Committee Secretariat
Standing Committee on Health. Aged Care and Disability
Department of the House of Representatives
PO Box 6021 | redacted | Canberra ACT 2600
Ph. (02) 6277 4145
Re: Response to Question on Notice — Thriving Kids Inquiry
Dear Committee Secretariat,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a written response to the question posed by Ms Ali France MP during the public hearing on Monday, November 17th. As the Tasmanian witnesses were not given the opportunity to respond at the time, RAEN appreciates the chance to address this question on notice.
Question (Ms France):
Given the significant service deserts in regional and remote communities, including Tasmania, and noting that many families urgently want change to the current system, what do those opposed to the Thriving Kids model see as the solution?
Response
We would like to begin by affirming that we agree with Ms France’s observation: the current system is not working for many regional and rural families. Tasmania experiences the same structural failures described in Queensland, WA, and the NT. Families here routinely report:
- Long waitlists, no access to allied health, and routinely closed waitlists; and
- Lack of local paediatric and specialised supports; and
- Exclusion from schools and early childhood settings due to them being unsupported to meet the child’s sensory, emotional, and behavioural needs, lack of appropriate training and skills; and
- A reliance on travelling hours for basic services; and
- Reliance on mainland services for specialised and some general support.
RAEN raised these issues in our submission, including that many Autistic children cannot access or cope in mainstream settings, due to a lack of support available, and that families in rural and remote areas will be “left behind again” if diverted into systems that already exclude them.
While RAEN strongly supports the need for reform, we not support the Thriving Kids model, because the evidence demonstrates it will worsen — not improve — the situation for regional communities. This was also addressed in both our submission and our statement.
Evidence-based research from both Australia and internationally supports self-directed, individual funding packages, such as the NDIS. These studies’ findings show better outcomes compared to block-funded services for Disabled people when certain criteria conditions are met, such as those that Australia has used in the past and continues to use for some state-funded services (Laragy & Fisher, 2020).
Evidence-based research indicates that we require individualised and adequate funding, information, and support to make informed decisions, as well as creative support, welcoming communities, and appropriate services tailored to meet our individual needs (Laragy & Fisher, 2020).
1. Thriving Kids will deepen existing service deserts
The Thriving Kids proposal:
- Removes individualised NDIS Early Childhood supports, which families consistently describe as essential in preventing regression and harm.
- Redirects children into block-funded or school-based programs that many Autistic children cannot access due to sensory, safety, trauma-related, emotional, behavioural needs, lack of appropriate training and skills
- Assumes mainstream systems are accessible, despite clear evidence that schools, childcare centres and child health platforms already exclude Autistic children, particularly
in regional areas, due to systemic inequities such as a lack of training, skills and resources that are typically more available in larger, more resourced communities.
- Encourages the idea of returning to reinstitutionalisation/segregation
- Risks creating significant out-of-pocket costs through Medicare gap fees and limited allied health availability, disproportionately harming low-income, single-parent, Disabled, diverse and intersectional families.
- Will destabilise small, local providers by shifting away from flexible, individualised supports — despite these providers being the backbone of rural service delivery and flexible, individualised supports being shown to be critical supports.
This model does not address market failure; rather, it shifts children into systems that are already overstretched and inaccessible.
2. Other concurrent reforms compound the harm for regional communities
While not the focus of this Inquiry, it is important to acknowledge that several other changes to the NDIS, including increased compliance requirements, proposed mandatory registration for therapists, reductions to travel allowances, and the removal of rural loadings, are simultaneously eroding workforce viability in regional areas.
These changes:
- Make it harder for therapists to serve rural towns,
- Removing choice and control
- Push out sole traders and small providers,
- Reduce the availability of culturally safe, neurodiversity-affirming practitioners, and
- Further concentrate services in cities and major towns.
Thriving Kids is therefore being introduced at a time when regional access is already collapsing, which would accelerate this trend and disproportionately increase the financial burden on marginalised communities.
3. The solutions lie in strengthening, not dismantling, the Early Childhood approach
RAEN supports meaningful reform that improves equity and outcomes. The evidence suggests the following are genuine solutions:
a. Strengthen and properly resource the NDIS Early Childhood Intervention (ECI) pathway
Families repeatedly emphasised that the ECI pathway provides flexible, self-directed, individualised supports critical to their children’s development. Removing children from this pathway will cause regression and long-term harm.
b. Invest directly in building regional and rural workforces
This includes:
- Restoring rural loading and travel allowances for allied health providers,
- Funding clinician travel and mobile outreach,
- Supporting the recruitment and retention of local allied health staff,
- Co-locating visiting specialists in community hubs, and
- Piloting multidisciplinary teams co-designed with local families and DPROs.
c. Support community-based, sole trader and neurodivergent providers
These providers:
- They are often the only local option in rural Tasmania,
- Deliver more flexible, culturally safe, and neuro-affirming care, and
- They are disproportionately impacted by heavy administrative or compliance burdens.
Thriving Kids does not support these providers; it risks destabilising them.
d. Address NDIA-created market failure
The NDIA’s long-standing preference for large metropolitan providers has hollowed out regional markets. Solutions must correct this imbalance, including:
- Prioritising local provider development,
- Offering incentives for rural practice,
- Ensuring funding structures reflect the realities of delivering care in small communities.
e. Engage in genuine co-design with Autistic people, families and DPROs
RAEN’s submission highlights that Thriving Kids was announced without prior consultation with Autistic people or our representative organisations. This contravenes Australia’s obligations under the CRPD and the National Autism Strategy.
Regional families do not want change imposed on them; they want change shaped with them.
4. RAEN is not opposed to change — we are opposed to harmful change
The Tasmanian community is calling for reforms that:
- Genuinely improve access,
- Build local capacity,
- Reduce inequity, and
- Protect children’s safety and developmental rights.
Thriving Kids does not meet these objectives. It will deepen service deserts, increase costs for families, push families into poverty, destabilise the workforce, push children into systems that cannot support them and will create systemic harm.
RAEN welcomes the opportunity for further dialogue with Ms France and the Committee to explore solutions grounded in lived experience and evidence-based, best practices that are separate from conflicts of interest.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require any additional information.
Kind regards,
Heidi La Paglia and Nicole Moran
Regional Autistic Engagement Network (RAEN)
Email: info@raentasmania.com.au
Website: www.raentasmania.com.au
The Regional Autistic Engagement Network acknowledges the Traditional Owners and Custodians of the lands on which we live and work and pay respect to our Elders past, present and future. Sovereignty was never ceded.
References
Laragy, C., & Fisher, K.R. (2020). Choice, Control and Individual Funding: The Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme. In. Stancliffe, R.J., Wehmeyer, M.L., Shogren, K.A., & Abery, B. H. (Ed.), Choice, Preference, and Disability: Promoting Self-Determination Across the Lifespan (pp. 133–154). Springer.