Queensland health minister stalls on federal ‘Thriving Kids’ plan, citing unanswered concerns over child support shift

On 29 April 2026, Tim Nicholls, Queensland's health minister, publicly reiterated the state's reservations about the Commonwealth's Thriving Kids initiative—a policy designed to transition children under nine years of age who exhibit mild developmental delays or autism from the National Disability Insurance Scheme to an as‑yet undefined replacement, a move that, according to the minister, threatens to leave the most vulnerable families without the guaranteed supports they currently receive, while also ostensibly shifting financial responsibility from the federal to the state level.

Nicholls emphasized that Queensland remains the only jurisdiction that has not yet signed the intergovernmental agreement governing the program, noting that the federal government expects the new framework to be fully operational by 2028, yet the state insists on seeing a concrete, adequately funded model that can demonstrably deliver the promised services without compromising existing care pathways, a demand that underscores the broader tension between cost‑cutting ambitions and the practical realities of delivering early‑intervention services to children whose needs are often lifelong.

The minister's comments, delivered amidst a broader national debate on the sustainability of the NDIS and the appropriate allocation of resources for developmental disorders, highlighted a predictable critique that the Commonwealth appears intent on off‑loading fiscal obligations onto states while simultaneously offering a vague promise of a 'better' system, an approach that, in the minister's view, risks repeating past policy failures where insufficient planning and under‑resourced transitions left gaps in service provision.

By insisting on a thorough review before committing, Queensland signals a willingness to confront the apparent contradiction between the federal government's cost‑shifting narrative and the practical requirement for a viable, well‑funded alternative, thereby exposing a systemic reluctance to accept reform proposals that lack clear accountability mechanisms, a stance that may well influence other states to adopt a similarly cautious posture, ultimately challenging the premise that a top‑down redesign of early childhood disability support can be both swift and seamless.

Published: April 29, 2026