Joint Submission to the House Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability Inquiry into The Thriving Kids Initiative
3 October 2025
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 About the Organisations………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 Statement on Bias in Thriving Kids Inquiry and Terms of Reference…………………………………………. 2 Key Concerns and Risks of the Thriving Kids Initiative…………………………………………………………….3 Summary of Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………………..10 Key Principles for the Thriving Kids Reform to Succeed…………………………………………………………11 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12 References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
Introduction
Yellow Ladybugs, Reframing Autism, Different Journeys and the University of Melbourne Neurodiversity Project welcome the Committee’s inquiry into the Thriving Kids initiative. Our joint community represents over 100,000 Australian Autistic people, families, carers and allies. As disability led and representative organisations, we are deeply concerned about how the proposed reform will be implemented, who is designing, influencing and evaluating it, and what it means for families and Autistic children whose needs are often hidden.
At its best, Thriving Kids could broaden access to early supports, reduce stress for families, and build capacity in mainstream systems. At its worst, it risks sending families back to a pre-NDIS world of inequity, postcode lotteries, waiting lists, and rationed care.
Currently, the available information on the Thriving Kids Initiative demonstrates significant misunderstanding of autism as a neurodevelopmental condition and is not aligned to the National Autism Strategy. We offer this submission to help shape Thriving Kids in ways that will affirm and support Autistic children and their families, rather than further marginalise and fail them.
About the Organisations
Yellow Ladybugs is an autistic-led, grassroots, not for profit organisation aiming to change the conversation on autism, to make meaningful change across policy, perceptions and people’s lives. We are shining a spotlight on autistic girls, women and gender diverse people - a community who has
been invisible for far too long. We transform perspectives, challenge misconceptions, and provide inclusive opportunities for connection and drive systemic change through our advocacy.
Reframing Autism is a thought leader in the Autism space, using Autistic lived experience and a human rights lens coupled with the most affirming research to change the frame through which society understands Autism. We are an Autistic-led charity seeking to improve the wellbeing of Autistic people through developing, designing, and delivering research-informed educational opportunities and resources.
Different Journeys Different Journeys is a Victorian-based not-for-profit founded to reduce social isolation and build community for autistic young people, adults, and their families. The organisation runs social events, peer support programs, and carer networks. Their strengths-based approach centres autistic voices and promotes inclusion across community, education, and workplaces.
The University of Melbourne Neurodiversity Project is a collective of neurodivergent researchers with an interest in platforming neurodivergent-led research and promoting high quality research and research translation of neurodiversity-affirming practice and supports. They emphasise providing pathways for neurodivergent scholars and allies to be able to lead research of their own communities. This emphasis aligns with a deeply held belief in “Nothing about us without us.”
Statement on Bias in Thriving Kids Inquiry and Terms of Reference
Autistic children and their families deserve an impartial process to determine best quality care and support that is responsive to and respectful of Autistic lived experience. Despite this need for impartiality, the Inquiry has already demonstrated that it is overtly politicised in two concerning ways:
- The appointment of Dr Mike Freelander MP as the Chair of the House Standing Committee’s Inquiry into the Thriving Kids Initiative. Whilst the Chairperson should be impartial and objective to ensure due process, we note that Dr Freelander has publicly conveyed overt bias by claiming that: a) “there is pressure to ‘up‑diagnose or over‑diagnose’ autism so families can access the NDIS;” and b) diagnosis has become ‘diluted’ so that “any child with a delay in language, a little bit quirky or energetic, gets a diagnosis”(Dr Freelander, media comments 11 Sept 2025). Autistic people and families alike strenuously deny this claim and research into diagnosis in Australia refutes Dr Freelander’s claim (e.g., May et al., 2021; Rasheed, 2023). Indeed, increases in autism diagnoses in Australia closely mimic increases in other Western countries like the US and UK who do not have NDIS-type financial support (e.g., Russell et al., 2021). Dr Freelander’s assertions thus undermine his position as an impartial arbiter for this Inquiry. We are deeply concerned that this harmful and inaccurate commentary has been disseminated by the Committee Chair.
