those very services are financially unsustainable. This issue is amplified in remote and very remote areas.”

“How will the government tap into the existing resources to minimise waste? As an example, rather than spending funds to train GP’s in developmental assessments, why not utilise the existing highly knowledgeable and experienced allied health practitioner workforce, who work in child development every day and are experts in the field of child development? How will the government ensure the existing highly experienced allied health workforce is utilised to ensure optimal outcomes for this cohort of children.”

“The deconstructed State and Territory systems, legacy of the NDIS implementation are not resourced nor equipped to deliver services. The Federal Government have failed to ensure workforce pipeline with only estimated 15% supply of allied health professionals. The cost of university fees and lack of Placement support is cost prohibitive to encouraging people to take on these roles in our community. This issue is amplified in remote and very remote areas. Student completing their Masters are required to complete inexcess if 10 months of unpaid Placement from the allied health streams (except for means? tested nurses and social workers).”

18

8. Mental Health and Family Wellbeing

Many families described harmful impacts, ranging from stress and burnout to declining mental health. Parents, carers, and siblings shared stories of struggling to keep up with daily demands and worrying about the future in the face of uncertainty.

“The stress for these families is intolerable.“

“It’s added significant distress to people already under significant mental and financial strain… These changes are making me and the kids a burden due to our disability.”

“The emotional toll on me as his mother is unbearable. I live in constant fear that his supports will be removed - either through reassessment or policy reform - and that his fragile progress will be undone.”

“This debate is causing vicarious trauma, it’s saying to young people with autism that this country doesn’t care about them.”

“I would not have been able to afford OT and I hate to think where we would be today without it. It’s already hard enough to afford to see specialists for her medical issues that come with autism”

“I’ve had health & mental health crises that have been exacerbated by my disabilities, and the stress created by these changes threatens a relapse. It’s been setback after setback, and I’m scared I’m not progressing fast enough to absorb the blow, if something were to happen to these services I depend on.”

“Autistic folk don’t need a program that tries to make them mask more to fit in with society. They also often need support that is not part of a program, like support workers, assistive technology, etc. We don’t grow out of autism and masking leads to mental health issues and a greater risk of suicide. The government seems to think there is a one size fits all approach as though we are not all different people with differing needs and the program appears to be very problematic.”

19

9. Concerns About New Models and Transparency

Some respondents highlighted issues around transparency, fraud reduction, and called for genuine system reform, while others shared nuanced views on possible improvements if processes are inclusive and evidence-informed.

“I am scared of the effects of any structured program delivered in a systematic way without the input of neurodivergent people or their carers. I know programs and research based on ABA style therapies such as Inklings may not actually reduce the care needs of people as they get older- just teach them to mask the symptoms which will then get worse as they transition at times in their lives for instance in adolescence or during the transition to high school.”

“Unclear on what the supports will be, why they are using a program (Inklings) that has been called out as problematic for years. Why it has been announced before the community consultations”

“Mark Butler’s speech provided a generic description of what the ‘Thriving Kids’ program may look like, but there is no clear information about eligibility criteria - who will continue to access the scheme, who will go to the Thriving Kids program, how will this be decided and by whom, will it be based on diagnosis or functional impairment or both, what happens if a child’s needs change over time.”

Representative Feedback

This community feedback section reflects the lived experience and main concerns raised in August-September 2025 of over 1,000 people with disability, carers, family members and disability sector professionals, supporting the case for genuine consultation, clear information, continued choice and control, and access to appropriate supports for all children and families.

20

Recommendations

Based on the evidence from our September 2025 community survey, Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), and commitments already made under the National Autism Strategy 2025–2031 and its First Action Plan 2025-2026, Every Australian Counts recommends:

1. No cuts to the NDIS or changes to eligibility requirements. All children with significant and permanent disability (Section 24 of the NDIS Act 2013) must retain their right to individualised supports under the NDIS. There must be no changes to early intervention eligibility criteria (Section 25 of the NDIS Act 2013) until foundational supports are fully operational, independently evaluated, and shown to meet need. Any reduction in eligibility before this point would breach Australia’s obligations under the CRPD and contradict the intent of the NAS. Children can start support based on need while waiting for diagnostic assessment (no diagnostic barrier).
2. Co-design and co-develop all reforms. Legislate safeguards for genuine co-design with people with disability and families in each region, including First Nations and CaLD organisations and local communities, consistent with UNCRPD Article 4.3 and the co-design principles embedded in the NAS.
3. Build on, not duplicate, the National Autism Strategy. Align Thriving Kids with the NAS, ensuring government investment strengthens rather than fragments commitments such as pre/post diagnosis resources, workforce development, and culturally safe services. Deliver support in everyday places - home, child and family health centres, playgroups, child care, kindy and school.
4. Protect choice and control. Reject block funding and centralised service allocation. Uphold families’ ability to choose providers, consistent with the intent of the NDIS.

