Submission to the
House of Representatives
Standing Committee on Health, Aged
Care, and Disability’s Inquiry into the
proposed Thriving Kids initiative
October 2025
About the Submitter
JFA Purple Orange is an independent social-profit organisation that undertakes systemic policy analysis and advocacy across a range of issues affecting people living with disability and their families.
Our work is characterised by co-design and co-production and includes hosting a number of user-led initiatives.
Much of our work involves connecting people living with disability to good information and to each other. We also work extensively in multi-stakeholder consultation and collaboration, especially about policy and practice that helps ensure people living with disability are welcomed as valued members of the mainstream community.
Our work is informed by a model called Citizenhood.
redacted
redacted
redacted
redacted
redacted
redacted
redacted
redacted
Contributors
Natalie Aldridge, Policy and Research Leader
Cathy Cochrane, Senior Policy Leader
Tracey Wallace, Interim CEO
© 2025 Julia Farr Association Inc.
JFA Purple Orange 2
1. Summary and recommendations
JFA Purple Orange welcomes the recommendation to establish Foundational Supports, including the Thriving Kids initiative, although we remain cautious about the details of how these will be designed and implemented. We are troubled by the lack of follow through on the Federal Government’s oft-repeated promises to genuinely co-design reforms with the disability community – something that the new Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Mark Butler appeared to reiterate in his address to the National Press Club when he twice committed to the principle of “nothing about us without us”. We can only underscore the utmost importance of co-designing this program and the many benefits that result from including lived experience experts in deliberations and decision making about programs for which they are the intended beneficiaries.
In this submission, we first outline eight key principles that we believe should be at the core of developing, implementing, and evaluating the Thriving Kids program. These are:
- A genuine co-design process to develop the program
- Lived experience voices in all decision making
- Focus on genuine outcomes for children and families
- Commitment to the Social Model of Disability
- Inclusion, belonging, and dignity for all children
- Embedded in everyday community settings
- Evidence-informed and independently evaluated
- Adopt respectful, inclusive, and accurate language
Second, we provide some initial feedback on the structure of the Thriving Kids program, recognising that we recommend a genuine co-design process to work through the detailed design and implementation plan. In this section, we cover the choice between a single national program or place-based options, the target group for the program, eligibility to participate, the need to address intersectional needs and ensure equity of access and outcomes, and the critical issues of workforce readiness and investment in training.
JFA Purple Orange 4
It is impossible to overstate the importance of building a Thriving Kids program that is fit-for-purpose and will deliver the best possible results for children and their families over the short, medium, and long terms. We fear the Department of Health, Disability, and Ageing’s desire for rapid development of the program will undermine this. Given the NDIS Review attributed some of the problems with the Scheme to its rushed roll out, we emphasise that haste is never a good substitute for high-quality processes undertaken over a reasonable timeframe.
We request the opportunity to present oral evidence at a Committee hearing to provide further input. Contact details to arrange this are provided in the conclusion of this submission.
We recommend:
Recommendation 1: The Committee should explore and make recommendations regarding the many benefits of the Federal Government adopting a genuine co-design process throughout the full duration of development, implementation, and evaluation of the new Thriving Kids program. The Committee should emphasise that neither past consultations nor this Inquiry are an adequate substitute for a genuine co-design process.
Recommendation 2: The Committee should explore and make recommendations that highlight the importance of including lived experience voices in all aspects of decision making regarding the development of the Thriving Kids program including, but not limited to, the appointment of a lived experience co-chair and members to the Thriving Kids Advisory Group. The Committee should also emphasise the need to extend the term of the Thriving Kids Advisory Group to cover the full duration of the roll out.
Recommendation 3: The Committee should pursue this Inquiry into the Thriving Kids initiative with a clear focus on achieving the best possible results for children and their families over the short, medium, and long terms with the assurance that a successful delivery of the program will, in turn, address broader issues of National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) sustainability. The Committee should emphasise that no child should be removed from the NDIS or be denied access until alternatives are in place within their local community, acknowledging the roll out is likely to take longer in rural and remote locations.
JFA Purple Orange 5
Recommendation 4: The Committee should ensure this Inquiry into the Thriving Kids initiative adopts the Social Model of Disability and avoids deferring to outdated understandings of disability based on the Medical and Charity Models of Disability. Likewise, the Committee should emphasise that the development and implementation of the Thriving Kids program should be based on the Social Model of Disability.
Recommendation 5: All Committee members should reengage with the seminal 2009 report “Shut Out” and ensure the work of this Inquiry into the Thriving Kids initiative is underpinned by this report’s core tenets of dignity and inclusion. Likewise, the Committee should emphasise that the development and implementation of the Thriving Kids program should adhere to the core tenets of dignity and inclusion.
Recommendation 6: The Committee should examine the lifelong consequences of segregating children as part of this Inquiry into the Thriving Kids initiative and make recommendations aimed at ensuring no aspect of this new program involves the segregation of children with developmental delay, autism, or any other disability from their peers. The Committee should emphasise that all children should play and learn together in mainstream settings within their local communities.
Recommendation 7: The Committee should examine and make recommendations about how the Thriving Kids program can be embedded in the everyday community places where children already are rather than through clinical or “visitor models”. This should include a recognition of the need to invest both in ensuring these settings are made inclusive and appropriate for program delivery and in staff training and upskilling.
Recommendation 8: The Committee should examine and make recommendations about how the Thriving Kids program can be designed to ensure there is robust evidence to support the selection of elements of the program, as well as effective independent evaluation and review mechanisms in place. These will be essential to maintaining parental and community confidence in the program.
Recommendation 9: The Committee should actively engage with questions of appropriate language choices, ask questions about individual’s language preferences, and lead a respectful conversation that aims to promote understanding and learning across the Parliament and the broader community about language.
JFA Purple Orange 6
Recommendation 10: In considering the range of possible options for the structure and commissioning of the Thriving Kids initiative, the Committee should examine the value of place-based models to respond to locally identified needs while remaining cognisant of the need to mitigate the possible risks of gaps in support provision and/or inconsistent quality of programs that this may entail.
Recommendation 11: The Committee should consider the ways in which a fit-for-purpose and effective Thriving Kids program could benefit all children as part of this Inquiry. It should examine the practical implications of restricting the program to only children without individual NDIS plans, noting that this is unlikely to work well when implemented in inclusive everyday community settings.
Recommendation 12: The Committee should consider the extent to which it would be necessary to formally define strict eligibility criteria for access to the Thriving Kids program as part of this Inquiry. It should emphasise the importance of inclusion being the core guiding principle for the program.