- The Terms of Reference for the Inquiry use the same politicised and contested language that Minister Mark Butler used during his announcement of Thriving Kids. Specifically, both reference ‘mild to moderate developmental delay’ and ‘autism with mild to moderate support needs’, This terminology in itself betrays the Inquiry’s inherent misunderstanding of
2
autism and its biases, since this framing of autism is misaligned with the National Autism Strategy, is not used in a diagnostic or stable sense, and is actively rejected by the majority of the Autistic community. Moreover, the repetition of this language in the Terms of Inquiry reflects Minister Butler’s deeply harmful implication that autism is not always a permanent and lifelong disability. We will explore these issues in greater depth below.
We thus strongly protest and reject the underlying premises of this Inquiry, which frames autism as a static, stable, and childhood diagnosis and reflects outdated and reductive understandings of Autistic experiences (e.g., Anderson-Chavarria, 2021; Hus & Segal, 2021). To frame the Inquiry in this way is misinformed and exclusionary, has no basis in Australia’s or international best practice guidelines, and is actively rejected by the vast majority of Autistic advocates. It points to an unacceptable level of bias, before the Inquiry has even begun. This is compounded by the presence of a Committee Chair whose public comments point to an obsolete view of autism and a deep disconnect with the Autistic community.
Key Concerns and Risks of the Thriving Kids Initiative
This joint submission identifies the following key risks and concerns with the Thriving Kids Initiative, which we discuss in detail below:
a) Outdated and harmful terminology and framing
The framing of the Thriving Kids Initiative relies on outdated and divisive terminology and understandings of autism, that indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of autism as a complex, dynamic, biological-neurodevelopmental condition. The use of “mild to moderate autism” has no diagnostic or evidence-based definition (APA, 2013), and reflects fundamental misunderstandings about autism. Thriving Kids’ focus on children who exhibit “mild to moderate” functioning implies that autism is temporary or impermanent, that functioning is stable across the lifespan, and that Autistic profiles can be easily classified by behaviourist interpretations of individual traits.
The current Thriving Kids approach therefore implies that Autistic people do not require lifelong, individualised support, which contravenes best practice evidence (e.g., the Autism CRC’s National Framework for Assessing Children’s Functional Strengths and Support Needs in Australia, 2024). Since autism is now recognised as a dynamic, complex, and lifelong disability, even by those working within medical models of disability (e.g., Gordon & Dimitropoulos, 2024; Hus & Segal, 2021), the Thriving Kid’s approach risks adopting a reductive, non-evidenced, and obsolete understanding of autism.
By doing so, it risks overlooking Autistic children with hidden needs, including those who mask their struggles (e.g., Corscadden & Casserly, 2021), and represents a backwards step, ignoring the rigorous evidence base established in research for the need for individualised, lifelong support (e.g., Browne et al., 2024). It adopts an outdated stance both in diagnostic terms as well as from the wider cultural understanding of autism that is reflected in best-practice guidelines in Australia, including the National Autism Strategy.
b) Misalignment with National Autism Strategy (NAS) and National Best-Practice Guidelines
The NAS makes it clear that “Autism is a lifelong neurodevelopmental difference… every autistic person is unique, and has their own individual diversity, capacity, experiences and aspirations”. As noted at point (a), the Thriving Kids approach undermines this key understanding embedded into the NAS.
Moreover, as we noted in our opening statement, the public and political dialogue about Thriving Kids (including comments from the Committee Chair), along with the Terms of Reference for the Inquiry, are biased and imply a predetermined course of action that is at odds with the purported purpose and methodology underpinning the NAS.
Just as concerningly, the NAS’s focus on co-design - that is, an approach in which Autistic experiences and expertise are centred and valued, and in which Autistic priorities and needs drive policy and decision - are shockingly absent from Thriving Kids.
Thriving Kids’ misalignment with the NAS threatens to undermine the efficacy and acceptability of both programs of work. Given the extensive work that informed the NAS, it is imperative that Thriving Kids is brought into alignment with the NAS and its guiding principles.
Importantly, a loss of individualised support and the adoption of a “one-size-fits-all” approach which strips individuals and families of genuine choice and control, are incompatible with national best-practice guidelines and the NAS.
The NAS affirms that “supports need to be individualised and consider the whole person, and that support needs may change, including during key life transitions and in certain situations or environments”. Information to date about Thriving Kids indicates that it will rely on block funding and will likely force Autistic children into generic, mainstream services. This uniform, one-size-fits-all approach risks eroding the principles of choice, control, and lifelong, identity-affirming support (NAS). We discuss the specific issues associated with generic, mainstream services further below.
