Thriving Kids Parliamentary Inquiry Submission
To the House Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability
This submission is based on:
- My lived experience as: o An individual with multiple neurodivergent conditions and disabilities
o The mother of three multiply-neurodivergent children
o A former primary school teacher
o An emerging disability advocate
- My informal consultation with a number of my peers As an autistic individual, I have used identity-first language in this submission in line with my own preferences, as well as the preferences of many others within the Autistic community. Identity-first language reflects that being autistic is an intrinsic part of our identity.
TOPIC PAGE
1.0 Australia’s Obligations & Commitments 2
2.0 Challenging Misinformation & Understanding Autism 7
3.0 Evidence-Based Practice 9
4.0 Current Programs & Initiatives 11
5.0 Considering Past Mistakes 14
6.0 Implications 15
7.0 Conclusion 17
8.0 References 18
Page 1 of 18
1.0 AUSTRALIA’S OBLIGATIONS & COMMITMENTS
1.1 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
As a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006), Australia has committed to protecting the inherent human rights of all individuals with disability in order to promote their full participation in society on an equal basis to their peers. This means that we:
a. Understand that disability is caused by the interaction of environmental barriers and intrinsic challenges within individuals
b. Recognise the equal value and dignity of every human being, which is not diminished by disability or any other diversity
c. Recognise that people with disability can and do meaningfully contribute to society, and this contribution should not be ignored
d. Uphold the rights of people with disabilities to make their own decisions, respect their autonomy, and presume competence
In particular, Australia has committed to recognise that “children with disabilities should have full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children” (United Nations, 2006, preamble para. [r]).
1.2 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
Australia is also a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), under which we have committed to recognising that:
a. Children with disabilities have the right to live a fulfilling life which recognises their inherent dignity, supports active community participation, and builds their capacity for independence and self-reliance
b. Children with disabilities have the right to receive additional assistance to effectively access educational, recreational, and training opportunities which will build their capacity to engage in social and community participation to the fullest extent possible
Of key importance is the recognition that:
In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
(United Nations, 1989, Art.3).
Page 2 of 18
1.3 Disability Discrimination Act 1992
One of the key objects of Australia’s Federal Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Compilation No. 39, 2024) is “to eliminate, as far as possible, discrimination against persons on the ground of disability”, and specifically with regards to “the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs” (s.3(a)(iv), p.1).
The Act’s definition of “Commonwealth law” explicitly includes “an Act, or a regulation, rule, by-law or determination made under an Act” (p.4), and Commonwealth programs are those “conducted by or on behalf of the Commonwealth Government” (p.4).
In addition, the Act’s definition of disability includes, “a disorder or malfunction that results in the person learning differently from a person without the disorder or malfunction” and “a disorder, illness or disease that affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgment or that results in disturbed behaviour” (p.5). This explicitly encompasses disabilities which currently exist and have existed in the past, as well as those imputed to an individual (p.5).
Section 29 of the Act further elaborates that:
It is unlawful for a person who performs any function or exercises any power under a Commonwealth law or for the purposes of a Commonwealth program or has any other responsibility for the administration of a Commonwealth law or the conduct of a
Commonwealth program, to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s disability in the performance of that function, the exercise of that power or the fulfilment of that responsibility.
Notably, while exemptions apply which allow acts that afford benefits to individuals based on their disability in order to meet their specific needs (s.45), no exemption is listed which allows a specific sub-group of individuals with disability to be treated less favourably based solely on diagnosis.