Recommendation 13: The Committee should recognise the importance of the Thriving Kids program fulfilling intersectional needs and alleviating barriers to participation. It should examine how this can be done well and consider what investments and resources will be needed to prevent exclusion and ensure equity of access and outcomes across locations and demographics.
Recommendation 14: Given the critical importance of the adequacy of the workforce and the need for investment in worker training to the success of the Thriving Kids program, the Committee should make issues of workforce readiness a key priority in this Inquiry. Further, the Committee should seek information and learnings from the evaluation of the South Australian Autism Inclusion Teachers (AITs) initiative to inform its work.
Recommendation 15: The Committee should recommend that federal and state and territory governments make an immediate investment in disability-led and co-designed disability inclusion and awareness training across the childcare, education, and health sectors in preparation for the roll out of the Thriving Kids program.
JFA Purple Orange 7
2. Introduction
JFA Purple Orange welcomes the opportunity to provide this submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care, and Disability’s Inquiry into the proposed Thriving Kids initiative.
Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Mark Butler announced the concept of a new Thriving Kids program with a $2 billion Commonwealth funding commitment over five years at the National Press Club on 20 August 2025. We understand the Federal Government intends for the initiative to be the only program under the umbrella of Foundational Supports for children aged eight and under with low to moderate support needs related to developmental delay and/or autism, as well as their families. The NDIS Review recommended state, territory, and federal governments invest in a system of supports outside the NDIS, to be known as Foundational Supports, to support people with disability ineligible – or rendered ineligible through future reforms – for individual NDIS plans. National Cabinet endorsed this pathway forward in December 2023.
Broadly, we support the recommendation to establish Foundational Supports including the Thriving Kids program although we remain cautious about the details of how these will be designed and implemented. We are also dismayed at the ongoing hostility of state and territory governments toward returning funding to disability supports and services that have always been part of their responsibilities but were cut during the roll out of the NDIS. On the one hand, state and territory leaders continue to criticise the growth and cost impost of the NDIS on the grounds the Scheme was only intended to support the portion of people with disability who have significant and permanent disability, yet, on the other hand, suggest they were justified in cutting funding for supports and services outside the NDIS because everything and everyone would be transferred to the Scheme. These two positions are clearly incompatible, and we again call on state and territory governments to act on their longstanding funding responsibilities within their jurisdictions. If Foundational Supports are to be successful, they require strong leadership from actively engaged premiers, chief ministers, and treasurers at the state and territory level of government, as well as from the Federal Government. We hope that a focus on a tangible element of Foundational Supports in the form of the Thriving Kids program will prompt more constructive dialogue.
JFA Purple Orange 8
Given Minister Butler’s intention to begin the roll out of the Thriving Kids program in July 2026 and to change the eligibility criteria to divert some children away from accessing individual NDIS plans in July 2027, the timeframe to ensure the proposed program is co-designed, fit-for-purpose, and able to achieve positive outcomes for children is extremely short – indeed, likely to be far too short and consideration will need to be given to a longer roll out phase of perhaps two years. It is perplexing that minimal progress was seemingly made during the 20 months between the National Cabinet’s commitment to investing in Foundational Supports in December 2023 and Minister Butler’s Press Club announcement in August 2025, but now the Department of Health, Disability, and Ageing is requiring “rapid”1 development of this program. Given the NIDS Review attributed some of the failures of the NDIS to the “rush to roll out”2 the Scheme, we fear the lessons from this have not been fully appreciated. Another consequence of the 20-month gap in progress is the extremely tight timeframe now set for this Inquiry and the inadequate period allowed for submissions to be provided. For such an important Inquiry and recognising the general inaccessibility of this type of consultation process for many people with disability to have their say, we hope the Committee takes on board for future reference that the opening period for submissions needs to be at least six weeks in order to receive comprehensive community input.
This Inquiry is the result of a referral from Minister Butler to the Committee, but it remains unclear for what purpose its work will be utilised or how this Inquiry will fit into an overall process to develop the Thriving Kids program. We hope the Federal Government will fulfil its oft-repeated commitment to co-designing reforms with the disability community. To that end, this Inquiry could assist in informing a co-design process about various options. Given the NDIS Review devoted considerable time and resources to interrogating and articulating a range of problems, its Final Report can provide the basis for this Inquiry to understand the issues and grievances within, and outside, the Scheme. Hence, it is unnecessary for this Inquiry to reventilate and rehash findings about current problems. Instead, we would urge the Committee to focus its full attention on the best path forward and possible solutions
1 Department of Health, Disability, and Ageing, ‘Thriving Kids Advisory Group Terms of Reference’, 29 September 2025, available at https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-09/thriving-kids-advisory-group-terms-of-reference.pdf. 2 NDIS Review, ‘Working together to deliver the NDIS: Independent Review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme – Final Report 2023’, for example page 172, available at https://www.ndisreview.gov.au/resources/reports/working-together-deliver-ndis/.
JFA Purple Orange 9
that can be effectively implemented in ways that will achieve the best possible results for children and their families.
Irrespective of what role the Committee decides to play through this Inquiry, we implore Committee members not to exacerbate the politicisation of the NDIS, or the place of children with autism in it, any further. In his Press Club address3, Minister Butler pointed to the erosion of the NDIS’ social licence in the community to justify this reform without acknowledging that it is politicians’ poor decision making and irresponsible rhetoric that carry the majority of the blame for undermining public confidence in the Scheme. Likewise, for the ongoing breakdown in trust between the disability community and governments. A public demonstration of the Minister’s acceptance of this political and governmental responsibility for missteps in the NDIS roll out would help to address the targeting of Australians with disability broadly, and children with autism specifically, for the failures that have occurred in the Scheme over which participants themselves have had no control.
In light of our hope that the Thriving Kids program will be genuinely co-designed, this submission focuses on the fundamental principles that we believe should guide the development of such a program. It also provides feedback regarding a number of matters impacting the structure and commissioning of the program, with a view to these contributions informing a full co-design process. We acknowledge the input of the South Australian disability community to inform this submission and emphasise the high level of interest in how proposed Foundational Supports including Thriving Kids are developed, implemented, and evaluated among people with disability, parents, allies, and others.
3 National Press Club Address, Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Hon. Mark Butler, 20 August 2025, available at https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-mark-butler-mp/media/speech-from-minister-butler-national-press-club-20-august-2025.