The National Guideline for Supporting the Learning, Participation and Wellbeing of Autistic Children and their Families also emphasises that “supports should be tailored to the child and family, be strengths-based, and promote choice, control and active participation” (Autism CRC, 2023). Similarly, the ECIA (2016) Best Practice Guidelines for Early Childhood Intervention highlight that “family-centred and individualised practice is essential to achieve the best outcomes for children”.
It is currently unclear if and how these best-practice guidelines will be realised through the Thriving Kids program.
c) Misalignment with “nothing about us without us”
It is deeply unfortunate that there has been a lack of transparent consultation with the Autistic community and our families, including Autistic-led organisations and DROs, and with State bodies and Governments.
Whilst we have been told that Thriving Kids is driven by the principle of “nothing about us without us”, there is no tangible, practical or genuine action to ensure Autistic leadership within the program’s inception, development, implementation or evaluation, which risks leading to a program that is neither responsive to needs nor fit for purpose.
Ultimately, a lack of genuine co-design and Autistic leadership contravenes best practice as evidenced by research (e.g., Benz et al., 2024; Fraser-Barbour et al., 2023), including as described by the Australia’s Autism CRC.
d) Narrow age focus
A significant risk associated with Thriving Kids is that its focus is only on Autistic children aged 0-8 years old, resulting in uncertainty for Autistic children over 9 years old risking a service cliff. There is no clear pathway for Autistic children over nine to continue to receive quality and necessary support into their later childhood.
Families rightly currently fear their child will be left without adequate support after the age of nine. The NAS explicitly commits to supporting “every Autistic person in Australia, no matter their stage of life” (p. 6): supports must therefore be lifelong, not restricted to early childhood. The current 0–8 scope of Thriving Kids risks creating a ‘service cliff’ at age nine, directly contradicting the NAS’s foundational vision of inclusivity and continuity, and ignoring the lifelong dimension of autism.
Given the evidenced importance of continuity of support and care for the Autistic population, Thriving Kids is an inadequate response to the need for ongoing, stable, relational care (see Fulceri et al., 2023).
e) Gender and identity bias
Thriving Kids risks exacerbating the existing gender and identity bias within autism diagnoses and support, with Autistic girls and gender-diverse children likely to be overlooked by “mild/moderate” filters given current evidence around difficulties with diagnosis in these cohorts (e.g., Estrin et al., 2021).
Autistic girls and other Autistic children who mask and who appear quiet and compliant in school, clinical and community settings are more likely to be overlooked by the subjective “mild/moderate developmental delay” filter. This is a cohort who remain under-diagnosed (Hamdani et al., 2023) and who struggle to have their support needs recognised within systems including the NDIS when they are diagnosed (Grove et al., 2025).
The political move to create a ‘mild to moderate’ category of autism for the purposes of Thriving Kids not only represents a significant backwards step for this cohort, it is divisive and harmful to the entire Autistic community, including those Autistic children who may have co-occurring disabilities and high support needs, who are now being labelled as ‘profound’.
f) Rushed timetable and rollout
Currently, the timelines for Thriving Kids are rushed, and do not allow for adequate co-design, evaluation and iteration.
A staged timetable for the rollout of the Thriving Kids initiative is essential. This will allow for regional pilots targeting different settings (city, regional rural, remote) across all states, independent Autistic evaluation of programme outcomes, workforce upskilling, and genuine co-design with Autistic-led organisations and the Autistic community.
Autistic children and their families need certainty. Until Thriving Kids is proven effective, accessible and safe, children must remain on the NDIS. Removing them prematurely risks harm.
g) Over-reliance on mainstream systems (schools, health, mental health)
A significant body of research shows that mainstream services (including schools, health and mental health services) are actively failing Autistic children at a systemic and individual level, and are not equipped to deliver neuro-affirming individualised supports (see e.g., Boshoff et al., 2021). Indeed many of these mainstream systems are actively causing harm to Autistic children or failing to minimise or prevent harm (see e.g., Hartley et al., 2023), in part because of ignorance about autism (e.g., Thom-Jones et al., 2025; Wittwer et al., 2023)
Importantly then, mainstream systems such as health, education, and mental health are already overloaded. Thriving Kids risks pushing them past breaking point, without first addressing the fact that they lack the skills, knowledge, and cultural readiness to deliver neuro-affirming and individualised support. Before any transition to Thriving Kids, governments must demonstrate not only additional capacity within systems, but also safety, ongoing training, a commitment to independent evaluation and accountability.
