Submission No 88

INQUIRY INTO FOUNDATIONAL AND DISABILITY SUPPORTS AVAILABLE FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN NEW SOUTH WALES

Organisation: FutureTech Association Australia Incorporated

Date Received: 11 September 2026

SUBMISSION

Foundational and disability supports available for children and young people in New South Wales

Response to the Select Committee’s First Report and the NSW Government response

Organisation FutureTech Association Australia Incorporated
Prepared by Rebecca McCash, Founder and CEO
Date September 2026

CORE POSITION

New South Wales cannot treat an under-nine early childhood program as its complete response to foundational supports for children and young people. A funded, youth-specific pathway is needed for school-aged children, adolescents and young people transitioning into adulthood.

www.futuretechaustralia.org | Page 1

Executive summary

FutureTech Australia welcomes the Select Committee’s recognition that trusted, locally embedded and relationship-driven services are essential parts of the support ecosystem around children, young people and families. The First Report accurately identifies the consequences of fragmented systems, diagnosis-dependent access, short-term funding and the loss of community infrastructure following the introduction of the NDIS.

The report is especially important because it recognises adolescence as a distinct developmental period and records evidence that young people need specialised community spaces in which supportive adults and peers can help them apply skills in real life. This closely reflects FutureTech’s experience.

We are deeply concerned, however, that the NSW Government response effectively treats the much broader concept of foundational supports for children and young people as synonymous with Thriving Kids: a time-limited program for children aged eight and under with developmental delay and/or autism and low-to-moderate support needs. The Government explicitly states that no decision has been made about other cohorts or services.

The result is an unresolved gap beginning at age nine. The Government did not support the Committee’s recommendation for dedicated transition pathways for children turning nine and those nine and older. It also did not support the recommendation to formally embed foundational supports in educational settings through revised funding and integrated planning.

THE PRACTICAL PROBLEM

Information about other pathways is not the same as an available service. A referral pathway is not support, and a policy announcement does not provide continuity, choice or safety for a young person or family.

FutureTech recommends a distinct adolescent and youth foundational-support stream, available on the basis of need rather than diagnosis. It should fund peer-led, interest-based and community participation models delivered in everyday settings; establish a genuine transition guarantee at age nine; connect community supports with education without transferring schools’ inclusion responsibilities; and use multi-year, indexed, full-cost commissioning accessible to small community and lived-experience-led organisations.

Autistic lived experience must be treated as expertise with authority across service design, delivery, governance and evaluation—not as consultation added after key decisions have been made. Commissioning must also preserve the small, trusted services that young people rely on, including where those services cannot compete on organisational scale.

www.futuretechaustralia.org | Page 2

About FutureTech Australia

FutureTech Association Australia Incorporated is a neurodivergent-led not-for-profit social enterprise established in New South Wales. We support autistic and otherwise neurodivergent young people aged approximately 7-30 through interest-based STEAM programs, peer support, social connection, one-to-one support and community education. FutureTech’s broader age range reflects our work across different life stages; this submission focuses particularly on school-aged children, adolescents and young people transitioning from school into adulthood.

150+ young people and families supported
20+ neurodivergent adults employed to date
16 current mentors, most neurodivergent
3 delivery modes: Seaforth, Parramatta and online

Programs include STEAM Saturdays, FutureTech Games Night, online workshops and one-to-one peer support. Our groups provide practical, interest-led learning and consistent social spaces where young people can connect without pressure to communicate, participate or socialise in one particular way. Participants are supported by neurodivergent mentors, encouraged to follow their curiosity and given genuine choice in how they engage.

FutureTech also works with schools, families, workplaces and community organisations through our Parents, Peers and Professionals Whole-of-School Program. We are a NESA recognised PD provider, and our school partnerships include a four-year relationship with Beauty Point Public School, and projects with Reddam House, Manly Vale Public School, Mosman High School and Brookvale Public School.

1000+ mainstream students engaged in workshops about Neurodiversity
100s of parents, professionals and teachers

Approximately 90 per cent of FutureTech’s participant program-fee income is currently connected to NDIS funding, predominantly Social and Community Participation budgets. This leaves FutureTech highly exposed to changes in NDIS access, budget categorisation and pricing. Affordable family contributions cannot replace the actual cost of safe, small-group, appropriately staffed support.

www.futuretechaustralia.org | Page 3

Lived and professional perspective

I am autistic and have ADHD and narcolepsy. I received my autism and ADHD diagnoses at 26, after navigating childhood and early adulthood without an accurate understanding of my needs. My diagnosis was arguably life-saving, but support should not depend on whether a family recognises a young person’s needs early, can navigate long waiting lists or can afford an assessment.