JFA Purple Orange 10
3. Principles to underpin the Thriving Kids program
In his National Press Club address in August 2025, Minister Butler announced the Federal Government’s intention to establish the Thriving Kids program backed with $2 billion of Commonwealth funding over five years. It is impossible to overstate the importance of building a program that is fit-for-purpose and will deliver the best possible results for children and their families over the short, medium, and long terms. In this section we identify the key principles that we believe should underpin the development of such a program, which we strongly believe should be co-designed with the disability community.
3.1. A genuine co-design process
We strongly believe the Federal Government’s repeatedly promised co-design approach to disability reforms should be the basis for developing all Foundational Supports including the Thriving Kids program. Co-design also aligns with Australia’s obligations under Article 4 (3) of the United Nations Convention of Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).
Unfortunately, so far there has been no specific Federal Government commitment to co-designing this program. Instead, the Federal Government “will work with state and territory governments and experts to finalise the design and implementation arrangements for Thriving Kids.”4 The stark absence of lived experience voices here is highly problematic, particularly given Minister Butler’s parallel commitments to the principle of “nothing about us without us.”5
The community input into the NDIS Review appears to be cited as a substitute6 for genuine co-design – or, indeed, anything beyond the most minimal community consultation – specifically addressing the development of Thriving Kids. To be clear, the NDIS Review did
4 Department of Health, Disability, and Ageing, ‘Thriving Kids – Fact Sheet’, 22 August 2025, available at https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/thriving-kids-fact-sheet?language=en. 5 National Press Club Address, Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Hon. Mark Butler, 20 August 2025, available at https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-mark-butler-mp/media/speech-from-minister-butler-national-press-club-20-august-2025. 6 For example: “The final program design will be … informed by … the significant community input received through the Independent Review of the NDIS…”, see page 1 of Department of Health, Disability, and Ageing, ‘Thriving Kids – Fact Sheet’, 22 August 2025, available at https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/thriving-kids-fact-sheet?language=en.
JFA Purple Orange 11
not present an options paper or consult the disability community on specific recommendations, including regarding Foundational Supports, prior to releasing its Final Report. Arguably, public consultation for the Review focused too much on (the important task of) hearing about problems, grievances, and poor experiences people have had with the NDIS and not enough on (the equally important task of) deeply interrogating ideas and potential options for positive reforms. Regardless, those consultations during 2023 are useful but inadequate to inform the development of this program now. Likewise, the consultation on Foundational Supports conducted through the Department of Social Services (DSS) in December 2024 will be useful and relevant but was much broader than the specific focus of this program and, therefore, is also not an adequate substitute for a substantive co-design process to develop an effective Thriving Kids program.
We strongly recommend the Thriving Kids initiative is genuinely co-designed so that it benefits from a full diversity of input into decision making throughout the program’s entire roll out phase. As Committee members may be aware, genuine co-design is an inclusive, collaborative process whereby a diverse range of people with relevant knowledge, lived experience, and interests come together in partnership with governments to provide advice and make decisions about a project, policy, or program. It provides many benefits not just to the development of the program but also for the buy in of intended beneficiaries and the broader community. Incidentally, we continue to be concerned many of the processes that governments are currently referring to as co-design fall well short of best practice and do not include active involvement of people with disability in decision making. This Inquiry may find our Guide to Co-Design with People Living with Disability, which was itself co-designed, helpful in considering the essential steps required in undertaking genuine co-design processes. It is available via our website.
One of the benefits of codesign, when undertaken with sincerity and intention, is it brings key beneficiary voices to the table – in this case, children with disability and their families and informal supporters – and this can help ensure the subsequent design has the best chance of delivering good outcomes to the beneficiary group. Involvement of these voices in the decisions about design is key to this. However, for more complex issues it is not unusual for co-design to struggle to deliver a workable design, or for co-design participants to become frustrated at the slow pace. When this happens, as has been the case on occasion
JFA Purple Orange 12
with co-design work regarding the NDIS and elsewhere, it is not because of any flaws in the co-design approach or a lack of sincerity or effort by all parties involved. Rather, it is because the co-design process is missing a key associated methodology: process design.
Process design is a methodology that, in general terms, systematically moves from identifying and quantifying the presenting problem and its underlying causes, to the development of solution design elements, the quantification of expected benefits, the build process, the testing of the build elements, refinement, and then scaling up via a rollout plan. When this type of methodology is missing, the design work can struggle to move from expressing the presenting issue at a high level to a sufficiently detailed and practical program design and implementation plan. This is avoidable through strong co-design processes. Therefore, any past experiences of poor co-design outcomes should not deter the Federal Government from striving to undertake the best possible approach to developing Thriving Kids given co-design’s many demonstratable benefits.
We envisage that a comprehensive co-design process for the Thriving Kids program would be a partnership between governments, the disability community, subject matter experts, the disability sector, and other stakeholders. This would include the Thriving Kids Advisory Group already announced by the Minister, which would be among the key participants in the co-design process. The core co-design group, the Advisory Group, and other groups providing input into the co-design process would run for the full duration of the roll out phase of the program from initial development through to evaluation and review. This would provide consistent and comprehensive high-quality input into all the decisions that arise throughout the roll out phase. Once the program is fully operational, it would then be appropriate to reconsider the advisory and oversight mechanisms that should be in place over the medium to long term to monitor sustainability of the program and its outcomes.
Recommendation 1: The Committee should explore and make recommendations regarding the many benefits of the Federal Government adopting a genuine co-design process throughout the full duration of development, implementation, and evaluation of the new Thriving Kids program. The Committee should emphasise that neither past consultations nor this Inquiry are an adequate substitute for a genuine co-design process.
JFA Purple Orange 13
3.2. Lived experience voices in all decision making
In addition to the critical importance of undertaking a genuine co-design process to develop the Thriving Kids program, lived experience experts, and in particular people with autism and experiences of developmental delay, should be included in all aspects of advice provision and decision making on an ongoing basis. As noted above, Minister Butler has announced the creation of the Thriving Kids Advisory Group to be co-chaired by himself and paediatrician Professor Frank Oberklaid. The Advisory Group only has until December 2025 to provide advice on an extensive list of matters: “proposed service models/service scope, outcomes monitoring/evaluation, implementation considerations, cohort considerations, commissioning, and advice related to communication/engagement strategies.”7 It will likely need much longer to do this work well and should remain in place for the full duration of the roll out to ensure there can be sufficient responsiveness to issues and the need for program refinements as they arise.
Membership of the Advisory Group is restricted to experts from across various fields and two state or territory service system advisors. The members announced on 1 October 2025 include only one person identified as a “Lived Experience Parent Representative”8 and this is secondary to their role with a provider. This is highly problematic. Such an advisory group should include a critical mass of diverse lived experience voices – including those with first-hand experience of autism and developmental delay – alongside, and in partnership with, subject matter experts. Under current plans9 for the development of Thriving Kids, this Advisory Group will be the predominant source of influence on government decision making and the lack of lived experience experts defies the Minister’s stated commitment to “nothing about us without us”, as noted above.