The Thriving Kids initiative also fails to acknowledge that many Autistic children are already outside of, or unable to access mainstream systems, and particularly education (e.g., Cleary et al., 2024). Thriving Kids poses a very real risk of an even greater level of exclusion and barriers to accessing services for many Autistic children and their families.
These issues are exacerbated by workforce shortages in allied health, schools and primary care, which indicate that mainstream systems are ill-equipped and ill-prepared to support Autistic children adequately.
h) Failure of Thriving Kids to understand and respond to key Autistic mental health risks
Research repeatedly shows that Autistic children and adults alike have a significantly increased risk of lifelong anxiety, depression, complex trauma, and suicidality (e.g., Brown et al., 2024).
Research also shows that certain factors contribute to such mental health outcomes. These include exclusion, camouflaging or masking, loneliness and stigma (e.g., Graham et al., 2024; Moseley et al., 2025). Indeed, camouflaging alone offers a compelling account for poor Autistic mental health outcomes (e.g., Arqueros et al., 2025; Lei et al., 2024).
Currently, Thriving Kids fails to acknowledge or account for how it will actively prevent and protect against the factors that most undermine Autistic quality of life across the lifespan. By failing to understand and respond to key Autistic mental health risks, Thriving Kids risks exacerbating or perpetuating these risks, including through behaviourist approaches that - inadvertently or otherwise - promote masking and the suppression of authentic Autistic ways of being.
i) Failure of Thriving Kids to recognise and harness evidenced protective mental health and wellbeing factors
By contrast, there are certain factors which are evidenced to protect against Autistic poor mental health, including early access to a positive Autistic identity, connection with Autistic peers, development of a strong collective Autistic identity through community, and strengths-use outside of neuronormative constructs (e.g., Cooper et al., 2022; Maitland et al., 2021; Taylor et al., 2023).
Currently, Thriving Kids fails to show how it will utilise evidenced enablers to Autistic mental health and protective factors to foster Autistic children’s genuine thriving across contexts and domains, and also into the future.
Without recognising and utilising the existing knowledge about such factors that foster flourishing, it is difficult to see how Thriving Kids can achieve authentic Autistic flourishing and support.
j) Governance and transparency risks, with possible conflicts of interest within the Thriving Kids Advisory Group, and no guaranteed Autistic representation
It is critical for governance, trust, accountability and transparency reasons that, now that the Thriving Kids Advisory Group membership has been published, that a conflicts-of-interest register for this group should also be published. Transparency is also needed around who had an advisory role in the lead up to the Thriving Kids announcement and what advice they provided.
We are deeply concerned that, at a national level, the Thriving Kids policy initiative is politicised and being influenced by a small number of non-elected individuals who do not represent the Autistic community and who are not trusted by the community due to their long history of dismissing or speaking over lived Autistic experience. It is hard to imagine another minority or marginalised cohort where this non-representative approach would be considered acceptable or appropriate.
Given the lack of transparency, failures to deliver co-design and the significant concerns about the ‘behind closed doors’ process, we are strongly advocating for the current Thriving Kids Advisory Group membership to be reviewed as an immediate priority, and for Autistic-led organisations and representatives from the Autistic community to be fully represented, with decision-making power.
k) Over-reliance on a narrow evidence-base and experimental trials such as the Inklings programme without robust co-designed independent evaluations
The Inklings programme has been publicly named as an example of the type of programmes that will be rolled out under Thriving Kids. Inklings is often presented as evidence-based, but this claim does not withstand scrutiny. Its evidence base is drawn from the iBASIS protocol, which itself only reported a small reduction in traits on the ADOS tool. The study relied on ASDetect to identify participants, meaning only an Autistic sample was measured. It lacked a control group, was very small in scale, and did not track outcomes beyond age three.
