Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

The inquiry into the Thriving Kids program was formally referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability on 2 September 2025. The inquiry was tasked with examining and advising on the design of a national system of supports for children aged eight and under with developmental delay and autism who have low to moderate support needs. I want to say a huge thankyou to chair Dr Mike Freelander and co-chair Dr Monique Ryan for their diligence, their stewardship, their care and their deep consideration of all the submissions. I also want to say a very deep thankyou to all those who made presentations and submissions to the inquiry.

It must be acknowledged that, since the Thriving Kids initiative was announced, many families, carers and providers have felt anxious about what's ahead. I've heard directly from local families and providers in my electorate who are worried about what this program will mean for their children and clients. As a member of this committee, I welcome the tabling of the report, No child left behind, and want to reaffirm that the committee's purpose throughout has been clear: to ensure that every child who needs foundational supports is protected, included and able to access appropriate, high-quality services in a timely way through the design of Thriving Kids. That commitment has guided our work at every stage, and it now must guide the government's decisions in design and implementation.

I also want to thank the many organisations, health professionals, providers, families and carers who contributed to the inquiry, particularly those who shared personal stories. Those accounts were frank, often difficult and deeply instructive.

The phased implementation of Thriving Kids was due to start on 1 July 2026, with the access changes to the NDIS from mid-2027. The commencement has now been delayed to 1 October as part of the National Health Reform Agreement that was finalised last Friday at the National Cabinet meeting, with additional time granted to states and territories to implement the program, which I welcome.

Many stakeholders are pleased to see that the inquiry report reflects core issues raised in evidence, including equity, genuine co-design, evidence based interventions, strong governance, a capable workforce and phased implementation. But a report is not an outcome. As we now turn to program design and implementation, the government must heed the remaining and significant concerns raised by stakeholders in response to the inquiry report as practical advice on what Thriving Kids must look like if it is to succeed. At the moment, families and providers are still asking who exactly will be covered and how decisions will be made, as the inquiry's terms of reference did not include eligibility criteria in its scope. The government must ensure that eligibility for Thriving Kids is transparent, consistent and anchored in functional need.

Stakeholders have expressed concern about language such as 'mild to moderate developmental delay and autism' and suggestions that autism is not a permanent disability, which do not align with established diagnostic frameworks. Crucially, eligibility must not depend on simplistic severity categories that are not applied consistently and can be clinically imprecise. Functional assessment must be the basis for access and funding, with clear guidance and safeguards to prevent children from missing out at the point where early intervention matters most.

Families should not be forced to wait for a formal diagnosis before help begins. Thriving Kids is an opportunity to fix a longstanding gap by funding early screening, navigation and functional supports from the first signs of concern, particularly for children in priority cohorts. Stakeholders support staged reform, but they warned that the revised timeline risks moving faster than systems can safely deliver. Leading autism organisation Amaze cautions that commencement on 1 October and full implementation by 1 January 2028 may still fall short of the inquiry's intent for a flexible, phased rollout supported by pilots and clear public timelines, especially for workforce and service development.

Just as importantly, the inquiry recommended overlap periods where both the NDIS and Thriving Kids operate concurrently, allowing children to remain supported under existing NDIS plans until Thriving Kids is fully functional and able to meet needs. Given the government has previously indicated changes to the NDIS access from mid-2027, stakeholders are concerned they may not fully overlap. It's important that both state and federal governments guarantee continuity of support. That means no child should lose, delay or have reduced support until foundational supports are fully rolled out, accessible and proven to meet demand.

The majority of submissions all returned to the same reality—workforce. Reform will fail if we design a system that assumes clinicians, educators and navigators exist in numbers we wish they did. A local provider in my electorate of Mackellar Kids First Children's Services has made this point powerfully, saying, 'Allied Health qualifications take years. Universities struggle to secure placements. Experienced clinicians are leaving due to workload and administrative burden and lack of support.' So the government's task is two-fold: design a model that can actually be staffed, and invest now to grow and retain the workforce required. I would like to add at this stage that the paid prac placements are core to us growing our allied health workforce. At the moment, we are burning our allied health students out and forcing them to face decisions in their life as to whether they have food on the table or are able to complete their practical placements. That is not good enough. We must fund training pipelines, supervision capacity, retention supports and practical incentives to work in underserviced areas. It also means developing a workforce that is neuro affirming and evidence informed, including capability across diversity, including cultural competency, gender-responsive practice and disability affirming approaches for all disability types.

Kids First Children's Services also cautions that families cannot substitute sustained professional support with information, resources and online programs. The reality is families usually seek early intervention because they are already overwhelmed, not because they lack information. Many parents know what their child needs in theory, but require skilled in-person guidance to apply strategies in real life. Online access can be helpful but it does not reliably build confidence, consistency or progress for children with more complex needs, especially where families face trauma, poverty, housing insecurity, language barriers, disability or burnout.

Government must ensure Thriving Kids supports carers without transferring responsibility onto them. Building carer capacity should mean funding coaching, supported practice, and practical wraparound navigation. Parent capacity has a ceiling shaped by work demands, mental health, caregiving load and life stress. Policy cannot ignore that ceiling.

Another consistent message is that we must design a system that matches the provider landscape and ensures there is not bias towards large NGOs being treated as the default voice of best practice with service models presumed scalable everywhere. In some metropolitan areas, including parts of Sydney, large NGOs have withdrawn due to cost and workforce pressures. Small family run practices remain embedded locally, coordinating with schools, GPs and preschools and supporting children over many years. Government must design Thriving Kids to work with the full ecosystem—public, not-for-profit and private—so families have genuine choice and local capacity is not inadvertently dismantled.

Related to this debate about registration is that, whilst all providers are bound by professional obligations and clinicians are operate under strong regulatory frameworks, many providers choose not to register for reasons of cost and administrative load, not because of poor quality. Any expansion of mandatory registration must be done without disrupting care through a streamlined, proportionate registration pathway that leverages existing professional registrations, reduces duplication and preserves safeguards and quality standards while ensuring small community based services can participate.

Providers stress that resource allocation should be based on real service availability and waiting times, not on postcode. (Time expired)

See this speech in context