1.4 National Autism Strategy 2025-2031
The Australian Government has created and published a National Autism Strategy 2025-2031, detailing its “landmark commitment” to “breaking down barriers and enabling the full participation of Autistic people living in Australia” (Department of Social Services [DSS], 2024, p.4). In particular, the National Autism Strategy:
a. recognises the barriers faced by autistic individuals in comparison to their neurotypical peers
b. acknowledges “Autistic people experience some of the poorest outcomes of any cohort across a range of life domains” (p.4)
Page 3 of 18
c. prioritises social and economic inclusion, as well as “diagnosis, services and supports”, in order to promote inclusion, “equitable access to opportunities” and supports which recognise autistic individuals’ “needs, strengths and aspirations” (p.5).
d. acknowledges the need for action, accountability and “consequences for failures to uphold the Strategy” (p.7)
e. intentionally avoids using terms such as “‘high functioning’, ‘low functioning’, ‘profound’, ‘severe’ and ‘mild’ autism” and explicitly recognises that functioning labels of this nature “can misrepresent the difficulties some Autistic people may experience and the capabilities of others” (p.8)
f. recognises the life-long nature of autism which leads to fluctuating capacity and dynamic support needs, and that the “individual diversity, capacity, experiences and aspirations” (p.9) unique to each autistic individual necessitates the provision of holistic, individualised supports
g. acknowledges the additional neurodivergences, disabilities and health conditions which commonly co-occur with autism, and the complexity of their impact on individuals
h. acknowledges that societal attitudes can result in autistic camouflaging, or adaptive morphing, which then impacts the mental health and wellbeing of autistic individuals
i. recognises additional barriers created by intersectional factors, including ethnicity, gender, age and location
j. identifies priority cohorts, including the ones which specifically relate to the Terms of Reference for this inquiry:
i. First Nations people ii. culturally and linguistically diverse people
iii. children and young people, especially girls (who are historically under diagnosed, misdiagnosed or dismissed due to misconceptions and biases, leading to inadequate supports being provided)
k. does not delineate between support needs when acknowledging significant difficulties experienced by autistic individuals, with statistics reflecting the following:
i. “Autistic people are almost 6 times more likely to be unemployed than people without a disability” (p.16)
ii. “68.9% of Autistic 5-20 year olds attending school or an education institution experienced difficulty at their place of learning” (p.16)
Page 4 of 18
iii. “Only 5.2% of Autistic people had a bachelor degree or higher, compared with 19.7% of people with a disability and 35.3% of people without a disability” (p.16)
iv. “Autistic adults experience more barriers to healthcare than non-Autistic people” and are “2.5 times more likely to experience depression than the general population” (p.17)
v. When compared to the general population, autistic adults experience higher levels of discrimination, homelessness, physical and sexual violence, and social exclusion, as well as being “overrepresented in the criminal justice system” with the likelihood of experiencing “significant barriers in accessing justice services” (p.17)
vi. Autistic individuals experience poorer outcomes at school than the general population, due to bullying and discrimination, “barriers to accessing the curriculum”, and the failure of schools “to make adjustments and provide appropriate supports for Autistic students” (p.29).
l. explicitly acknowledges that accessing “neurodiversity-affirming early developmental monitoring, screening, and timely and comprehensive autism identification assessment and diagnosis, means an individual will be better able to access supports and services that meet their individual needs, improving long-term outcomes” (p.31)
m. is clear that early diagnosis: i. is best practice ii. improves “education, social and economic outcomes” (p.32)
iii. promotes “better mental health in adulthood” while also reducing “stigma and shame” (p.32)
iv. “is likely to promote more positive outcomes at school age due to increased opportunity for early support” (p.32)
v. is less likely for girls and those with more “internalised” presentation, as well as those living outside of metropolitan areas, those who have co-occurring neurodivergence and disability, First Nations people, and those who are culturally and linguistically diverse, meaning that these cohorts are less likely to have access to necessary supports (p.32)
n. acknowledges existing service gaps and “workforce shortages” (p.32) Page 5 of 18
The National Autism Strategy aligns with Australia’s human rights obligations and commits to promoting approaches which are strengths-based, neurodiversity-affirming, co-designed, “trauma-informed, accountable and evidence-based, underpinned by the three pillars of ‘evidence-based practice’: research, clinical expertise, and client preferences/lived experience involvement” (p.22). Furthermore, it commits to promoting “acceptance of all Autistic people to achieve genuine inclusion and equity, so that all Autistic people are respected and valued equally within the community” (p.22), as well as reducing “all forms of… discrimination… towards Autistic people” (p.22).