The current iteration of Inklings has diverged significantly from the programme it was originally based on, undermining fidelity. Research goals and programme goals now appear to be misaligned, yet the claim of being “evidence-based” is still used. Without robust, independent, peer-reviewed evaluations, this is misleading at best.
There is no transparency around current evaluations of Inklings in Western Australia or South Australia. It is unclear what is being measured (what indicates effectiveness, and whether it is effectiveness of the programme, implementation, or both) and whether outcomes relevant to Autistic children and families are being captured (that is, whether outcomes and measures are appropriately sensitive). At present, Inklings can only be described as experimental and unproven.
We are particularly concerned about the disconnect between political messaging and programme intent. While promoted as affirming, official Government communications suggest the purpose of Inklings is to reduce the number of autism diagnoses. This creates a significant risk of harm if the programme is used to delay or deny diagnosis and access to supports, especially to Autistic parents and caregivers, who may be blamed for their child’s differences, and to Autistic children.
There are also unresolved governance and conflict of interest concerns, given the close involvement of a small number of non-autistic researchers, whose body of work has been central to both Inklings and related policy advice on Thriving Kids.
For Thriving Kids to succeed, programmes like Inklings must not be adopted or scaled without full transparency (in terms of governance, conflicts of interest, and the evidence-base), independent evaluation, and co-design with the Autistic community. Otherwise, there is a real risk of embedding experimental approaches that lack evidence and community trust into the national system.
l) Requirement for independent, codesigned evaluation
Further information is needed to define how independent evaluation of the Thriving Kids program will be undertaken, including what outcomes are being measured, how they are being measured, and the incorporation of experiential expertise into evaluation.
The evaluation of any programmes or services falling under Thriving Kids must be independent, co-designed with the Autistic community, and must track outcomes that assess long-term impacts for
Autistic children and their families including school participation, mental health, family wellbeing and employment. Autistic priorities and outcomes, not neuronormative approaches, must be evaluated.
Such an approach is aligned with best practice evaluation (e.g., Harrison et al., 2022) as well as the approach for the NAS.
m) Long-term cost blowouts
We argue strongly that there will likely be long-term costs to Government if Thriving Kids produces a generation of Autistic young people who are unsupported, isolated, and stigmatised, and who are experiencing intractable mental health concerns.
The current messaging (both politically and from non-elected individuals in advisory roles) indicates that the objective behind Thriving Kids is to reduce the rate of autism diagnoses in young children by reframing autism as a mild developmental delay and not a permanent and lifelong disability. Thriving Kids has thus been developed as a short-term financial win, to reduce NDIS cost blow-outs. Autistic children are being made the scapegoat, and their futures are being sacrificed. The true cost blowouts are likely to be NDIS administration and appeals, and it is not clear how the NDIS Independent Review’s recommendations address cost issues.
This approach does not mean that there are less Autistic children in need of support. It means that there will be more Autistic children who remain undiagnosed until later in life. Given that evidence shows that late identification is associated with higher levels of mental health difficulties (e.g., Atherton et al., 2022; Mandy et al., 2022). Thriving Kids thus has the real potential to be a disingenuous and purely short-term cost saving measure that will bear significant costs in the long-term.
The long-term costs of a generation of Autistic children who have been unable to access the individualised supports they need will be evident across the healthcare system, the mental health system, and the justice system.
n) Risk of cost-shifting to families
Importantly, whilst the Thriving Kids program may try to alleviate NDIS cost blow-outs, the likely outcome is that it will shift costs to families through bulk funding and Medicare-style gap payments.
Thriving Kids should not be built on Medicare-style gap payments. Out-of-pocket costs are already a barrier in mainstream health. Introducing fees would represent regression, not reform, and is misaligned with the Australian Government endorsed National Roadmap to Improve the Health and Mental Health of Autistic People 2025-2035.
Families are already subsidising government budgets by providing over $77.9 billion worth of unpaid supports each year (Deloitte Access Economics, 2020; Carers Australia, 2024). Any further transfer of responsibility risks forcing parents to reduce or give up paid work, lowering economic participation, shrinking the tax base, and increasing reliance on an already overburdened welfare system.
