Supplementary Submission
Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit
Submitted by:
Australian Neurodivergent Parents Association (ANPA)
Date: 4 March 2026
About the Australian Neurodivergent Parents Association
The Australian Neurodivergent Parents Association (ANPA) is a community-led organisation
representing neurodivergent parents and families across Australia. Our work focuses on
policy engagement, peer support, and advocacy concerning disability services, education
systems, and early childhood supports.
Many ANPA members are parents of children who have accessed, attempted to access, or
are currently navigating early childhood pathways within the National Disability Insurance
Scheme (NDIS).
This submission draws on those experiences in order to raise issues relevant to the
administrative operation of early intervention pathways within the Scheme.
1. Purpose of this supplementary submission
This supplementary submission raises a narrow issue relevant to the Committee’s Terms of
Reference concerning:
-
administration of the NDIS
-
NDIA operational decision-making and guidance
-
policy advice provided to Government concerning Scheme access pathways.
Specifically, the submission addresses the interaction between:
- the statutory early intervention eligibility framework under section 25 of the National
Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth);
- public communications regarding eligibility for early intervention supports; and
- emerging policy discussion regarding alternative early childhood support systems,
including the proposed Thriving Kids initiative.
2. Context: Public statements about diagnosis and early intervention
On or about 3 March 2026, Autism Awareness Australia published an interview on its social
media channels with the Minister for the NDIS, the Hon Jenny McAllister.
During that interview, the Minister stated:
“The NDIS really isn’t structured to respond well to that. In many cases, it’s dependent on a diagnosis.”
The statement was made in the context of explaining why alternative early childhood support
pathways are being explored. This submission does not suggest that diagnostic reports are
irrelevant to NDIS access processes. In practice, diagnostic evidence is commonly relied
upon in access requests.
However, the statutory framework of the NDIS does not establish diagnosis as a legal
requirement for early intervention eligibility.
3. Statutory framework for early intervention access
Early intervention access is governed by section 25 of the National Disability Insurance
Scheme Act 2013 (Cth). Under section 25, a person meets the early intervention
requirements if the CEO of the NDIA is satisfied that:
-
the person has an impairment or developmental delay, and
-
early intervention supports are likely to:
-
reduce the person’s future need for supports;
-
mitigate or alleviate the impact of impairment; or
-
improve or maintain functional capacity.
The statutory test therefore focuses on:
-
impairment or developmental delay;
-
functional impact; and
-
the expected benefit of early supports.
The legislation does not require the existence of a formal diagnosis. Evidence capable of
supporting early intervention eligibility may include:
-
developmental assessments
-
functional assessments
-
allied health reports
-
clinical observations.
Diagnostic reports are frequently used as supporting evidence, but they are not mandated by
the Act.
4. Legislative intent of early intervention provisions
The Explanatory Memorandum to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2013
explains that early intervention supports are intended to be available where early supports
are likely to reduce future support needs.
The design of section 25 reflects the “insurance” approach underlying the NDIS. Early
supports may:
-
reduce the long-term impact of disability
-
improve functional capacity
-
reduce future support costs.
The early intervention provisions were therefore intended to allow supports to be provided
before support needs become entrenched, including in situations where diagnostic certainty
may not yet exist.
5. Distinction between statutory eligibility and evidentiary practice
In practice, diagnostic reports are often relied upon in access requests because they provide
structured clinical evidence of impairment. However, an important distinction exists between:
-
diagnosis as a form of evidence, and
-
diagnosis as a statutory requirement.
The NDIS Act establishes the former but not the latter. Public communications describing
early intervention access as being “dependent on a diagnosis” may therefore risk conflating
evidentiary practice with statutory eligibility requirements.
Ensuring that these distinctions are clearly communicated may be relevant to the effective
administration of the Scheme.
6. Administrative implications for families seeking early intervention
Public understanding of eligibility criteria can influence how families approach NDIS access
processes. If families believe that diagnosis is required before early intervention supports
can be accessed, they may delay submitting access requests while pursuing diagnostic
assessments.
In early childhood, diagnostic processes can take considerable time. Delays in access
requests may affect the timeliness of early intervention supports, which section 25 of the Act
was designed to facilitate.
For this reason, the clarity of public messaging concerning statutory eligibility pathways may
be relevant to NDIA administrative performance.
7. Interaction with emerging early childhood policy initiatives
The interview referenced above also discussed the proposed Thriving Kids system,
described as an early childhood support pathway through which families may initially engage
with developmental supports. It was suggested that families could subsequently pursue
NDIS access where additional supports are required.
The Committee may wish to clarify how such policy proposals interact with the existing
statutory access pathways established under sections 24 and 25 of the NDIS Act. The Act
currently provides individuals with a direct right to request access to the NDIS.
The legislation does not require participation in any alternative program prior to submitting
an access request.
8. Use of policy terms not contained in the legislation
Public discussion of Thriving Kids frequently refers to children with “low to moderate support
needs.” These terms do not appear in the NDIS Act. Eligibility under the Act is determined by
statutory criteria relating to:
-
impairment
-
functional impact
- expected benefit of supports.
The Committee may therefore wish to examine how policy categories such as “low to
moderate support needs” are used in administrative guidance and whether they interact with
statutory eligibility criteria in practice. The Committee may also wish to consider advice given
to the Minister by the CEO and the office of the CEO with respect to correct descriptions of
eligibility criteria as it appears in the NDIS Act.
9. Matters the Committee may wish to examine
In light of the issues raised above, the Committee may wish to seek clarification from the
NDIA and the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing regarding:
- Operational guidance provided to NDIA access delegates concerning assessment of early
intervention eligibility where impairment or developmental delay is evidenced without a
formal diagnosis.
- How NDIA communicates to families and practitioners that diagnosis is not required to
meet the early intervention requirements under section 25.
- Whether engagement with emerging early childhood support systems, including Thriving
Kids, will be voluntary and whether families will continue to be able to apply directly for NDIS
access.
- Whether policy categories such as “low to moderate support needs” appear in NDIA
administrative guidance or decision-making frameworks.
These matters are relevant to the Committee’s consideration of the administration,
performance monitoring, and policy development associated with the NDIS.
10. Conclusion
This submission raises a limited issue concerning the relationship between:
-
statutory eligibility criteria under the NDIS Act
-
public communication about early intervention access; and
-
evolving policy discussions about early childhood disability supports.
Ensuring that statutory eligibility pathways are accurately communicated and administered is
important for the transparency and effective operation of the NDIS.
The Committee’s inquiry provides an opportunity to clarify how these matters are addressed
within NDIA operational guidance and departmental policy advice.
Submitted by:
Sarah Langston
President
Australian Neurodivergent Parents Association
redacted