A few weeks ago, GRANN was part of ANPA's (Australian Neurodivergent Parents Association) roundtable discussions about the Thriving Kids / No Child Left Behind report. We came into those conversations listening carefully, asking hard questions, and holding families’ experiences at the centre.

What we heard around the table was thoughtful, well-intentioned and focused on improving outcomes for children. What we also heard carried into the room were the voices of families living this system every day: navigating waitlists, rationing therapy, being told their child is “too mild” for help, or being pushed toward generic programs instead of real support.

After many discussions, this is where we have landed.

We believe the goals of the report are positive. How we get there is not. Everyone wants children to get support earlier, and everyone wants systems to work better together. But we are concerned about how many of the recommendations will play out in real life for Autistic children, children with developmental delay, and the families holding everything together.

That is why we have put together this Q&A and explainer. Not to create fear. Not to reject change. But to make sure families understand what is being proposed, what questions still need answering, and what needs to be protected so children don’t lose support in the process of reform.

This is by no means an endorsement of the Thriving Kids Report. Because we do not by any stretch of the imagination support what is being proposed. This is about keeping kids safe in systems that are changing. And making sure “Thriving Kids” really means thriving - not just on paper, but in homes, schools and communities.

Why families are concerned now, not later

What makes families particularly concerned is not just what the Thriving Kids and No Child Left Behind proposals say, but when and how they are being introduced.

Both the public report and the associated government briefings frame this reform as gradual, careful and responsive. But history tells families something different. Major system changes often begin before safeguards are fully in place, before workforces are ready, and before clear pathways exist for children whose needs fall outside neat categories.

Once children are diverted away from rights-based systems, it becomes very difficult to undo harm. Services close. Clinicians leave. Eligibility pathways narrow. Families are told to wait, to try harder, or to accept what is available rather than what is needed.

Families are not reacting to theory. They are reacting to lived experience of past reforms where “transition periods” became permanent gaps, and assurances did not translate into protection.

That is why families are paying attention now, before decisions harden into structures that are difficult to challenge or reverse.

Thriving Kids: Why families are paying close attention

When the Thriving Kids report was released, many families asked the same question:
Is this good news or another worry?

The goal sounds right.
Everyone wants children to get help earlier and grow with confidence.
No one disagrees with that.

But systems don’t live on paper.
They live in kitchens at 7am, in classrooms with 28 kids, in therapy rooms with waitlists, and in families who are already tired.

The report leans heavily on information, parenting programs and online tools.
But families don’t come looking for advice.
They come because their child is struggling and they can’t do it alone.

Parents are already doing the work.
They’re managing appointments, negotiating schools, supporting siblings and holding everything together.
More responsibility without more support doesn’t build capacity.
It builds exhaustion.

The report also talks about children as “mild” or “moderate”.
But children don’t live in categories.
They live in bodies and nervous systems and classrooms and friendships.
A child can be called “mild” and still be drowning.

We are also worried about what happens to the services families trust.
Small local providers know the child, the school, the family.
They adapt as needs change.
If those services disappear under new rules, they won’t be replaced quickly.
Sometimes they won’t be replaced at all.

And then there’s the quiet shift underneath it all.
From individual support to shared programs.
From rights to availability.
From “this is your child’s plan” to “this is what exists in your area”.

That is not a small change.
That is a different kind of system.

We support early help.
We support strong communities.
We support children thriving.

But thriving doesn’t come from thin programs and heavy expectations.
It comes from skilled people, trusted relationships and support that lasts long enough to matter.

Children don’t grow in policy frameworks.
They grow where people stay and build connections.

That’s what we are asking decision-makers to protect.

Thriving Kids is not failing because people don’t care.
It is risky because of how it is designed.

Early support should grow children’s rights.
Not replace them.

Safeguards must be built before systems change.
Not after harm happens.

Families are not asking for perfection.
They are asking not to be quietly pushed out of systems that once protected their children.

Thriving Kids / No Child Left Behind - What families are asking

Q: What is Thriving Kids?
Thriving Kids is a new national system being designed for children under 8 with developmental delay or autism who are seen as having low to moderate support needs. It will sit outside the NDIS and be part of a broader group of programs called “Foundational Supports”.