In order to stay true to the promise of “nothing about us without us” and for the Advisory Group to benefit from the immense knowledge and experience that lived experience
7 Department of Health, Disability, and Ageing, ‘Thriving Kids Advisory Group Terms of Reference’, 29 September 2025, available at https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-09/thriving-kids-advisory-group-terms-of-reference.pdf. 8 Department of Health, Disability, and Ageing, ‘Thriving Kids’, 1 October 2025, available at https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/thriving-kids#thriving-kids-advisory-group. 9 Department of Health, Disability, and Ageing, ‘Thriving Kids Advisory Group Terms of Reference’, 29 September 2025, available at https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-09/thriving-kids-advisory-group-terms-of-reference.pdf.
JFA Purple Orange 14
experts can contribute, we strongly urge the Federal Government to immediately appoint a person with lived experience of autism or developmental delay as a co-chair of the Advisory Group and add lived experience experts to the membership. Programs such as this are most successful when they are a partnership between governments, subject matter experts, lived experience experts/intended beneficiaries, and other stakeholders. Although the Committee may be inclined to consider it too late to address this problem, we implore it to do so given the utmost importance that lived experience voices are equal partners in the development of policies and programs that affect their communities, as well as the need to set clear expectations for these types of advisory groups in the future.
Additionally, we note the membership of this Committee. Arguably, bringing this Inquiry to a Committee focused on health contributes further to a misalignment away from lived experience expert voices. Without disparaging the knowledge and experience that any of the Committee members bring to this work, we observe the disproportionate number of medical practitioners-turned-politicians among Committee members – as is more appropriate for inquiries into health or medical matters – compared to those with lived experience of disability – as, we argue, would be appropriate for this Inquiry. We urge the Committee to ensure it listens to as many lived experience voices as possible during this Inquiry as these perspectives and insights will add significant value to findings and recommendations.
Recommendation 2: The Committee should explore and make recommendations that highlight the importance of including lived experience voices in all aspects of decision making regarding the development of the Thriving Kids program including, but not limited to, the appointment of a lived experience co-chair and members to the Thriving Kids Advisory Group. The Committee should also emphasise the need to extend the term of the Thriving Kids Advisory Group to cover the full duration of the roll out.
3.3. Focus on genuine outcomes for children and families
While we acknowledge that a program can deliver benefits irrespective of the motivation for its development, we strongly believe that a clear focus on producing the best possible results for children and their families will lead to a more successful program design than a
JFA Purple Orange 15
preoccupation with reducing NDIS participant numbers. Unfortunately, much of the rhetoric about Foundational Supports and Thriving Kids explicitly points to cost cutting and NDIS degrowth as the key objectives, something that risks driving perverse incentives and negative outcomes. One such risk is that “stopgap” measures are rolled out with haste, but these prove inadequate or ineffective resulting in greater costs in the long run. Another risk is that the roll out in rural and remote locations lags that in major cities, resulting in uneven delivery.
The extent to which the program is fit-for-purpose, well designed, and effective in achieving results for children and their families will determine whether there is a reduction in demand for individual NDIS plans within this cohort. We urge the Committee to set aside the cost cutting and NDIS degrowth motivations of the Federal Government and others and, instead, pursue this Inquiry on the basis of driving beneficial outcomes for children and their families.
Recommendation 3: The Committee should pursue this Inquiry into the Thriving Kids initiative with a clear focus on achieving the best possible results for children and their families over the short, medium, and long terms with the assurance that a successful delivery of the program will, in turn, address broader issues of National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) sustainability. The Committee should emphasise that no child should be removed from the NDIS or be denied access until alternatives are in place within their local community, acknowledging the roll out is likely to take longer in rural and remote locations.
3.4. The Social Model of Disability
The NDIS has long suffered from the mischaracterisation of it as a “welfare” measure. Now, with responsibility for the NDIS moved to the Department and Minister for Health, there is an equally concerning pattern of mischaracterising the Scheme as a “care” system and viewing disability as a “problem” to be “fixed” rather than an ordinary part of human diversity. This is in line with the outdated Medical and Charity Models of Disability rather than the contemporary Social Model of Disability. It is also a fundamental misunderstanding of the origins of the NDIS, and we urge all Committee members to reengage with the
JFA Purple Orange 16
seminal 2009 report entitled “Shut Out”10 and for its core tenets of dignity and inclusion to underpin the work of this Inquiry. The report is available here.
To be clear, the NDIS is an insurance scheme, and it is intended to provide a broad range of supports that enable Australians with disability to take up their rightful place as equal, included, and contributing citizens with the same opportunities to pursue their interests and reach their full potential as all others. As the Social Model of Disability makes clear, people with disability are not “damaged” or inherently “vulnerable” and in need of others’ care and charity. Instead, disability arises from the widespread barriers that exist in a world not designed to include everyone. These barriers may be physical, systemic, social, communicational, or attitudinal and should be the primary target of change and reform. It is essential Committee members undertake this Inquiry in line with the Social Model of Disability and avoid deferring to outdated understandings of disability based on the Medical and Charity Models of Disability.
At JFA Purple Orange, we characterise the benefits of the NDIS to individuals in two broad categories: transactional and transformational. The Thriving Kids program will need to accommodate both with a strong focus on the latter. To understand the difference, we consider the nature of the consequences of disability. First, there are consequences that impact on daily life that result in the need for practical supports, such as for toileting, that reoccur over time. These are transactional benefits. Second, there are consequences that impact on life chances that require supports designed to create permanent positive change, for example speech therapy, that will enable the pursuit of life goals. These are transformational benefits. While it may, broadly speaking, be possible to characterise transactional benefits as part of a system of “care” (although not recommended), this terminology is wholly inadequate in describing what the NDIS was designed to achieve and what the Thriving Kids program should entail. For more information about transactional and
10 Australian Government, ‘SHUT OUT: The Experience of People with Disabilities and their Families in Australia’, 2009, available at https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/exhibit/DRC.1000.0001.0001.pdf.
JFA Purple Orange 17
transformational benefits, we urge Committee members to engage with the papers in our NDIS Review Conversation Series,11 which are available here.
Recommendation 4: The Committee should ensure this Inquiry into the Thriving Kids initiative adopts the Social Model of Disability and avoids deferring to outdated understandings of disability based on the Medical and Charity Models of Disability. Likewise, the Committee should emphasise that the development and implementation of the Thriving Kids program should be based on the Social Model of Disability.