I am the founder and CEO of FutureTech Australia, a neurodivergent-led organisation that has supported more than 150 young people and families and employed more than 20 neurodivergent adults. My professional experience spans direct work with neurodivergent young people and families, peer-workforce development, school partnerships, autism inclusion consulting and organisational leadership. I also work as a Neurodivergent Education Officer at The Beach School, a School for Specific Purposes. I have contributed to policy through the National Autism Strategy Economic Inclusion Working Group and sit on the City of Sydney Disability Inclusion Advisory Panel.

This submission draws on the combined expertise of lived experience, direct practice, education, workforce development and policy. My experience is not universal and does not replace direct engagement with the diverse young people affected by these reforms. The views expressed are my own, informed by my experience as the founder and CEO of FutureTech Australia, and should not be attributed to my other employers or advisory bodies.

1. The policy gap begins at age nine

The inquiry’s Terms of Reference are not limited to early childhood. They encompass children and young people with developmental concerns, delays, differences or disabilities; access to medical, community, allied health, NDIS and other service models; diagnosis barriers; cross-sector collaboration; workforce issues; and implementation of national foundational-support reforms.

The Government response nevertheless states that, for its purposes, foundational supports for children are referred to as Thriving Kids. It describes a program for children aged eight and under and says that no decision has been made about other cohorts or services.

This is not merely a sequencing issue. In rejecting Recommendation 4, the Government declined to co-design and fund dedicated transition pathways for children turning nine and those nine and older. Its alternative is to provide clear information about available pathways and next steps to some families. That does not establish the availability, affordability, quality or continuity of those supports.

www.futuretechaustralia.org | Page 4

A child’s need for belonging, supported participation, trusted relationships, self-understanding or help to remain engaged with education does not disappear on their ninth birthday. For many autistic young people—particularly girls, gender-diverse young people, high-masking young people and those whose early differences were misunderstood—needs become visible or intensify later.

FUTURETECH’S RECOMMENDATION

The final report should call for a separately funded adolescent and youth foundational-support stream, with an implementation timetable, defined service scope and a guarantee that no child leaves Thriving Kids—or loses NDIS support on the basis that their needs should be met through foundational supports—before an appropriate alternative is operational and available in their community.

2. Adolescence requires its own response

The First Report contains a compelling basis for action beyond early childhood. Evidence from Youth Action describes adolescence as a second period of neuroplasticity and argues for investment that is rights-based, whole-person and driven by young people’s voices. The same evidence explains why specialised youth spaces matter: young people need places with supportive adults where they can practise and generalise skills outside clinical environments.

This is what community participation support can achieve. A young person may learn a communication or regulation strategy in therapy, but it becomes meaningful when they can use it while collaborating on a project, joining a game, navigating disagreement, asking for an adjustment or returning after a difficult week. These are real-world developmental and wellbeing outcomes.

Adolescence is also when risks associated with exclusion may compound: school disengagement, isolation, exhaustion from masking, declining mental health, reduced family capacity and loss of confidence about adulthood. Waiting for crisis is both harmful and expensive. A system genuinely committed to prevention cannot leave its funded developmental response undefined beyond age eight.

3. Belonging and peer connection are foundational supports

The First Report finds that families are more likely to engage through informal, community-based and relationship-driven settings—including peer-support programs and neighbourhood services—than through formal clinical or statutory pathways. It also recognises that these trusted entry points are not consistently embedded in service systems.

www.futuretechaustralia.org | Page 5

FutureTech’s experience supports this finding. Families do not describe our value primarily in terms of completed workshop activities. They speak about safety, acceptance, relationships and the relief of finding a place where their young person is understood.

“Being with peers and mentors who he feels safe with and can completely unmask around. He has a true community of like-minded people to be with.”
De-identified parent feedback, FutureTech mid-year survey, August 2026

“FutureTech has changed my child’s sense of who he is. Before we came, he had never felt safe to be anywhere without us. Now he looks forward to it.”
De-identified parent feedback, FutureTech mid-year survey, August 2026

Feedback from FutureTech families consistently describes young people enjoying the program, feeling safe and accepted, developing greater confidence and social connection, and experiencing a stronger sense of belonging. While this is parent-reported feedback rather than an independent evaluation, it aligns with ongoing family accounts, mentor observations and sustained participation in FutureTech programs.

Many young people arrive at FutureTech after being unable to find safety, belonging or sustainable participation in other settings. Families have described FutureTech as ‘life-saving’. We use that language as a report of families’ experience, not as a clinical claim. It signals that, for some young people, a trusted neurodivergent-led community is protective infrastructure—not an interchangeable recreational service.