Notably, the Strategy commits to:
a. “Improve Australian Government service delivery, communication, and information to meet the needs of all Autistic people” (p.27), resulting in “Improved access to responsive supports, services and information” (p.27)
b. “Improve the supports and services available to Autistic people to ensure they have choice and control over their education and careers” (p.30)
c. “Explore ways to make autism diagnosis and assessment processes more affordable” (p.33)
d. “Consider early screening and developmental monitoring to promote early identification and diagnosis of autism and improved access to health and other professionals” (p.33)
e. “Improve access to quality, timely, neurodiversity-affirming and equitable supports and services for Autistic people, including for people living in rural, regional and remote areas” (p.33)
f. “Work with states and territories to improve the experience of Autistic people accessing supports through the NDIS, disability supports outside the NDIS and mainstream services” (p.33)
Page 6 of 18
2.0 CHALLENGING MISINFORMATION & UNDERSTANDING AUTISM
At this point in time, there is a distinct lack of mainstream understanding of autism. Much of the misinformation is based upon the view of autism as a deficit, rather than a neurodevelopmental difference. While it is important to acknowledge that the disability caused by autism comes from a combination of environmental and attitudinal barriers, and inherent factors, that disability does not equate to deficiency. Any decisions we make with regards to children with neurodevelopmental differences must align with legislation and international treaty obligations and be made based on an accurate understanding of neurodivergence.
a. “Autism is a lifelong neurodevelopmental difference” (DSS, 2024, p.9) with estimated heritability ranging from 37% to above 90% (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2022).
b. Research has identified a core fundamental characteristic of autistic brains is the “clinically significant difference in complex information processing” (Williams & Mazefsky, 2023, p.41). This is supported by functional magnetic resonance imaging studies which demonstrate substantial differences in brain activation, synchrony and functional connections when compared to non-autistic “age- and ability-matched peers” (Williams & Mazefsky, 2023, p.43). These differences explain the high prevalence of executive functioning difficulties for autistic individuals, given the complexity of the cognitive processes which make up executive functioning (Saulnier et al., 2022).
c. In Australia, formal diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorder are most commonly made using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association. The most current publication of this document is the Fifth Edition Text Revision (DSM-5TR).
d. Autism diagnoses are delineated by severity specifiers which indicate the level of support required by the individual, ranging from “requiring support” to “requiring very substantial support” (APA, 2022, p.59). Autism is not categorised into ‘mild’, ‘moderate’ and ‘severe’ descriptors.
e. The severity specifiers were not intended to define autistic individuals, but rather to provide a concise way to summarise the individual’s level of need at point of diagnosis, “with the recognition that severity may vary by context and fluctuate over time” (APA, 2022, p.60).
f. The DSM-5TR explicitly states that the severity specifiers “should not be used to determine eligibility for and provision of services”, further explaining that individuals who present with “better skills overall may experience different or even greater psychosocial challenges” (APA, 2022, p.60).
g. The DSM-5TR further states that “service needs can only be developed at an individual level and through discussion of personal priorities and targets” (APA, 2022, p.60).
Page 7 of 18
h. While characteristics of the core diagnostic criteria (differences in social communication and restricted/repetitive behaviours) may be less obvious in later life due to compensatory strategies, interventions which have been accessed, or supports which are in place, autistic individuals tend to experience ongoing impairments in “social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning” (APA, 2022, p.65).
i. Adaptive functioning in autistic individuals is substantially lower than that of their peers in matched control studies, regardless of symptom severity, and early diagnosed children show stronger adaptive skills than their later diagnosed peers (Saulnier et al, 2022). In addition, cognitive ability is not predictive of adaptive functioning in autistic individuals (Williams & Mazefsky, 2023), although executive functioning difficulties have been shown to correlate with adaptive functioning challenges (Saulnier et al., 2022). Adaptive functioning limitations, left unaddressed, decrease the potential independence and contribution of autistic individuals into adulthood (Saulnier et al, 2022).
