Submission to the House Standing Committee on
Health, Aged Care and Disability
Submitted by: Jarrod Sandell-Hay
Date: 3 October 2025
Introduction
I welcome the opportunity to provide input to this inquiry into the Thriving Kids initiative. I write as both a person with lived experience of disability and as an advocate working closely with families and children who are navigating developmental delay and autism. While the Thriving Kids initiative seeks to strengthen mainstream supports, this submission argues that: 1. The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) remains the most effective and equitable mechanism for supporting autistic children. 2. The terminology of “mild” and “moderate” developmental delay or autism is outdated, stigmatising, and not reflective of contemporary evidence.
On the use of “Mild” and “Moderate” Labels
The terms “mild” and “moderate” autism or developmental delay are problematic: - Not evidence-based: Current diagnostic frameworks such as DSM-5 and ICD-11 no longer categorise autism in terms of “mild” or “moderate”, instead, they emphasise support needs across domains of communication, behaviour, and daily functioning. - Stigmatising and misleading: Families often report that such labels minimise the real and fluctuating support requirements their children face, while at the same time creating artificial thresholds for access to services. - Counterproductive for policy: These terms encourage gatekeeping and reinforce inequity, where some children are considered “not disabled enough” for funded support. The Committee should recommend replacing “mild” and “moderate” with the language of support needs, low, substantial, or very substantial, consistent with contemporary best practice and the NDIS framework.
Rights-Based and Social Model Approach
Any initiative supporting children with developmental delay or autism must be grounded in the social model of disability and in rights-based principles. This means recognising that disability arises primarily from barriers in society, not deficits within the child, and ensuring policy is consistent with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Thriving Kids should avoid approaches that encourage or pressure autistic children to “mask” their differences in order to appear more “typical.” Evidence from research, including the Autism CRC and recent peer-led studies, shows that masking is linked to heightened anxiety, depression, and long-term mental health harms for autistic people. Supports should instead focus on creating inclusive environments, fostering acceptance, and empowering children to thrive as themselves. Embedding a rights-based and social model approach will ensure the initiative reduces stigma, promotes inclusion, and upholds the dignity and wellbeing of all children.
The NDIS as the Best Support System
- Individualised and Flexible Support The NDIS provides individualised funding tailored to the child’s goals, needs, and circumstances. This flexibility is essential for autistic children, whose needs vary across developmental stages and environments. International and Australian evidence shows that personalised supports, co-designed with families, are more effective than one-size-fits-all programs. 2. Equity and Access
Unlike fragmented mainstream systems, the NDIS has a legislated rights-based framework. It guarantees access to reasonable and necessary supports regardless of postcode, school system, or parental income. 3. Workforce and Quality Safeguards The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission regulates the workforce, ensuring basic protections for children and families. Thriving Kids, by contrast, does not propose a comparable oversight framework. Without safeguards, early intervention programs risk uneven quality and inconsistent delivery. 4. Seamless Transitions Across Life Stages The NDIS is uniquely positioned to provide continuity as children transition from early childhood into school and beyond. The terms of reference call for seamless transitions through mainstream systems. This is achievable only if the NDIS remains the anchor support system, with mainstream services working in partnership, not in parallel.
On the Limits of “Linkages” Models
Some policy proposals rely on “linkages”, coordination, or navigation functions to bridge mainstream and disability systems. The evidence shows that linkages alone do not deliver consistent outcomes for children with developmental delay or autism. - Fragmentation remains: After decades of attempts to improve service linkages, families still experience gaps, duplicated assessments, and delays in access. Linkages do not remove the underlying fragmentation of service systems. - Burden on families: In practice, coordination often falls back onto parents and carers, who are asked to be the link between health, education, and disability systems. This creates stress, lost work time, and disengagement. - Equity concerns: Linkage-heavy models tend to favour families with time, literacy, and social capital. First Nations and CALD families face additional barriers when navigating multiple agencies, widening inequities. - Weaker outcomes than funded supports: Reviews of early childhood systems find that coordination or information functions, without direct funded supports, do not achieve the sustained developmental gains seen when children receive individualised, evidence-based interventions. The Committee should avoid substituting linkages for funded supports. Children need direct and reliable access to supports through the NDIS. Mainstream services should partner with the NDIS, rather than rely on informal coordination mechanisms to compensate for system design gaps.
The Role of Schools
Schools are, first and foremost, places of learning. Their primary responsibility is to deliver education and to provide an environment where all children can thrive academically and socially. Expecting schools to take on the role of delivering disability supports, particularly individual therapies or interventions, places them under strain and risks undermining both education and support outcomes. Families consistently report that when schools are asked to deliver or coordinate complex supports, the result is patchy, inconsistent, and often exclusionary. Instead, schools should be enabled to partner with the NDIS and community-based providers. This means: - Teachers focus on high-quality education and inclusive pedagogy. - Disability supports, such as speech therapy, occupational therapy, AAC training, or behavioural support, are provided through NDIS-funded services, integrated into the child’s day but not owned or managed by the school. - Families are supported to coordinate between education and disability systems, without being told to rely on schools as a “one-stop shop”. This distinction is vital. If schools are asked to carry the full burden of disability support, children risk missing out on consistent, high-quality interventions. If, however, schools and the NDIS operate as partners, children can receive both a strong education and the supports they need to flourish.
Gaps and Opportunities
- Mainstream services should complement, not replace, the NDIS. Maternal health, early childhood education, and schools are essential partners but should not be expected to shoulder the cost or complexity of individualised disability supports. - Cultural and equity considerations must be embedded across all service systems. First Nations and CALD families face unique barriers to navigating mainstream services, and the NDIS has established streams and initiatives that Thriving Kids could learn from. - Workforce development should align with NDIS practice standards, ensuring training in inclusive education, autism-informed practice, and augmentative and alternative communication, AAC.
International Best Practice
Internationally, rights-based disability funding schemes show that sustainable support systems combine individualised funding with strong mainstream partnerships. Australia’s NDIS is world-leading in this regard, and dismantling its role risks repeating fragmented and inequitable systems of the past.
Recommendations
-
Affirm the NDIS as the primary support system for autistic children. Mainstream services should complement it, not replace it. 2. Remove the terms “mild” and “moderate”. Replace with evidence-based language of support needs consistent with DSM-5, ICD-11, and NDIS frameworks. 3. Prioritise equity and inclusion. Ensure First Nations and CALD families have culturally safe pathways into the NDIS and mainstream supports. 4. Embed workforce training. Align training with NDIS practice standards, including autism-informed approaches and AAC. 5. Strengthen partnerships. Build systemic bridges between maternal health, education, and the NDIS to achieve seamless transitions for children. 6. Clarify the role of schools. Schools should be resourced for inclusive education, while disability supports are delivered through the NDIS.
-
Ensure all initiatives adopt a rights-based, social model of disability framework and avoid approaches that encourage autistic children to mask.
References, selected
- Department of Health and Aged Care, Thriving Kids, fact sheet, 2025. - Department of Health and Aged Care, Reform of the Information, Linkages and Capacity Building program, 2025. - AIHW, People with disability in Australia, 2022 and 2024. - Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, Final Report, 2023. - Productivity Commission, early childhood system reviews, 2024. Autism CRC, research on masking and mental health impacts, 2022.
Conclusion
The Thriving Kids initiative must not inadvertently dilute or undermine the NDIS. If the Committee is serious about equity, effectiveness, and international best practice, it should recommend embedding Thriving Kids within a framework that recognises the NDIS as the best, most reliable system to meet the needs of autistic children and their families. Jarrod Sandell-Hay Disability Advocate