This evidence reinforces the need for foundational supports to explicitly recognise supported community participation, peer connection, interest-based groups, creative and technical learning, self-advocacy and identity-safe spaces. These should not be treated as optional recreation sitting outside developmental support. For some young people, they are the conditions that make learning, relationships and sustained participation possible.

4. Access should be based on need, not diagnosis

The First Report recognises that many children and young people do not receive a formal diagnosis in early childhood—or ever—and that diagnosis-dependent access leaves people behind. FutureTech supports the Committee’s conclusion that foundational support must be available before diagnosis.

Need-based access should be simple and proportionate. A family should not have to obtain multiple expensive reports, establish NDIS ineligibility or repeatedly recount distress before a young person can join a safe community program. Referral should be possible through families, schools, GPs, allied health, community organisations and self-referral by older young people.

www.futuretechaustralia.org | Page 6

Eligibility settings must also recognise fluctuating and context-dependent needs. A young person who appears capable in one environment may be using unsustainable effort, masking or relying on extensive unpaid support at home. Descriptions such as ‘low to moderate’ should not become shorthand for low consequence or low need.

5. Education and community supports must work together

The Government did not support Recommendation 13, noting that Thriving Kids does not revise education funding mechanisms. It does, however, acknowledge that commissioned providers may deliver appropriately governed in-reach models alongside schools and early learning services.

Schools have an essential responsibility to provide accessible learning environments, reasonable adjustments and protection from discrimination. Community-based foundational supports must not be used to transfer these obligations away from the education system. At the same time, schools cannot—and should not be expected to—meet every developmental, social, emotional and community participation need of every child.

For some young people, support within school is valuable. For others, particularly those who have experienced exclusion, distress or trauma in education settings, being supported outside school is necessary. Community settings can offer space to rebuild trust, develop relationships, practise self-advocacy and experience belonging without reproducing the demands associated with school. Foundational supports must also include children and young people who are homeschooled, disengaged from education or unable to attend school consistently.

No single service, setting or system can provide everything a child needs. Schools and community organisations should be enabled to work together, each contributing their distinct strengths through shared planning, warm referrals and appropriate information-sharing with consent. A well-designed system should begin with what the child needs and where they can best access it—not assume that every form of support should be delivered through school.

6. Commissioning will determine whether good services survive

The First Report accurately identifies the instability created by short-term grants, fragmented commissioning, inadequate indexation and the loss of block-funded community infrastructure. It recommends multi-year flexible block funding and relational contracting. The Government has only noted these recommendations and deferred detail to future procurement processes.

www.futuretechaustralia.org | Page 7

This is a significant risk. Existing community providers are being asked to survive a period in which NDIS-funded participation is becoming less certain, while replacement state commissioning remains undefined. A successful service can disappear during this gap—not because demand or impact has disappeared, but because the funding mechanism has been removed before a replacement exists.

FutureTech’s current service model depends heavily on families being able to use NDIS funding. The organisation is actively diversifying income, but school contracts, philanthropy, grants and family fees cannot quickly or reliably replace the cost of ongoing high quality, effective, small-group support. If NDIS participation funding is reduced or withdrawn without replacement commissioning, FutureTech may be forced to reduce programs, increase fees beyond many families’ reach or cease delivery.

Small autistic-led and community-based organisations do not emerge because they are easy or financially attractive to operate. They are often created because existing systems leave needs unmet. Founders, workers and communities absorb substantial unpaid or underpaid labour to build trust, adapt quickly and sustain supports that have not been available elsewhere. This should not be romanticised or treated as an acceptable subsidy to government. It is evidence of unmet need and commissioning failure.

If FutureTech disappears, the loss is not simply a timetable of activities that can be transferred to another provider. It is the loss of established relationships, identity safety, peer culture, specialised practice and a trusted place that some young people have been unable to find elsewhere. National scale, previous government contracts and administrative infrastructure are not proxies for these qualities.

A current Commonwealth grant illustrates the risk with particular clarity. The Thriving Kids — Autism Community Engagement grant seeks to fund national engagement with the Autistic and autism community so governments can design and implement supports that reflect lived experience and help children and families feel understood, included and supported. Yet the $4.75 million opportunity uses a targeted or restricted competitive process: eligibility is confined to five organisations named and invited by the department.