Summary of Recommendations
To ensure the success of the Thriving Kids Initiative, it is imperative that the Government adopts the following recommendations:
- Co-design with Autistic-led organisations and the Autistic community. Ensuring genuine, embedded, longitudinal and robust Autistic representation in all aspects of the design, implementation and evaluation of Thriving Kids must become an immediate priority for the development of Thriving Kids;
- A longer rollout timetable and staged regional pilots. Extending the proposed timetable is necessary to ensure that the needs of Autistic children and their families are properly understood and met, that co-design is undertaken in ways that are genuine and not tokenistic, that evaluation is longitudinal, staged, and robust and responsive to Autistic needs and priorities, and that best practice in iterative feedback processes can be implemented into future program rollouts;
- A pause on NDIS eligibility reassessments until Thriving Kids is proven effective and accessible;
- A clear, individualised support pathway for Autistic children and young people aged nine and above to align with the National Autism Strategy and Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021-2031;
- Publication of conflicts of interest for the Thriving Kids Advisory Group membership to ensure full transparency over governance and decision making to date, and including any Autistic involvement given the National Autism Strategy’s and Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021-2031’s priorities to ensure disabled leadership;
- Changes to the Thriving Kids Advisory Group membership to include robust representation by Autistic-led organisations, Autistic individuals, and state-based representatives;
- Independent evaluation frameworks, informed by Autistic people and priorities, to be established immediately. Any new programme of initiatives falling under Thriving Kids must undergo independent evaluation through a co-designed framework that tracks life outcomes for Autistic people (and not be reliant on standardised neuronormative measures and outcomes), not just changes to diagnostic numbers in the early years, and
- Greater state-based representation, input and influence in the design and implementation of the Thriving Kids Initiative.
Key Principles for the Thriving Kids Reform to Succeed
For the Thriving Kids Initiative to be successful, it will need to ensure the following principles are foundational in its design and approach:
1. Neurodiversity-affirming: Thriving Kids supports and programmes must avoid pathologising language, goals and outcomes (including functioning-based terminology such and ‘mild/low to moderate’ and ‘profound’) and instead respect positive Autistic identity and focus on being neuro-affirming, and trauma-responsive, built around principles of safety, connection and participation.
Neurodiversity-affirming care is currently not well defined or applied. There is a current project administered by the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing as part of the NAS First Action Plan to define neurodiversity-affirming care, its goals, and what it requires. Until this project is complete, it is impossible and harmful to measure Thriving Kids against an undefined and non-standardised framework of neurodiversity-affirming care. To adopt Thriving Kids without ensuring that it is genuinely and assessably neuro-affirming is counter to the NAS, the Disability Strategy, and community priorities.
2. Trauma-responsive: The Thriving Kids Initiative must recognise the long-term impact of stigma, lack of access to identity and supports, unmet needs and exclusion, particularly for Autistic children who are determined to have ‘mild to moderate developmental delays’ (noting that this is contested and politicised terminology that is not accepted by the Autistic community). Given the pervasive experiences of trauma for Autistic people across the lifespan (Morris, 2024), Thriving Kids needs to embed not just trauma-informed, but actively trauma-responsive, practice into its program to ensure proactively responsive and holistic care.
3. Individualised: Thriving Kids supports and programmes must be individualised (responsive to the needs of the individual child) and built on the original NDIS principles of choice and control, and autonomy and agency.
4. Evidence-based: Thriving Kids supports and programmes must build on robust, peer-reviewed and co-designed evidence-based best practice that includes lived Autistic experience. Research and evaluation must be co-designed, participatory, longitudinal and based on long-term life-long wellbeing and participation measures (not small trials or untested pilots).
5. Co-designed: Autistic people and Autistic-led organisations must share decision-making power in Thriving Kids policy development and programme implementation and evaluation.
6. Realistic timelines: The implementation of the Thriving Kids Initiative must allow for proper consultation, workforce training and evaluation, not rushed reform.
7. Harnessing evidenced protective factors for Autistic wellbeing: There has been limited research done on Autistic mental wellbeing, but the research done has focussed on such protective factors and these must be considered within this programme.
Conclusion
Yellow Ladybugs, Reframing Autism, Different Journeys and the University of Melbourne Neurodiversity Project welcome the opportunity to participate in this Inquiry into the Thriving Kids initiative.