21

5. Ensure all programs are neurodiversity-affirming, strengths based, trauma-responsive and culturally safe. Reject behavioural-focused programs that have not been led, co-designed with or supported by the community. Invest instead in co-designed and co-developed, neuro-affirming, trauma-informed supports, led by and for disabled people. Group-based supports must not replace individualised, one-to-one support when needed.
6. Invest in equity. Co-design services with First Nations and Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Communities, supported by bilingual staff and culturally safe practice, consistent with NAS priority cohort actions. Provide interpreters and translated information as standard, and help with travel/parking so hidden costs don’t block access. Ensure that children and families in regional and remote communities have equal access to support services as their metropolitan counterparts.
7. Strengthen the workforce. Develop a national workforce strategy aligned with NAS actions. Reduce cost of allied health qualifications, increase available university and TAFE places in allied health qualifications, and include incentives for rural and regional practice- for example, clearing HECS debts, providing free or low cost housing, offering paid placements, and funding for key worker roles. Protect small and independent providers from destabilisation by block funding. Fund supervision and mentoring, and pay for time spent planning with families and teachers (not only clinic visits). The Government must prioritise building a suitable workforce before rollout of ‘Thriving Kids’ programs - failure to do so risks failure of the program, increased inequity and more children falling through the gaps.
8. Prioritise delivery of ‘Thriving Kids’ to children currently falling through the gaps. Too many children are missing out on critical early supports due to not meeting NDIS eligibility criteria. Programs developed through ‘Thriving Kids’ should target kids with developmental delays and disability not currently eligible for NDIS. Start practical help immediately, while people are waiting for other services. Develop an effective, high quality program of supports that appropriately addresses individual needs, and families will naturally gravitate

22

to these programs rather than having to navigate the incredibly complex NDIS. 9. Guarantee continuity across systems. Ensure seamless transition pathways between early childhood, education, and health systems, aligned with NAS actions on whole-of-life planning. Ensure each family have one main contact and one plan that follows the child, so families don’t have to repeat their story. 10. ‘Thriving Kids’ programs must be provided free of charge. The Government must increase Medicare rebates for diagnostic assessments and reform the access pathway for Medicare rebates. Individual and group based therapies and services must be available free of charge in local communities, rather than further disadvantaging families from low socio-economic backgrounds. Make supports local and easy to get to. Include interpreters and travel support where needed. 11. Frame children as an investment, not a burden. Fund early, individualised supports that reduce long-term costs and promote participation, rather than treating children with developmental delays and autistic children as “too expensive.” Publish results, for example, shorter waits and better participation at home, in the community and at school - by region.

Conclusion

The evidence from our September 2025 survey is overwhelming: families, people with disability and providers do not support the proposed ‘Thriving Kids’ program in its current form. Instead of creating clarity and security, the reforms have generated fear, confusion, and a sense of exclusion from decision-making.

The message from the community is consistent. ‘Thriving Kids’ must not replace or undermine the NDIS, nor strip away the rights, choice, and control that children and families have fought hard to secure. Any reform must be grounded in co-design, human rights, and evidence. It must build on - not duplicate or compete with -

23

commitments already made under the National Autism Strategy and the NDIS Act 2013.

If the Government proceeds without genuine partnership, transparent communication, and investment in inclusive supports, children will regress, families will burn out, and Australia will risk breaching its obligations under the UNCRPD and UNCRC. But if reforms are co-designed and grounded in neurodiversity-affirming, strengths-based practice, they can provide a lasting foundation that supports children to thrive in families, schools, and communities.

Every Australian Counts urges the Committee to recommend reforms that protect existing rights, invest in equity, strengthen the workforce, and guarantee continuity of support. Above all, we ask that the voices of disabled people and their families remain at the centre of all decisions. Only then will the vision of ‘Thriving Kids’ become a reality.

24