j. Lower adaptive behaviour in autistic individuals is strongly correlated with co-occurring mental health difficulties, such as anxiety and depression, as well as other neurodevelopmental conditions, including ADHD (Saulnier et al., 2022).
k. Functioning labels, such as high- or low-functioning or mild to severe, are not diagnostic in nature or evidence-based due to their vague and reductionistic nature which provides little information about the specific supports needed, leading to division and inaccurate judgements being made (Keating et al., 2023). These labels are based upon the perceptions of non-autistic outsiders, rather than the lived experience of autistic individuals themselves, and not only ignore the complexity of fluctuating capacity and the nuance associated with uneven profiles of strength and difficulty, but also contribute to so-called “high-functioning” individuals being denied supports, while so-called “low-functioning” individuals are denied autonomy and agency (Keating et al., 2023).
Page 8 of 18
3.0 EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE
Supports for autistic individuals, especially children, must be evidence-informed, based upon a fusion of the highest quality research available, clinical evidence, and the lived experience of autistic children and their families (Trembath et al., 2022).
a. A national guideline was created to reflect this, establishing “key elements of practice that must be followed for a practitioner to deliver evidence-based supports” (Trembath et al., 2022, p.45), including that supports need to be:
i. “child and family-centred” and “individualised for each child and family” (Trembath et al., 2022, p.51)
ii. built “on each child’s and family’s strengths and interests” (Trembath et al., 2022, p.52)
iii. “holistic in terms of the goals that are targeted and the way they are achieved, considering all aspects of the child, family, and their community” (Trembath et al., 2022, p.52)
iv. reflective of “the best available research evidence, integrated with evidence from clinical practice and the lived experience of autistic people and their families, and the preferences and unique context of each child and family” (Trembath et al., 2022, p.53)
v. respectful of the child’s “right to say no to supports and their assent” (Trembath et al., 2022, p.53)
vi. “neurodiversity-affirming, embracing each child’s unique understanding of other people and the world around them, without seeking to ‘cure’ autism” (Trembath et al., 2022, p.54)
vii. accessible as needed, when needed and as desired, “regardless of who [the child and family] are, where they live, or how much money they have” (Trembath et al., 2022, p.54)
b. Evidence-based practice requires practitioners to work in partnership with families and autistic children to:
i. support acquisition and maintenance of skills that are “personally meaningful”, “developmentally and culturally relevant”, and increase “learning, participation, and wellbeing” (Trembath et al., 2022, p.56)
ii. empower advocacy, wellbeing and the creation of “safe and accessible environments” (Trembath et al., 2022, pp.57-58)
Page 9 of 18
iii. provide “neurodiversity-affirming” (Trembath et al., 2022, p.59) and “trauma informed” (Trembath et al., 2022, p.82) practice
iv. ensure that goals are child- and family-led, strengths-based, relevant and achievable (Trembath et al., 2022)
v. “promote the wellbeing of the child and family” (Trembath et al., 2022, p.72) vi. address environmental and attitudinal barriers impacting the individual’s “learning, participation and wellbeing” (Trembath et al., 2022, p.73)
vii. “achieve personally meaningful and valued outcomes” (Trembath et al., 2022, p.77)
viii. ensure that supports are delivered in the settings that are “likely lead to the most meaningful and sustained increase in the child’s learning, participation, and wellbeing” (Trembath et al., 2022, p.92)
ix. determine the optimal amount and duration of supports to “likely lead to the most meaningful and sustained increase in the child’s learning, participation, and wellbeing” (Trembath et al., 2022, p.95)
x. minimise risk of adverse effects (Trembath et al., 2022) xi. ensure compliance with “relevant international conventions, national and state/territory legislative requirements, and other associated principles, frameworks, and regulations” (Trembath et al., 2022, p.111)
Page 10 of 18
4.0 CURRENT PROGRAMS & INITIATIVES
At this point in time, a range of programs and initiatives are in place to identify and support autistic children and children with developmental delays, with varying degrees of effectiveness.