Q: Is this meant to replace the NDIS?
The government says no. Children with high support needs or permanent and significant disability are expected to stay on the NDIS.
But in practice, we are already seeing children diverted away from NDIS supports and into other pathways.

Q: What kind of supports will Thriving Kids offer?
It is expected to include:
• parenting programs
• online resources
• short blocks of allied health
• low-cost assistive technology
• supports in childcare, schools and community hubs

There will not be individual NDIS-style plans or budgets.

Q: Why are families worried?
Because this model replaces:
✔ individual entitlements
✔ reviewable decisions
✔ tailored plans

with:
✘ capped programs
✘ service availability
✘ non-reviewable pathways

That means access depends on what is offered locally, not what your child needs.

Q: The report talks about “mild” and “moderate” children. Why is that a problem?
Those labels don’t reflect real life. They don't reflect fluctuating needs.
A child labelled “mild” can still struggle with:
• learning
• emotions
• friendships
• sleep
• toileting
• communication

Support should be based on how a child functions, not a broad category.

Q: Won’t parents just be given more tools instead?
The report focuses heavily on information and training for parents.
But families are already doing a lot.
What’s missing is hands-on professional support, not more advice.

Q: What about local services and therapists?
Many families rely on small local providers and private clinicians.
The report favours large organisations and mandatory registration, which risks pushing small services out of the system.
Once local services close, they are very hard to rebuild.

Q: What about workforce shortages?
There are not enough therapists now.
The report assumes the workforce can expand quickly, but training takes years and evidence shows that many clinicians are leaving the sector, many due to burnout.
Teachers and educators cannot replace therapists, nor are they trained to do so.

Q: When will this start?
Services are expected to roll out from late 2026 and scale up by 2028.
NDIS access changes for young children are planned from 1 January 2028.

Q: What is GRANN’s position?
We support early help and strong communities.
We do not support replacing children’s rights with discretionary programs or shifting responsibility onto families without real supports.

Q: Could this be discrimination?

Answer:

It could be.

If a system:
• looks neutral
• but harms one group more
• and there is no good reason

that is indirect discrimination.

Autistic children, regional families and children with complex needs are most affected by:
• tiering
• diversion
• loss of appeal
• service shortages

That makes this more than a policy question.
It becomes a fairness and rights question.

What We Know After Attending the ANPA Roundtable Discussions

Many families have asked what the Thriving Kids (also called No Child Left Behind) inquiry report could mean for children and parents.

We have read the report carefully and compared it with what families, advocates and professionals are seeing in real life.

Our concern is not about intent.
It is about how the changes might work in practice for real families.

What the report is trying to do

The report suggests:
• more early help
• more support in everyday settings like schools and childcare
• fewer children needing to go onto the NDIS
• more use of programs and services that are shared across communities

This sounds positive.

But the way the system is designed matters just as much as the words used to describe it.

Information is not the same as support

The report focuses heavily on:
• parenting information
• online programs
• training and advice

Many parents already know:
• what their child struggles with
• what their child needs

What families often don’t have is:
• time
• energy
• specialist help
• hands-on support

Advice alone does not help a child:
• speak or communicate
• regulate emotions
• eat safely
• sleep
• move
• cope at school

Children need skilled people working with them directly over time.

Parents are already doing a lot

The report assumes parents can keep building their “capacity”.

In reality, many families are already:
• managing appointments
• fighting waitlists
• dealing with schools
• caring for siblings
• working or trying to work
• coping with stress

Shifting more responsibility onto parents without proper supports risks:
• burnout
• family breakdown
• children missing out on help

Support systems should share the load, not quietly pass it to families. The balance is a fine line that the government is bulldozing through.

“Mild” and “moderate” labels don’t match real life

The report uses terms like:
• mild
• moderate

These labels:
• are not clinical categories
• do not describe daily life
• do not show how much help a child needs

A child called “mild” can still struggle with:
• friendships
• learning
• behaviour
• anxiety
• toileting
• communication
• sleep

Decisions must be based on:
•  what a child actually struggles with
•  how it affects their life

Not on broad labels.

Big organisations are not the same as local services

The report often treats large NGOs as the main source of good practice.

Large organisations:
• have more funding access
• can run pilots
• can absorb financial risk

•can access funding

But many no longer work closely inside local communities.

Families depend on:
• small services
• private clinicians
• local providers
• people who know their child and school

These relationships can take years to build.