Of the five eligible organisations, Reframing Autism is the only one whose public organisational description we could verify as explicitly autistic-led. Whatever the merits of the eligible organisations, it is extraordinary that a grant intended to secure Autistic community engagement and lived-experience-informed implementation does not structurally centre autistic-led organisations. The process decides in advance which organisations may demonstrate trust and expertise, excluding other autistic-led, grassroots and locally embedded organisations from competing as lead applicants. This is one example within a wider pattern of restricted Commonwealth autism and Thriving Kids funding. NSW should not reproduce this architecture. It needs commissioning that supports national capability where useful while protecting local, specialised and autistic-led capacity.

www.futuretechaustralia.org | Page 8

Commissioning should fund the full service model, including:

direct delivery and adequate staffing ratios;
program design and preparation;
supervision and support for peer workers;
training, safeguarding and quality systems;
accessible communication and participant adjustments;
facilities, technology and administration;
evaluation, data collection and continuous improvement; and
workforce development and organisational infrastructure.

Procurement processes should use multi-year, indexed agreements; smaller place-based lots; proportionate assurance requirements; timely payment; pre-commencement capability funding; and assessment of local trust, workforce composition, lived-experience governance and social value—not scale and historical government contract volume alone.

7. Neurodivergent peer workers are skilled infrastructure

FutureTech employs a predominantly neurodivergent mentor workforce. Lived experience is not incidental to their roles. Used intentionally and professionally, it helps build trust, model self-advocacy, translate systems, offer credible hope and demonstrate that adulthood does not require becoming less neurodivergent.

Autistic people bring forms of knowledge that clinical qualifications and organisational scale cannot substitute for: how environments feel from the inside; how masking, shutdown, sensory overwhelm and cumulative exclusion may be missed; what makes participation feel safe rather than merely compliant; and why a technically available service may still be inaccessible. This expertise must shape decisions and practice throughout a service—not be added at the end as testimony or consultation.

FutureTech has supported progression from participation into mentoring and employment. This creates benefits across the organisation: younger participants see neurodivergent adults doing meaningful work; people moving into these roles can develop capability, responsibility and supported pathways into leadership; and their lived experience strengthens the support others receive.

This impact requires more than offering someone a shift. Peer employment must include appropriate wages, gradual development, clear role design, regular supervision, accessible communication, workplace adjustments, manageable workloads and supported career pathways. These are core service costs.

The cross-sector workforce strategy supported in principle by the Government should explicitly recognise peer work and lived-experience expertise alongside formal qualifications. It should also prevent ‘peer washing’, where a service is described as peer-led because it employs one lived-experience worker without giving that person authority, support or influence.

www.futuretechaustralia.org | Page 9

8. Outcomes must reflect what young people value

The Government’s support for an evidence-based prevention and early-intervention framework is welcome. However, evaluation settings will shape what providers are encouraged to deliver. If outcomes are confined to clinical change, developmental milestones or short-term throughput, services will underinvest in relationships, identity, belonging and sustainable participation.

A youth foundational-support outcomes framework should include:

feeling safe, accepted and able to be oneself;
positive peer and adult relationships;
confidence grounded in real capability;
self-understanding and self-advocacy;
use of adjustments and regulation strategies in everyday contexts;
participation in education, community and chosen activities;
reduced isolation and sustained engagement over time;
family confidence, understanding and reduced stress;
participant-defined goals and experiences of service quality; and
whether support remains accessible across transitions and periods of reduced capacity.

Quantitative data should be combined with qualitative evidence. Small, specialised providers should be supported and funded to evaluate their work rather than excluded because they cannot independently finance complex data systems.

9. Co-design must involve power, payment and accountability

FutureTech supports the Committee’s recommendations to embed children, young people, families and people with lived experience in implementation, commissioning, evaluation and quality monitoring. The Government’s response describes consultation already undertaken and says perspectives will continue to be prioritised, but it does not establish decision-making authority.

Co-design cannot be credible if autistic-led organisations are invited to contribute insight but remain unable to lead, compete for or control implementation funding. The organisations holding contracts set priorities, employ the workforce, control data and decide which knowledge is legitimised. Funding design is therefore part of co-design: participation without authority over resources is not power-sharing.

www.futuretechaustralia.org | Page 10

Consultation alone is not co-design. Genuine co-design should:

include children and young people directly, not only parents and peak bodies;
offer accessible and varied communication methods;
pay people for meeting time, preparation, travel, access and recovery costs;
include lived-experience-led providers and frontline peer workers;
give participants influence over service specifications, procurement and evaluation;
publish how feedback changed decisions; and
continue after launch through governance and quality-monitoring roles.

FutureTech’s programs are continually developed and adapted in response to the needs, interests and feedback of the young people participating in them. As a small, community-based organisation, FutureTech can remain close to the young people it supports and responsive to what is happening in front of us. Program formats, activities, participation options and delivery approaches are not treated as fixed; they evolve when young people tell us that something is not working, does not feel accessible or no longer meets their needs.