Recommendation 5: All Committee members should reengage with the seminal 2009 report “Shut Out” and ensure the work of this Inquiry into the Thriving Kids initiative is underpinned by this report’s core tenets of dignity and inclusion. Likewise, the Committee should emphasise that the development and implementation of the Thriving Kids program should adhere to the core tenets of dignity and inclusion.
3.5. Inclusion is not segregation
Further to the above discussion about the importance of dignity and inclusion to the Thriving Kids initiative, it is essential to underscore what these are not: dignity and inclusion are not any form of segregation or separate “special” settings and programs. The Thriving Kids program should be embedded in mainstream community settings where all children can play and learn together. Indeed, the Thriving Kids initiative should be part of a broader strategy to end the segregation of any children with disability from their peers in any setting, including in early learning centres and schools. Segregated and congregated services will not advance children into inclusive lives in the way well-orchestrated inclusive alternatives do. Separate “special” disability-focused or autism-focused services, programs, and settings reinforce a community perception that children with disability are best served by having separate “special” stuff. This has been termed “othering”. It undermines the prospects of a child growing into an adulthood that features true social, community, and economic participation and it should have no place in the design of Thriving Kids.
11 JFA Purple Orange, ‘NDIS Conversation Series’, 2023, available at https://purpleorange.org.au/news-resources/ndis-conversation-series.
JFA Purple Orange 18
The broader context here is important. The progress Australia has made toward deinstitutionalisation has unfortunately not resulted in an end to the segregation of children or adults with disability. Indeed, in numerous instances, it has simply heralded the creation of new forms of exclusion, marginalisation, and inequality in Australia, particularly in education, employment, and housing. Children and adults with intellectual disability and those with multiple or complex disabilities or high support needs are more likely to be funnelled into segregated and congregated settings and services. These settings are highly institutionalised in their character, and this has serious impacts on those relegated to these offerings. They have significant impacts on each person’s quality of life and the opportunities available to them as they move through life stages – from infancy to childhood to adolescence to adulthood.
The findings from the Disability Royal Commission offer a compelling argument in terms of understanding why people are drawn into segregated disability-specific settings. The Final Report recognises that people with disability and their families are systematically taught there are no safe or viable mainstream options, forcing them to access segregated settings, something that can be described as “coercive choice”.12 Often, people with intellectual disability are funnelled from “special” schools into a sheltered workshop, known as an Australian Disability Enterprise (ADE) and a group house; a trajectory that Catherine McAlpine, CEO of Inclusion Australia, calls “The Polished Pathway”.13 Not only does this Pathway severely limit a person’s opportunities and prospects for taking up meaningful valued roles, it perpetuates underlying messages that people with disability do not belong in community, are lesser or defective, and it is okay to devalue people and treat them as second-class citizens. These messages are deeply entrenched in society and are a consequence of the legacy of institutionalisation and ongoing policies and practices of segregation.
It is in this broader context, and because of this context, that children with disability and their families are forced to turn to segregated disability-specific settings and services. When
12 Disability Royal Commission, ‘Final Report, Volume 7: Inclusive education, employment, and housing - Summary and recommendations’, 2023, p.65, available at https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final-report. 13 See, for example, Catherine McAlpine’s speech to the NDIS Jobs and Skills Summit on 17 August 2022, at https://www.inclusionaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/The-Polished-Pathway-Final.pdf.
JFA Purple Orange 19
mainstream options continue to operate in ways that are inaccessible, exclusionary, and/or discriminatory, these options are taken away. People become exhausted and disillusioned by repeated poor and unsafe experiences and begin to perceive segregated options as “easier” to deal with. It cannot be left to the disability community alone to shoulder the responsibility to change this reality. It requires all levels of government to take a strong position against disingenuous claims, particularly those of sector lobbyists, that segregated options can constitute “choice”. “Choices” made in a context where safe, high-quality, and inclusive alternatives are not available are not genuine choices.
Notwithstanding this, it is important to note that children with disability can and do have positive meaningful relationships with their peers who also have disability. These relationships do not constitute segregation or congregation and are not an excuse for such policies and practices. We fully support the funding of peer networks, associations, and similar, and emphasise the value of these opportunities in the lives of children with disability. There is a clear distinction between funnelling children into segregated disability-specific settings in the absence of any ordinary alternatives being available, compared to the existence of peer networks and spaces led by and for children with disability. The latter is generally a freely chosen association that can exist among a smorgasbord of options and form only one aspect of a child’s life, as opposed to being shut out of community altogether as a consequence of segregation. Many families with various cultural heritages gather for positive community fellowship without being restricted to only having their children play, learn, work, and live with people who share that particular characteristic in segregated settings – such an approach would rightly appal most Australians. Peer networks and similar provide genuine opportunities to develop freely given meaningful connections and facilitate a sense of identity, belonging, value, and respect. They support the growth and mutual support that leads to self- and group-advocacy to enable positive life experiences. However, they should also never detract from full and meaningful inclusion in mainstream community life during any life phase, especially childhood.
We must be extremely careful that the Thriving Kids initiative does not simply become a first step on “The Polished Pathway” for children with autism into a life of segregation, exclusion, and marginalisation. Instead, we strongly believe the development of the Thriving Kids initiative creates another impetus for Australia to commit to develop, fund, and implement
JFA Purple Orange 20
an Inclusive Education Strategy14 across all education settings and to embrace the opportunities this would provide for all children to receive a high-quality inclusive education throughout their years of schooling. This is in line with the recommendations of all the Disability Royal Commission commissioners with lived experience of disability.15
Recommendation 6: The Committee should examine the lifelong consequences of segregating children as part of this Inquiry into the Thriving Kids initiative and make recommendations aimed at ensuring no aspect of this new program involves the segregation of children with developmental delay, autism, or any other disability from their peers. The Committee should emphasise that all children should play and learn together in mainstream settings within their local communities.
3.6. Embedded in everyday community settings
Having established that we believe the Thriving Kids program should be rolled out in mainstream settings, we briefly wish to emphasise the importance of embedding the Thriving Kids program in community settings. By this we mean the everyday places in the community where children already are – playgroups, story time and similar activities, childcare and early learning centres, preschools, primary schools, after school care programs, and similar. As far as possible, the Thriving Kids program should not move children from these environments into clinical settings. Similarly, as far as possible, clinical workers and approaches should not be brought into the community settings where children are. We would envisage that children requiring this type of support would access it though individual NDIS plans.