If small services close:
• they are not easily replaced
• trust is lost
• children lose continuity

Private therapists are not “riskier”

The report suggests private or unregistered providers are riskier.

In reality:
• they follow the same professional rules
• they answer to the same boards
• they are often more flexible
• many avoid NDIS registration due to cost and complexity

If 92% of providers are unregistered, the question should be:
• Why is the system so hard to register with?
• Not “how do we remove families’ options?”

Choice matters.

Mandatory registration risks service loss

The report supports mandatory registration but:
• does not show how services will transition safely
• does not match workforce capacity
• assumes systems will be ready

If rolled out too fast:
• small services may close
• waitlists will grow
• families will be stranded

Once services disappear:
• rebuilding them is slow
• sometimes impossible

City families are not “covered”

The report focuses on rural shortages.
That is important.

But city families also face:
• long waits
• burned-out therapists
• no available providers
• rationing therapy

Being in a city does not mean access is easy. We have already seen cases of people leaving their roots due to access issues. 

Teachers cannot replace therapists

The report leans on schools to do more.

Teachers already:
• manage large classrooms
• handle complex behaviour (some better than others)
• support diverse learners

They are not trained to:
• diagnose disability
• run therapy
• manage clinical intervention

Using schools to fill workforce gaps:
• increases classroom stress
• puts teachers outside scope
• leaves children without proper care

What the funding really means

The Thriving Kids funding:
• is pooled
• spread across thousands of settings
• must pay for systems, admin and workforce

When broken down:
• the amount per child becomes very small
• far less than current NDIS early childhood plans

This creates a risk that:
• support looks broad
• but is thin
• and not enough for the complex reality that children bring.

How Thriving Kids could work

Why tiered systems can block support

Thriving Kids is based on a tiered system.
That means children are sorted into levels of support.

This sounds helpful.
But in real life, tiered systems often become gatekeepers.

Autistic children are most at risk because:
• they may mask
• their needs change over time
• distress is often hidden
• development is not linear

In tiered systems:
• children must “fail” before they can move up
• families must prove harm before help increases
• moving down is easy, moving up is hard

In regional areas, this is worse.
Once a child is sent into a lower tier:
• there may be no pathway back
• records don’t transfer
• families must start again

This is not early support.
It is delayed support.

Children lose legal protections

Under the current NDIS system:
• children have individual plans
• decisions can be reviewed
• rights are enforceable

Under Thriving Kids:
• support is discretionary
• based on programs
• not child-specific

This means:
• families cannot challenge decisions
• children lose clear entitlements
• access depends on availability, not need

That is a major shift.

What the reports do not fully acknowledge

What is missing from the Thriving Kids and No Child Left Behind documentation is a clear acknowledgement of risk.

The reports focus heavily on intent and aspiration, but do not include a transparent risk register outlining what happens if key assumptions fail. There is little detail on what protections exist if workforce expansion does not occur, if local services collapse, or if children’s needs escalate quickly.

There is also no clear explanation of how families will challenge decisions in a system where support is discretionary rather than enforceable. Under current arrangements, families can request reviews, provide evidence and seek independent oversight. Under Thriving Kids, access is tied to program availability rather than individual entitlement.

This matters because systems do not fail evenly.

When safeguards are weak, the children most likely to be affected are Autistic children who mask, children with fluctuating needs, children from regional or low-income communities, and families who already struggle to be believed.

Without explicit protections, the burden of system failure shifts quietly onto families, while responsibility remains diffuse and difficult to contest.

What this means for children’s rights

Right now, some children have a legal right to support through the NDIS.
That means:
• their needs must be assessed
• decisions must be explained
• families can ask for a review
• supports are not just “nice to have” — they are owed

Thriving Kids changes this by moving many children into programs instead of rights-based supports.

Programs:
• can be capped
• can change without notice
• cannot always be appealed
• depend on what is available, not what a child needs

This is a big shift.
It quietly changes children from rights-holders into service recipients.

That matters most for:
• Autistic children
• children with complex or changing needs
• regional families
• families who already struggle to be believed

Once a right is replaced by a program, it is very hard to get it back.