Meaningful co-design is not a one-off consultation or an invitation to endorse decisions already made. It requires organisations, funders and governments to remain answerable to the people their decisions affect—and to be willing and able to change programs, systems and priorities in response.

10. System mapping must show what is missing

We welcome the Government’s support for a public system map containing eligibility and intake information. That map must extend beyond Thriving Kids and clearly identify the interface between early childhood programs, education, health, community services and the NDIS after age eight.

The map should not imply that a pathway exists simply because a family can be referred somewhere. It should report actual service availability, eligibility, cost, wait times, delivery mode and geographic coverage. Public reporting should also identify unmet need, failed referrals, provider exits and the number of children and young people who lose one support system without entering another.

Shared intake and referral systems may reduce repetition, but digital infrastructure must not become another compliance burden for small providers or another inaccessible gateway for families. Data collection must be proportionate, consent-based, privacy-protective and funded as part of delivery.

www.futuretechaustralia.org | Page 11

Recommendations

Adolescent and youth foundational supports. The NSW Government should co-design and fund a distinct stream for school-aged children, adolescents and young people transitioning into adulthood with developmental differences or disability. It should include community participation, peer support, supported recreation, interest-based learning, self-advocacy, navigation and transition support.
Transition guarantee. No child should leave Thriving Kids—or lose NDIS support on the basis that their needs should be met through foundational supports—without an identified, funded and operational alternative appropriate to their needs. Transition must include proactive outreach, warm referral and continuity—not information alone.
Need-based access without diagnostic prerequisites. Access should be based on the young person’s needs, goals, participation barriers and context. Formal diagnosis or NDIS eligibility should not be required for lower-intensity community support.
Sustainable commissioning. Use multi-year, indexed, flexible block funding with full-cost recovery and relational contracting. Establish transition funding so existing providers can remain operational while new arrangements are designed and commissioned.
Accessible procurement. Use smaller place-based lots, proportionate assurance, pre-commencement capability grants and social-value criteria. Use open and transparent opportunities wherever practicable. Where targeted or restricted procurement is proposed, publish the rationale, the method used to select eligible organisations and how autistic-led and locally embedded organisations will hold funded authority. Do not treat national scale or previous government contracts as proxies for community trust, neuroaffirming practice or outcomes.
Peer workforce. Name peer work as a skilled component of foundational supports. Fund wages, supervision, training, adjustments, reflective practice, career development and support for managers and supervisors.
Education interface. Establish consent-based referral and collaboration protocols between schools and community providers, while preserving education systems’ responsibilities for inclusion, adjustments and accessible learning.
Youth-defined outcomes. Measure safety, belonging, relationships, self-advocacy, participation, sustained engagement and family wellbeing alongside developmental and service-utilisation measures.
Paid co-design and autistic authority. Give children, young people, families, peer workers and lived-experience-led organisations paid, accessible and continuing roles in governance, procurement, evaluation and quality monitoring. Require autistic-led organisations to hold funded decision-making and delivery roles—not merely advisory positions—and publish how commissioning decisions distribute authority and resources.

www.futuretechaustralia.org | Page 12

Transparent system stewardship. Publish a system map and implementation timetable covering all age cohorts, together with data on funding, service availability, waiting times, unmet need, provider sustainability, transitions and unintended consequences.

Conclusion

The First Report identifies the right foundations: listen to young people, intervene before crisis, rebuild community infrastructure, improve navigation, support locally embedded providers and design services with people rather than for them.

The NSW Government response is a beginning, but Thriving Kids cannot be the whole answer. A policy response with no defined funded service offer beyond age eight leaves school-aged children and adolescents exposed precisely when belonging, identity, participation and supportive relationships may become most important.

FutureTech is evidence that parts of the missing system already exist. Neurodivergent-led, peer-supported community programs are helping young people feel safe, build relationships, understand themselves and participate in ways that work for them. They also create meaningful employment and leadership pathways for neurodivergent adults.

NSW should not allow these models to disappear while waiting for future national decisions about other cohorts. It should recognise, fund and learn from them now.

FINAL MESSAGE

A young person does not stop needing community, identity-safe support or a pathway towards adulthood when they turn nine. Foundational supports must grow with children—not end before many of them have even been identified.

Thank you for considering my submission.

Rebecca McCash Dip Gov
Founder and CEO, FutureTech Australia
Submitted in my professional capacity as FutureTech’s Founder and CEO
E: redacted: s47F - personal privacy
D: 11 September 2026