We jointly hold serious concerns that the Thriving Kids initiative, as currently framed, risks replicating the systemic failures that Autistic children and their families already face. In particular, it will push many Autistic children with hidden needs under the radar. This means loss of individual supports, more children slipping through gaps, and further overloading already broken mainstream systems in health, education, and mental health.
Without alignment to the NAS and without embedding neurodiversity-affirming and trauma-responsive principles, Thriving Kids may increase inequity, reinforce stigma, and leave many Autistic children unsupported. This is not only harmful to families, but will cost the government far more in the long term through rising demand for mental health, disability and crisis services.
At the same time, we recognise the potential of Thriving Kids to broaden access to early supports, reduce stress for families, and define what neurodiversity-affirming care looks like in practice. With genuine co-design, staged implementation, and independent evaluation, this reform could become a turning point in delivering safe, affirming, and effective supports for Autistic children across Australia.
We urge the Committee to ensure that Thriving Kids does not proceed until it is reframed and tested through governance processes and pilots that are transparent, inclusive, and aligned to national strategy. Autistic children deserve nothing less than a system that fosters their wellbeing, identity, and participation across the whole of life.
As organisations representing the Autistic community, we would welcome the opportunity for further Autistic-led participation and leadership in the inquiry. Please contact redacted
References
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA.
Anderson-Chavarria, M. (2021). The autism predicament: Models of autism and their impact on autistic identity. Disability & Society, 37(8), 1321-1341. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2021.1877117
Arqueros, M., Jamett-Cuevas, V., Pulgar-Vera, V., Santander-Gonzalez, R., Pemau, A., & Alvarez-Cabrera, P. (2025). Camouflaging and suicidal behavior in adults with autism spectrum condition: A mixed methods systematic review. Research in Autism, 121-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reia.2025.202540
Atherton, G., Edisbury, E., Piovesan, A., & Cross, L. (2022). Autism through the ages: A mixed methods approach to understanding how age and age of diagnosis affect quality of life. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 52, 3639-3654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-05235-x
Autism CRC. (2023). National Guideline for Supporting the Learning, Participation and Wellbeing of Autistic Children and their Families.
Benz, C., Scott-Jedds, W., McKercher, K. A., Welsh, M., Norman, R., Hendrie, D., Locantro, M., & Robinson, S. (2024). Community-based participatory-research through co-design: Supporting collaboration from all sides of disability. Research Involvement and Engagement, 10(47). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00573-3
Boshoff, K., Bowen-Salter, H., Gibbs, D., Phillips, R. L., Porter, L., & Wiles, L., (2021). A meta-synthesis of how parents of children with autism describe their experiences of accessing and using routine healthcare services for their children. Health and Social Care in the Community. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13369
Brown, C. M., Newell, V., Sahin, E., & Hedley, D. (2024). Updated systematic review of suicide in autism: 2018-2024. Current Developmental Disorders Reports, 11, 225-256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-024-00308-9
Browne, K., Lawson, W., McGarry, S., Scott, M., Girdler, S., & Milbourn, B. (2024). “Consistent support is good for my mental health” - exploring the lived experience of Autistic mental health. Autism in Adulthood. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2024.0141
Cleary, M., West, S., McLean, L., Johnston-Devin, C., Kornhaber, R., & Hungerford, C. (2024). When the education system and autism collide: An Australian qualitative study exploring school exclusion and the impact on parental mental health. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 45(5), 468-476. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2024.2328251
Cooper, K., Russell, A. J., Lei, J., & Smith, L. G. E. (2022). The impact of a positive autism identity and autistic community solidarity on social anxiety and mental health in autistic young people. Autism, 27(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613221118351
Early Childhood Intervention Australia (ECIA). (2016). National Guidelines: Best Practice in Early Childhood Intervention.