a. Currently available services are inadequate to meet demand. i. Publicly available services have excessive waitlists, provide limited services, and have strict inclusion criteria. My family has experienced:
a) Provision of allied health interventions through the Child Development Service, capped at a maximum of six sessions per discipline, and with extensive waitlists exceeding two years from time of referral.
b) Autism assessment waitlists through the Child Development Service exceeding three years before initial paediatrician assessment, then being informed the wait for multidisciplinary team assessment from that point would be at least a further two years.
c) The burden of having to provide enough evidence explicitly addressing the autism diagnostic criteria in order to even be accepted for referral onto the autism assessment list.
d) Applying to Wanslea, the NDIS Early Childhood Partner in Western Australia, for early intervention supports pre-diagnosis, and being informed that my child’s needs didn’t warrant intervention. The same child now has multiple neurodivergent diagnoses.
e) Missing early diagnosis and early intervention supports due to service gaps, resulting in substantially reduced function by the time diagnosis was confirmed and supports were allocated.
ii. Private and NDIS-funded services have excessive waitlists and service gaps. My family has experienced:
a) Waitlists exceeding a year to access NDIS-funded therapies, despite applying to multiple providers.
b) Long waitlists for expensive private assessments, with the majority of developmental paediatricians in Perth having their books closed on near to a permanent basis.
c) Engagement with an allied health service provider ending after three years of therapy provision due to the therapist going on extended leave and the provider being unsuccessful in recruiting a replacement.
Page 11 of 18
iii. Services in rural, regional and remote areas are even more limited.
a) My family’s experiences have occurred within a state capital city. I have informally consulted with peers who have faced similar experiences but to a greater extreme due to living outside of the metropolitan area.
b. The education system is not designed or equipped to identify or support autistic children and children with developmental delays.
i. When I began teaching, my four-year education degree had included two subjects which addressed disability and diverse needs. I was completely unequipped to identify or support children with developmental delays or neurodevelopmental differences. As a parent, I have also approached teachers about my child. While some have been knowledgeable and recognised the traits I had identified, others dismissed my concerns due to limited understanding, particularly of camouflaging and more internalised autistic presentation.
ii. The education system is under-resourced due to factors such as:
a) The overstuffed curriculum b) Class sizes c) Teacher workload d) Inadequate funding from individual disability allocations e) Situations where schools are forced to choose between targeted intervention programs and necessary individual supports to students due to limited resources
iii. The criteria required for gaining extra support for individual students is strict and exclusive:
a) Children with ADHD are frequently denied funding allocations b) Despite being waitlisted for assessment for multiple years, I was told my child’s school was not eligible to access extra funding until formal diagnosis was received. While the staff worked to support him on the basis of imputed diagnosis, I have spoken to other people whose children have been denied support.
c) I taught students who reached middle primary school with extreme learning difficulties and were either denied individual support due to lacking formal diagnosis or received delayed diagnoses and support due to the difficulties navigating waitlists and assessment requirements.
Page 12 of 18
iv. While many schools are very supportive for autistic children and children with developmental delays, others are not. In my consultation with others, I heard about:
a) Schools that lacked understanding of autism beyond the stereotypical presentation, meaning that students who had more internalised presentations, those with intersectional factors which impacted the presentation of their traits, those who camouflaged and those with PDA (‘pathological demand avoidance’, or ‘pervasive drive for autonomy’) profiles were not identified, understood or supported.
b) Schools that denied outside assistance from therapy providers, despite applying punitive consequences to autistic and neurodivergent students over behaviours directly linked to their disability-specific needs.
c) Schools which did not comply with their obligations under the Disability Standards for Education 2005 and excluded students on the basis of their disability.
c. Currently available services are not equipped to address the complexity of intersectional factors.