Why this matters long-term

Early support:
• builds skills
• prevents crisis
• reduces long-term costs

Delays and weak support lead to:
• regression
• school exclusion
• mental health crises
• family collapse
• higher costs later

Short-term savings can create:
• long-term harm
• higher public spending
• worse outcomes

The bigger picture

Support is not just:
• a framework
• a program
• a digital system

It lives in:
✔ skilled people
✔ trusted relationships
✔ continuity
✔ stability & predictability
✔ time

If we weaken existing capacity:
• it cannot be rebuilt quickly
• children pay the price

What families need

Families need:
• clarity
• continuity
• genuine choice
• skilled help
• rights that can be enforced

• genuine pathways to challenge decisions

Change must:
• be slow
• be careful
• involve families and communities
• avoid cutting support before alternatives exist

Without this:
well-intended reform can make life harder for the children it aims to help.

What needs to be protected

What international law expects Australia to do

Australia has promised to protect disabled children’s rights under international law.

This includes:
• the right to support
• the right to be included
• the right to be heard
• the right not to go backwards

This means:
New systems must make rights stronger, not weaker.
They must not replace legal protections with temporary programs.

If Thriving Kids:
• delays support
• removes appeal rights
• excludes Autistic voices
• replaces entitlements with programs

then Australia risks breaking its promises to disabled children.

These risks are not new.
They have happened in other countries.
They have happened before in Australia.

That is why families are watching closely.

Why safeguards must come first

Safeguards only work if they are built in from the start.

Once:
• a child is diverted
• a service closes
• a provider leaves
• a pathway disappears

it is too late to fix later.

Prevention matters more than repair.

Safeguards must include:
• real appeal rights
• independent advocacy
• clear ways back to the NDIS
• multiple access pathways
• community-led decision making

Without these:
families carry the risk
children carry the harm
systems carry the power

That is not fair design.

What must exist before reform proceeds

GRANN believes that reform must be conditional, not aspirational.

Before any large-scale redirection of children away from the NDIS occurs, the following must already exist in practice, not as future commitments:

• A stable, adequately staffed workforce with capacity across metropolitan, regional and remote areas
• Guaranteed review and appeal mechanisms that families can access without legal or financial barriers
• Clear, child-specific pathways back to the NDIS when needs increase or supports prove insufficient
• Protection for small, local and private providers so existing services are not lost during transition
• Independent advocacy embedded into the system from the outset, not added later
• Transparent monitoring of outcomes, including who is excluded, who waits, and who disengages

Reform that proceeds without these foundations risks repeating the mistakes of past system changes, where support was removed before alternatives were ready, and children paid the price.

Change must strengthen rights before it restructures systems.

GRANN’s position

We support:
✔ early support
✔ strong communities
✔ children thriving

We do not support:
✘ replacing individual help with thin programs
✘ shifting burden to parents
✘ weakening children’s rights
✘ losing trusted services
✘ moving faster than systems can cope

Children don’t grow in policy documents.
They grow in trusted relationships.

That must be protected.

Why questions matter

Families asking questions are not resisting change. They are doing what responsible systems should welcome: testing assumptions, identifying gaps, and protecting children from unintended harm.

Clear answers now prevent crises later.

Silence, deflection or reassurance without detail does not build trust. It erodes it.

What Families Can Ask Their MP's

Families don’t need legal language. They need clear answers.
Here are questions you can take to your local MP:

About access and rights
• How will children’s support be guaranteed if Thriving Kids does not have individual plans?
• What rights will families have to appeal or review decisions?
• What happens if my child’s needs increase suddenly or over time?

About service availability
• What services will exist in my local area?
• What happens if there is a waitlist?
• What support is available while families wait?

About therapists and providers
• How will small local services be protected from closure?
• Why are private clinicians being treated as higher risk?
• What will mandatory registration mean for service supply?

About fairness
• How will decisions avoid relying on labels like “mild” or “moderate”?
• How will Autistic children and children with developmental delay be protected from being singled out?

About workforce
• Where will new therapists and support services come from?
• What training will educators receive if schools are expected to do more?
• How will burnout be prevented?

About transitions
• What happens to children currently on the NDIS?
• How will reassessments be done safely?
• What safeguards stop children losing support before alternatives exist?

You can end with:

“We want children to thrive. But we need to know this system won’t leave them without support or strip away their rights.”

We write this in Solidarity with the Community of which we are a part of,

The Collaborators @ GRANN