04/02/2026
This is a great summary about the Thriving Kids report - it sums up my thoughts and feelings nicely.
Many parents have asked what the 𝙏𝙝𝙧𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙆𝙞𝙙𝙨 / 𝙉𝙤 𝘾𝙝𝙞𝙡𝙙 𝙇𝙚𝙛𝙩 𝘽𝙚𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙙 report could mean for families.
Kids First founder, Sonja Walker, has reviewed the 80,000-word document released today and below are some of the key areas we have raised with our local MP for parliamentary discussion.
It's important to note that the intention behind the report is a positive one. Everyone wants children to get the right support earlier and to see better outcomes over time.
We’re sharing our feedback because we’re concerned that some of the recommendations rely on assumptions that don’t always reflect family life on the ground, and that the real-world impact for children and parents hasn’t been fully considered.
𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘃𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁
The report recommends increasing access to information, resources and online programs to build parent capacity.
Many parents already know what their child finds hard. What’s often missing is time, energy and hands-on support to turn advice into real change at home, school and in the community. Online programs can be helpful, but they don’t replace skilled professionals working alongside children and families over time.
𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲
The report suggests that parent capacity can be expanded indefinitely through access to education and online programs.
In reality, many parents are already carrying a heavy load. Between work, siblings, appointments, school meetings and daily challenges, families are doing their best with limited reserves. Expecting parents to absorb even more responsibility without enough professional support risks burnout and could leave children without the help they need.
𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 “𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗱” 𝗼𝗿 “𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲”
The report relies on terms such as “mild to moderate” developmental delay or autism to guide decisions.
These labels don’t always match daily life, and they do not reflect clinical practice. Children described as “mild” can still struggle significantly with learning, friendships, behaviour, sleep, toileting or emotions. When decisions rely on labels rather than how a child functions day to day, some children miss early support at the point it could make the biggest difference.
𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀
The report often refers to large Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) as the primary voice of best practice and service delivery.
Many of these organisations hold charitable status, which gives them access to funding structures, tax exemptions, grants and pilot program opportunities that smaller providers simply don’t have. This allows them to trial new models, absorb financial risk and operate at scale in ways that are not possible for most local services.
However, many of these organisations no longer operate consistently within local communities. (The NGO that Sonja once served as a Board member, Lifestart, moved out of the northern beaches years ago to redirect supports to other areas of Sydney.) When this kind of thing happens, families rely heavily on smaller, local services that know their child, their school and their area, and who can respond flexibly as needs change. These relationships are built over time and are central to effective support. If local services that are dedicated to their community disappear, that trust and knowledge can’t be replaced quickly or easily.
𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲
The report implies that private or unregistered providers are more 'transactional' or higher risk than NGOs.
In reality, private practice clinicians are regulated by exactly the same professional bodies and bound by the same strict codes of conduct as NGOs. Many experienced therapists choose not to register with the NDIS because of cost and complexity, not because of poor or unethical practice. This distinction matters to families who depend on these services. We encourage the Thriving Kids committee to ask the question: 'If 92% of NDIS providers are unregistered, why is this so?'
𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
The report supports mandatory registration without clearly outlining a timeframe or how services will transition safely. There are insufficient resources in the sector to allow this to happen, even with a January 2028 floated as a 'done by date'.
If changes are introduced too quickly, some local services may be forced to close. Families won’t simply move elsewhere, because there often isn’t anywhere else to go. Once local services are lost, rebuilding them is extremely difficult.
𝗔𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀
The report focuses heavily (and rightly so) on the challenges that are experienced by families living in Australia's regional and rural areas - however it also assumes that children in metropolitan areas have enough services and capacity.
City families face the same workforce shortages, waitlists and burnout as regional areas. Many parents already ration therapy or go without support because services are stretched.
𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗶𝘁𝘆
The report assumes the workforce can expand quickly to support new models of care.
Therapists take years to train, and many experienced clinicians are leaving the sector due to workload and uncertainty. New systems can’t succeed unless there are enough skilled people available to deliver care.
Switching responsibility to educators, teachers and schools is not the answer to these challenges. Educators are already stretched and are not trained or resourced to provide disability-specific assessment or intervention. Expecting them to fill workforce gaps risks pushing people beyond their scope, increasing pressure in classrooms, and leaving children without the specialised support they need.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗶𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲
Support for children isn’t just about programs or policy frameworks. 𝗜𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲, 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝗹𝗸 𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲. 𝗜𝗳 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗰𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗿 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘁, 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗹𝘆.
𝗙𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 (𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲) 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁. Without careful planning, broad consultation and agreement across systems, there is a real risk that well-intentioned changes could unintentionally make things harder for the very children they aim to support.