We believe the primary focus should be on embedding the Thriving Kids program within community-based settings, including, but not limited to, investing in making these settings inclusive and appropriate for the delivery of the program and investing in training and
14 For further information and reading, see, for example, https://acie.org.au/acie-roadmap/; https://allmeansall.org.au/; https://cyda.org.au/advocacy/inclusive-education/advocating-for-inclusive-education/; and https://purpleorange.org.au/inclusiveschoolcommunities/about/inclusive-education. 15 Disability Royal Commission, ‘Final Report, Volume 7: Inclusive education, employment, and housing – Part A’, 2023, available at https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final-report.
JFA Purple Orange 21
upskilling for staff already working in these settings to implement the program in a wholistic everyday way (and employing additional trained staff to match program delivery requirements). We would envisage clinicians, allied health providers, developmental educators, and others with subject matter expertise undertaking a type of leadership, training/demonstration, mentoring, and oversight role whereby they mainly provide specialised support to the staff working in the everyday places who directly deliver the program. It may also be appropriate for workers with clinical, allied health, developmental education, or similar qualifications to be directly employed in some settings or for “visitors” to directly deliver some parts of the program, but we argue this should not be the primary foundation of the program.
We also note that part of the development of the Thriving Kids program will need to include an appropriate oversight mechanism of these settings and the program delivery to ensure the highest possible standards of quality and safety are upheld.
Recommendation 7: The Committee should examine and make recommendations about how the Thriving Kids program can be embedded in the everyday community places where children already are rather than through clinical or “visitor models”. This should include a recognition of the need to invest both in ensuring these settings are made inclusive and appropriate for program delivery and in staff training and upskilling.
3.7. Robust evidence and independent evaluation required
While emphasising the need for the Thriving Kids initiative to be underpinned by robust evidence and independent evaluation may seem obvious, it is often one of the hardest and most contested elements to achieve for a program such as this, especially when children are the intended beneficiaries. Hence, we believe how this is handled should be a focus of this Inquiry and the genuine co-design process that we have strongly recommended above. Community confidence in the Thriving Kids initiative will be critical to its success. Transparency and accountability for results, while doing no harm, as well as the effective management of conflicts of interest, are essential foundations.
JFA Purple Orange 22
To demonstrate the issues that easily arise in assessing the quality of programs that may become part of the Thriving Kids initiative, we will briefly focus on the Federal Government’s much-cited example of the Inklings program developed through The Kids Research Institute of Australia. Based on the limited publicly available information, the Federal Government’s endorsement and funding of Inklings is perplexing. Inklings has so far only been the subject of two small, short-term trials of 54 babies in the United Kingdom and 100 babies in Australia,16 which are not a sound basis to draw weighty conclusions about overall effectiveness (the funded pilot programs currently underway may shed more light if the assessment criteria are appropriate).
Funding for the Inklings program has been announced via the Federal Budget17 rather than resulting from a competitive tender or grant program. Without robust open processes, it appears these grants have resulted from what could be described as politicians “picking winners”. JFA Purple Orange does not have the expertise or access to the required information and evidence to properly assess the merits of Inklings. However, we do note that politicians appearing to “pick winners” seemingly based on lobbying for funding by a particular program will always have the effect of undermining community confidence.
Further, it appears various politicians have also taken their cues regarding this program from two reports – neither of which examined the program with any rigour. First, while the Final Report of the NDIS Review makes no mention of Inklings and there are no recommendations regarding this program specifically, it features prominently as an example in the Supporting Analysis document.18 Importantly, the NDIS Review did not explicitly endorse Inklings, preferring to await further evidence. The only citation regarding content about the program is from its proponents19 with no independent input appearing to have been sought. Second, the South Australian Royal Commission into Early Childhood and Care Final Report recommended that State Government partner with the Federal Government to
16 See the Inklings program website at https://inklings.org.au/research. 17 Commonwealth of Australia, ‘Budget 2023-24 – Budget Paper No. 2: Budget Measures’, page 204, available at https://archive.budget.gov.au/2023-24/bp2/download/bp2_2023-24.pdf. 18 NDIS Review, ‘Working together to deliver the NDIS Independent Review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme: Final Report – Supporting Analysis’, 2023, pages 95-105, available at https://www.ndisreview.gov.au/resources/reports/working-together-deliver-ndis-supporting-analysis. 19 See footnote no.227 on page 99. Ibid.
JFA Purple Orange 23
run a trial of Inklings.20 Extraordinarily, the Final Report included just one sentence of commentary about the program to support this recommendation and also only cited the program’s proponents as evidence.21
In addition to the above potted history based on publicly available information, the disability community has concerns about:
- the predominant focus on assessing effectiveness based on reducing autism diagnosis rates22 rather than a broader conceptualisation of achieving the best outcomes for children, and thereby rejecting and devaluing neurodiversity while appealing to the cost-cutting motivations of those who associate diagnosis with greater governmental expense;
- the possibility that the apparent effect of reducing diagnostic rates is the result of encouraging masking behaviours23 that are not in the long-term interests of children, their families, or our community as a whole;
- the origin of the Inklings program in a deficits-based approach and the perceived similarities with the controversial Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) approach including the suppression of autistic traits;24
20 See recommendation 6 of the South Australian Royal Commission into Early Childhood Education and Care, ‘Final Report’, August 2023, available at https://www.royalcommissionecec.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/937332/RCECEC-Final-Report.pdf. 21 On page 85 and see footnotes no.79 and 80. Ibid. 22 The program proponents assess the success of the Inklings program on the “lower odds of meeting diagnostic criteria” for autism, see Whitehouse AJO, Varcin KJ, Pillar S, et al., ‘Effect of Pre-emptive Intervention on Developmental Outcomes Among Infants Showing Early Signs of Autism: A Randomized Clinical Trial of Outcomes to Diagnosis’, JAMA Pediatrics, November 2021, available at https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8453361/. 23 We do not endorse these articles; we simply cite them to demonstrate the presence of this concern; see, for example, the views of writers Heidi La Paglia Reid, ‘Autistic Children Don’t Break the Budget. Broken Systems Do.’, Every Australian Counts online, opinion article, 21 August 2025, available at https://everyaustraliancounts.com.au/opinion/autistic-children-dont-break-the-budget/; and Sarah Langston, ‘Could Inklings cause masking in babies - or speed it up? How would be know?’, opinion article, 31 March 2025, available at https://sarahlangston.squarespace.com/writing/could-inklings-cause-masking-in-babies-or-speed-it-up-how-would-we-know. 24 The Kids Research Institute of Australia acknowledges the Inklings program’s origins in outdated conceptualisations of deficits and previous references to Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA), as well as significant changes to language use and the description of the program over time, see ‘A statement from The Kids Research Institute Australia in support of Inklings’, 21 August 2025, available at https://inklings.org.au/news/statement-from-the-kids.