i. In my experience, and through informal consultation with others, it has become clear that there are cohorts for whom current services lack the resources, expertise and understanding to identify and support autistic children and children with developmental delays. These cohorts include:
a) Children with multiple disabilities and co-occurring conditions b) Children outside the education system, such as those who are forced to home-educate their children due to the nature of their needs or as a result of discrimination, trauma and bullying experienced within the education system
c) Families who have complex disability and medical needs impacting multiple individuals
d) Children in Australia on international visas who, despite formal diagnoses, are unable to access supports due to the potential impact on their family’s permanent residency applications
e) Low income families who cannot afford private assessments or gap fees, resulting in years on public waitlists, delayed diagnoses and delayed access to support, which leads to poorer outcomes and higher future support needs as a result of missing early intervention supports
Page 13 of 18
5.0 CONSIDERING PAST MISTAKES
Bearing in mind Australia’s obligations and commitments, the available knowledge based on current research about autism, the standards of evidence-based practice, and the lived experiences shared about existing programs and initiatives, we must also ensure that we do not repeat mistakes from the past, including:
a. Prioritising ‘typical’ development over recognition of individual differences b. Creating hierarchies which place value neurotypicality while devaluing neurodivergence c. Encouraging autistic individuals to engage in adaptive morphing or camouflaging behaviours in order to appear the same as neurotypical peers
d. Approaching intervention from the deficit-basis of the medical model of disability, with the assumption that autistic differences are deficiencies
e. Presuming incompetence and removing personal autonomy f. Ignoring the documented harms experienced by autistic and neurodivergent individuals as a result of traditional behaviourally-based intervention approaches
Page 14 of 18
6.0 IMPLICATIONS
- Based upon Australia’s Federal legislation and obligations as a signatory to international human rights treaties, it is important to consider:
a. Whether the Thriving Kids initiative will allow children with disabilities full realisation of their fundamental rights on an equal basis with their peers
b. Whether the motivation behind the Thriving Kids initiative is cost-cutting measures or the best interests of children
c. Whether it is lawful to exclude children from existing support programs, such as the NDIS, based upon specific diagnoses, such as autism
- In his speech at the National Press Club in Canberra on 20th August 2025, Minister Butler stated that he wanted to return the NDIS to its “original purpose”, the “provision of support ‘to people with significant and permanent care and support needs’” (Butler, 2025).
a. Given that autism is lifelong and permanent, causes substantial ongoing impairment in adaptive functioning regardless of diagnostic severity level, and leaves individuals “requiring support”, “requiring substantial support” or “requiring very substantial support”, the government must examine its motives in targeting autistic children for removal from the NDIS, and for proposing the Thriving Kids initiative.
- Minister Butler stated that there needs to be “a more rigorous evidence base for the supports being funded by taxpayers” (Butler, 2025). The evidence is abundantly clear that early intervention supports result in improved outcomes, and should be:
a. individualised, b. strengths-based, c. holistic, d. neurodiversity-affirming e. accessible f. personally meaningful g. culturally responsive h. empowering i. trauma-informed j. designed to promote wellbeing Page 15 of 18
k. delivered in the most beneficial settings for individuals l. delivered at the optimal duration and frequency based on the individual’s needs 4. Given the rigorous evidence underpinning these principles, the government must consider the flow-on effects across the lifespan of individuals likely to result if adequate individualised supports are no longer provided. Many of the autistic individuals now accessing support through the NDIS were late diagnosed, missing the benefits of early intervention supports, resulting in higher support needs now. Given the absence of longitudinal data from the implementation of the NDIS to conclusively demonstrate that the early childhood interventions being funded lack a rigorous evidence base or, in fact, constitute children “being over-serviced” (Butler, 2025), there is a very real concern that the proposed removal of choice and control and individualised supports fails to meet the standards of evidence-based practice.
-
It is concerning that the National Autism Strategy acknowledges the harm and potential misrepresentation resulting from functioning labels, and yet a government minister has publicly categorised autistic children using the modifiers “mild and moderate” (Butler, 2025). Of greater concern is the apparent intention to override the very intentions of the primary document used to formally diagnose autism in Australia by allocating services based on severity descriptors rather than individual need.