Estrin, G. L., Milner, V., Spain, D., Happe, F., & Colvert, E. (2021). Barriers to autism spectrum disorder diagnosis for young women and girls: A systematic review. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 8, 454-470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-020-00225-8
Fraser-Barbour, E., Robinson, S., Genders, S., Burton-Clark, I., Fisher, K. R., Alexander, J., & Howe, K. (2023). Shifting power to people with disability in co-designed research. Disability & Society, 40(2), 259-280. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2023.2279932
Fulceri, F., Gila, L., Caruso, A., Micai, M., Romano, G., & Scattoni, M. L. (2023). Building bricks of integrated care pathway for autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 24(7), 6222. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24076222
Gordon, R. A., & Dimitropolous, A. (2024). Autism spectrum disorder: A lifespan overview. In M. G. Valdovinas (Ed.), Intellectual and developmental disabilities. Contemporary clinical neuroscience. Springer. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-66932-3_15
Grove, R., Clapham, H., Moodie, T., Gurrin, S., & Hall, G. (2025). “Nothing about us, without us”: Research priorities for Autistic girls, women and gender diverse people in Australia. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 55, 2522-2538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-024-06330-5
Graham, J., Rodgers, J., & Cassidy, S. (2024). Why are autistic people more likely to experience suicidal thoughts? Applying the integrated motivational-volitional model with autistic adults. Autism in Adulthood, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2023.0039
Hamdani, Y., Kassee, C., Walker, M., Lunsky, Y., Gladstone, B., Sawyer, A., Ameis, S. H., Desarkar, P., Szatmari, P., & Lai, M.-C. (2023). Roadblocks and detours on a pathway to a clinical diagnosis of autism for girls and women: A qualitative secondary analysis. Women’s Health, 19. https://doi.org/10.1177/17455057231163761
Harrison, R., She, E. N., & Debono, D. (2022). Implementing and evaluation co-designed change in health. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 115(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/01410768211070206
Hartley, G., Sirois, F., Purrington, J., & Rabey, Y. (2023). Adverse childhood experiences and autism: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231213314
Hus, Y., & Segal., O. (2021). Challenges surrounding the diagnosis of autism in children. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 17, 3509-3529. https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S282569
Lei, J., Cooper, K., & Hollocks, M. J. (2024). Psychological interventions for autistic adolescents with co-occurring anxiety and depression: Considerations linked to autism social identity and masking.
Maitland, C. A., Rhodes, S., O’Hare, A., & Stewart, M. E. (2021). Social identities and mental well-being in autistic adults. Autism, 25(6). https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613211004328
Many, W., Midouhas, E., Hosozawa, M., Cable, N., Sacker, A., & Flouri, E. (2022). Mental health and social difficulties of late-diagnosed autistic children, across childhood and adolescence. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 63(11), 1405-1414. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13587
May, T., Brignell, A., & Williams, K. (2021). Parent-reported autism diagnostic stability and trajectories in the longitudinal study of Australian children. Autism Research, 14(4), 773-786. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2470
Morris, D. (2024). Rising to the challenge: Meeting the trauma needs of autistic people. Advances in Autism, 10(3), 101-103. https://doi.org/10.1108/AIA-07-2024-079
Moseley, R. L., Marsden, S. J., Allison, C. L., Parsons, T. A., Cassicy, S., Procyshyn, T., Peloton, M., Weir, E. M., Chikaura, T., Mosse, D., Hall, I., Owens, L., Cheyette, J., Crichton, D., Rodgers, J., Hodges, H., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2025). “The combination of everything”: A mixed-methods approach to the factors that autistic people consider important in suicidality. Autism in Adulthood.
National Autism Strategy 2025–2031, Australian Government, Department of Health and Aged Care.
Rasheed, Z. (2023). Autism in Australia: Understanding, challenges, and support. International Journal of Health Sciences, 17(5), 1-4.
Russell, G., Stapley, S., Newlove-Delgado, T., Salmon, A., White, R., Warren, F., Peason, A., & Ford, T., (2021). Time trends in autism diagnosis over 20 years: A UK population-based cohort study. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 63(6), 674-682. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13505
Taylor, E. C., Livingston, L. A., Clutterbuck, R. A., Callan, M. J., & Shah, P. (2023). Psychological strengths and well-being: Strengths use predicts quality of life, well-being and mental health in autism. Autism, 27(6). https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613221146440
Thom-Jones, S., Gordon, C. S., & Mizzi, S. (2025). “g shouldn’t have to educate their school about what autism is”: Community attitudes and parent reports of autistic primary and secondary school experiences in Australia. Autism, 29(10). https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613251338908
Wittwer, J., Hans, S., & Voss, T. (2023). Inclusion of autistic students in schools: Knowledge, self-efficacy, and attitude of teachers in Germany. Autism, 28(8). https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613231220210