JFA Purple Orange 24
- the targeting of lower socio-economic, First Nations, and culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) families;25 and
- the practice of critiquing parenting interactions, with a disproportionate focus on mothers, some of whom are autistic and/or at risk of mental ill-health;26
- among other issues.
Despite providing almost $30 million to fund the Inklings program, the Federal Government has not engaged with these issues in order to provide reassurance to parents and the community.
For the Thriving Kids initiative to avoid the types of issues outlined above from arising in relation to any of the elements of the future program, thereby undermining the whole initiative, there will need to be a commitment to more robust, non-political, transparent, and open decision making and review processes. Whether or not this Inquiry chooses to examine the Inklings example as a case study of how problems can arise is a choice for Committee members. The key point we are seeking to emphasise here is how suboptimal processes could quickly derail the Thriving Kids initiative to the detriment of outcomes for children and families. How this is prevented is a key program development question that we urge the Committee to closely examine in this Inquiry.
Recommendation 8: The Committee should examine and make recommendations about how the Thriving Kids program can be designed to ensure there is robust evidence to support the selection of elements of the program, as well as effective independent
25 The South Australian pilot of Inklings specifically targets “families from First Nations, culturally and linguistically diverse, and low-socioeconomic backgrounds”, see The Kids Research Institute of Australia, ‘World-first Inklings Program launches in South Australia’, available at https://inklings.org.au/news/inklings-available-in-south-australia. This is occurring in the broader context of concerns about postcode inequality in access to the NDIS whereby poorer postcodes have lower access than richer postcodes, see The Daily Telegraph, ‘NDIS support a ‘postcode’ lottery as autism diagnoses surge’, 17 March 2023, available at https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/subscribe/news/experts-say-ndis-support-a-postcode-lottery-as-autism-diagnoses-surge; and The Guardian, ‘The land the NDIS forgot: the remote Indigenous communities losing the postcode lottery’, 5 November 2019, available at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/05/the-land-the-ndis-forgot-the-remote-indigenous-communities-losing-the-postcode-lottery. 26 The Kids Research Institute of Australia acknowledges concerns about judging parenting, see The Kids Research Institute of Australia, ‘FAQs’, available at https://inklings.org.au/faq; see also discussion on the Facebook page of the Australian Neurodivergent Parents Association (ANPA); again we do not endorse this content, but mention it to demonstrate the concerns present in the community.
JFA Purple Orange 25
evaluation and review mechanisms in place. These will be essential to maintaining parental and community confidence in the program.
3.8. Appropriate use of language
The final principle we wish to address in this section is the need to ensure that the Thriving Kids initiative is framed with the use of respectful, inclusive, and accurate language. We acknowledge that the Department of Health, Disability, and Ageing already appears to have taken on feedback in relation to the use of “mild and moderate” developmental delay and autism with the welcome change to “low to moderate support needs.” However, we suspect inappropriate language use will continue to feature in debates in the lead up to the roll out of the Thriving Kids initiative and beyond. Language matters, as this video attests.27 Notably, no one “grows out of” autism; there is no “cure” for autism; autism is a lifelong neuro-difference that is an ordinary part of human diversity and that brings great value to our lives in community.
We urge the Committee to use this Inquiry as an avenue to emphasise the importance of language choices and to engage with questions of affirmative and negative or inaccurate language in the spirit of advancing a learning and educative opportunity. Of course, we do not wish to create or exacerbate an atmosphere of fear around language choices but rather to promote an open discussion based on understanding, learning, and improving how we all use language in Australia.
Recommendation 9: The Committee should actively engage with questions of appropriate language choices, ask questions about individual’s language preferences, and lead a respectful conversation that aims to promote understanding and learning across the Parliament and the broader community about language.
27 JFA Purple Orange, ‘Language matters’, video and transcript available at https://purpleorange.org.au/stories/language-matters.
JFA Purple Orange 26
4. Structure of the Thriving Kids program
Having set out the key principles that we believe should guide the development of the Thriving Kids initiative in the previous section, we turn, more briefly, to feedback about some of the issues regarding program structure. As already mentioned, our feedback is intended to support what we believe should be a genuine co-design process to develop the Thriving Kids initiative.
4.1. A single program or multi-faceted and place-based options
The NDIS Review Supporting Analysis document contemplated two potential models for early childhood supports as part of Foundational Supports: a nationally consistent model under a national framework or discrete place-based approaches based on local circumstances, populations, and needs.28 This question requires further exploration; however we believe it is likely that the latter offers the best prospects of meeting diverse needs within and between communities. Nevertheless, there are risks, particularly in relation to the different levels of existing services, resources, and capacities among communities. Hence, a hybrid of both options could help prevent gaps in the provision of the Thriving Kids program and also ensure there is a consistent national minimum standard in quality and outcomes without removing the opportunities for local communities to identify and respond to their own needs.
Recommendation 10: In considering the range of possible options for the structure and commissioning of the Thriving Kids initiative, the Committee should examine the value of place-based models to respond to locally identified needs while remaining cognisant of the need to mitigate the possible risks of gaps in support provision and/or inconsistent quality of programs that this may entail.
28 NDIS Review, ‘Working together to deliver the NDIS Independent Review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme: Final Report – Supporting Analysis’, 2023, pages 95-101, available at https://www.ndisreview.gov.au/resources/reports/working-together-deliver-ndis-supporting-analysis.
JFA Purple Orange 27
4.2. Target group for the program
We understand the intent is for the Thriving Kids program to specifically support children with developmental delay and autism with low to moderate support needs. It appears this group of children has been identified as the target cohort based on an objective to cut these NDIS participant numbers rather than because of the potential benefits they might derive from the Thriving Kids program. We believe this reasoning is problematic and the target group should be defined as children who will benefit from the supports offered through the program. This will likely include children with other types of neurodivergence and disability including, but not limited to, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Tourette syndrome, and children with diverse communication needs. It is also likely that most children could benefit from some or all of the Thriving Kids program, which again underscores our view that it will achieve its best results if it is embedded in inclusive everyday community settings.
Further, the distinctions between general and targeted Foundational Supports, and between Foundational Supports and NDIS plans, present practical challenges in relation to delivering supports to children in these settings. We understand the intention is for targeted Foundation Supports – which appears to be the intended category for the Thriving Kids program – to only support children without NDIS plans. Yet, in genuinely inclusive settings there will be children present who have individual NDIS plans who can benefit from the program but who will need to be excluded from participation. This is highly problematic – both practically and as a principle. Therefore, we believe children with individual NDIS plans should be able to participate in the Thriving Kids program and that the designation of “targeted” Foundational Supports is not appropriate for this program.
