Many parents have asked what the Australian Government’s Thriving Kids / No Child Left Behind report could mean for families.
Kids First founder, Sonja Walker, recently reviewed the 80,000-word document released in early February 2026 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.
This summary was read and shared widely when it was first published on Kids First’s social media channels. We’re sharing our feedback here 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 understand what their child finds difficult. What is often missing is the time, energy and hands-on support needed to turn advice into meaningful change at home, at school and in the community. Online programs can play a role, but they do not replace skilled professionals working alongside children and families over time.
Expecting parents to do more
The report also suggests that parent capacity can continue to expand through ongoing education and self-directed learning. In reality, many parents are already operating at full stretch. Balancing work, siblings, appointments, school meetings and daily challenges leaves little reserve. Asking parents to take on even more responsibility, without sufficient professional support around them, increases the risk of burnout and may leave children without the help they need when it matters most.
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 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 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 NGO clinicians. Many experienced therapists choose not to register with the NDIS due to 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 percent 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 January 2028 floated as a possible completion 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 experienced by families living in Australia’s regional and rural areas. However, it also assumes that children in metropolitan areas have sufficient 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 cannot succeed unless there are enough skilled people available to deliver care.
Shifting 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.
Join the conversation on Kids First’s Facebook page here