Recommendation 11: The Committee should consider the ways in which a fit-for-purpose and effective Thriving Kids program could benefit all children as part of this Inquiry. It should examine the practical implications of restricting the program to only children without individual NDIS plans, noting that this is unlikely to work well when implemented in inclusive everyday community settings.
JFA Purple Orange 28
4.3. Eligibility for the program
We do not believe the scope of the target groups for the program should be defined by specific diagnosis. Rather we believe Thriving Kids program supports should be available to all children who will benefit from engaging with these supports. Indeed, avoiding formal criteria, such as diagnosis, will avoid the costs of these while also broadening the benefits relative to the funding – making the program more cost effective. We note Minister Butler’s endorsement of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners desire for GPs to be involved in determining eligibility through child development checks.29 We urge the Committee to examine this closely. While we in no way seek to dispute the important role of GPs in children’s early years, we are cautious about the medicalisation of this program and note the obvious vested interests of the College in promoting the role of GPs. The same can be said of any other professional group that stakes a claim to the role of determining eligibility. As mentioned above, we wholeheartedly endorse placing inclusion at the centre of the Thriving Kids program and believe it should be accessible to all children who will benefit from participation.
Recommendation 12: The Committee should consider the extent to which it would be necessary to formally define strict eligibility criteria for access to the Thriving Kids program as part of this Inquiry. It should emphasise the importance of inclusion being the core guiding principle for access to the program.
4.4. Children with intersectional needs and equity of access and outcomes
The needs of children are not just defined in terms of developmental delay or autism. The Thriving Kids program will need to reflect the diverse range of intersectional needs that children will bring to it, including, but not limited to, children living in regional, rural, and remote areas; First Nations children; and children from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds, among others. We are sure that Committee members will be familiar
29 National Press Club Address, Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the Hon. Mark Butler, 20 August 2025, available at https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-mark-butler-mp/media/speech-from-minister-butler-national-press-club-20-august-2025.
JFA Purple Orange 29
with a range of the issues that this presents so we will focus here on the experiences of some CALD families within our networks as an example.
Children with a first language other than English can be delayed in receiving a diagnosis in Australia due to the language barrier for the child and/or parents. This can be compounded if language is also a barrier in settings such as schools where misunderstandings can lead to children being misidentified as having “behavioural issues” rather than support needs. Language barriers can also impact access to assistive communications technologies that would otherwise assist in alleviating barriers. Children can also experience the compounding effects of bullying related to both their disability and their cultural background, giving rise to being excluded and marginalised within the setting.
We have also heard many positive stories about children from CALD backgrounds receiving strong support and schools and teachers ensuring all children are included in educational settings. The challenge for the Thriving Kids program will be to ensure it leverages existing practices of inclusion where this is done well while also addressing widespread problems of exclusion, marginalisation, and discrimination. This will require specific attention and investment in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the program.
Recommendation 13: The Committee should recognise the importance of the Thriving Kids program fulfilling intersectional needs and alleviating barriers to participation. It should examine how this can be done well and consider what investments and resources will be needed to prevent exclusion and ensure equity of access and outcomes across locations and demographics.
4.5. Workforce and training will be critical to success
One of the most important factors in the successful delivery of the Thriving Kids program will be the adequacy of the workforce to undertake the implementation given worker shortages, particularly in some locations, and the investment that will be required in skills development for staff delivering the program. As described above, we believe the Thriving Kids initiative should be embedded in community settings rather than being built primarily around a “visitor model” of delivery. This presents many challenges and opportunities that
JFA Purple Orange 30
will need to be at the forefront of designing the model. We note that the South Australian Autism Inclusion Teachers (AITs) program has been embedded in each primary school with an allocation of funding to employ a teacher.30 We urge the Committee to seek information and learnings from this program, which we understand is being evaluated by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER),31 although, to date, we are unaware of any public release of results.
There is also an urgent need to boost disability inclusion and awareness training for all workers in the childcare, education, and health sectors, which will both interface with the Thriving Kids program. This type of training should be co-designed with, and delivered by, people with disability. We believe funding for this training should be provided as a matter of urgency as it is not dependent on the detailed design of the Thriving Kids program and can be rolled out pre-emptively as a first step in workforce preparation.
Recommendation 14: Given the critical importance of the adequacy of the workforce and the need for investment in worker training to the success of the Thriving Kids program, the Committee should make issues of workforce readiness a key priority in this Inquiry. Further, the Committee should seek information and learnings from the evaluation of the South Australian Autism Inclusion Teachers (AITs) initiative to inform its work.
Recommendation 15: The Committee should recommend that federal and state and territory governments make an immediate investment in disability-led and co-designed disability inclusion and awareness training across the childcare, education, and health sectors in preparation for the roll out of the Thriving Kids program.
30 See South Australian Department of Education, ‘Improving support for autistic students’, available at https://www.education.sa.gov.au/parents-and-families/student-health-and-disability-support/improving-support-children-and-students-autism. 31 This understanding based on a mention in the ACER podcast, ‘Field Notes: Episode 6: Understanding autism and inclusive education with Dr Julie McMillan’, 2 September 2025, available at https://www.acer.org/au/news/article/new-field-notes-episode-understanding-autism-and-inclusive-education-with-dr-julie-mcmillan.
JFA Purple Orange 31
5. Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute a submission in support of co-designing, funding, and implementing a Thriving Kids program that delivers successful outcomes for children and their families.
Broadly, we believe there is potential for the Thriving Kids program to be part of the solution to the problems identified in the NDIS Review, however we remain cautious given the current lack of detail and the long delay that has occurred in relation to determining next steps in the wake of the Review’s recommendations. The apparent inertia and lack of progress since December 2023 have further eroded confidence in the reform process within the disability community, where trust was already low. We hope this Inquiry can assist in reinvigorating a focus on solutions and the achievement of positive changes that can help rebuild this confidence.
We respectfully request the opportunity to discuss this submission and provide further input at a public hearing of this Inquiry. To arrange this, please contact redacted
redacted
We would also like to take this opportunity to register with both federal and state governments our eagerness to participate in further opportunities to help shape all aspects of Foundational Supports, including the Thriving Kids program. We are keen to discuss how we can constructively contribute to this process going forward and can be contacted at any time using the contact details listed in the previous paragraph.
JFA Purple Orange 32