-
The Australian Government’s own National Autism Strategy acknowledges the overwhelmingly poorer outcomes experienced by autistic individuals, regardless of their support needs. The government must consider how the proposal to reduce supports for autistic children will meet its commitment to improve these outcomes.
-
The Strategy also documents the reality of poorer school outcomes for autistic children. The government must then consider the potential implications of using schools “to play a more coordinated role” (Butler, 2025) in delivering the supports provided through the Thriving Kids initiative, particularly as Minister Butler has already expressed that he is unaware of evidence to support “children being taken away from learning” (Butler, 2025) for the therapies currently being provided.
-
The Strategy acknowledges the importance of timely diagnosis in order to allow autistic children to access individualised supports and services, which appears contradictory to claims made about parents who are “desperate – absolutely desperate – to get their children diagnosed” (Butler, 2025) in order to receive supports, especially as those claims are followed by the assertion that “Individualised plans and budgets make sense for people with lifelong disability” but not for “families with a young child who’s missing some milestones” (Butler, 2025). The contradictory nature of these comments raises questions about whether the government truly values the importance of timely diagnosis or believes its own Strategy which documents the lifelong and permanent nature of autism.
Page 16 of 18
-
Given the existing service gaps and workforce shortages acknowledged by the government’s own Strategy, even at the market price permitted by the NDIS Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits, the government must consider how these gaps will be filled without further overloading existing services.
-
The government has committed to reducing all forms of discrimination against autistic individuals, a commitment which appears not to align with the intention to divert autistic children from the NDIS based upon diagnosis.
-
The National Autism Strategy also documents the government’s commitments to improve autistic people’s experiences accessing the NDIS and to improve access to supports and services, commitments which again appear misaligned with intentions to exclude autistic individuals from NDIS supports.
-
Minister Butler stated that “On average – just average – a young NDIS participant with moderate needs is receiving more than 70 therapy sessions per year” (Butler, 2025), conflating this with over-servicing, despite this equating to less than two therapy sessions per week on average. Given the extensive nature of executive and adaptive functioning difficulties documented by autistic individuals, it is concerning that Minister Butler seems to feel this investment into the future and wellbeing of autistic individuals is excessive.
7.0 CONCLUSION
Ultimately, the Government must honour its commitments to the Autistic community by prioritising wellbeing and improved outcomes over cost-cutting. The NDIS was spruiked to the Australian public as being designed to ensure funding invested into the Scheme would produce a multiplier effect into the economy. Why, then, is the government so determined to slash this?
It is critical to acknowledge that cutting funding does not improve outcomes, nor does handballing financial responsibility to an alternate government entity reduce overall spending. A focus on reducing vital supports to autistic children only serves to communicate that improving outcomes for autistic individuals is not a priority the government views as worthy of investing into.
Page 17 of 18
8.0 REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th Ed Text Revision.). Author.
Butler, M. (2025, August 20). Speech from Minister Butler, National Press Club [Transcript]. https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-mark-butler-mp/media/speech-from minister-butler-national-press-club-20-august-2025
Department of Social Services. (2024). National Autism Strategy 2025 - 2031. Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.dss.gov.au/system/files/documents/2025-01/dss nasstrategyfinalv3.pdf
Commonwealth of Australia (1992). Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) no.39 https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A04426/latest/text
Keating, C. T., Hickman, L., Leung, J., Monk, R., Montgomery, A., Heath, H., & Sowden, S. (2023). Autism-related language preferences of English-speaking individuals across the globe: A mixed methods investigation. Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research, 16(2), 406–428. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2864
Saulnier, C.A., Klaiman, C. & McQueen, E. (2022). Adaptive behavior profiles in autism spectrum disorder. Current Psychiatry Reports, 24(12), 749–756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920 022-01381-w
Trembath, D., Varcin, K., Waddington, H., Sulek, R., Pillar, S., Allen, G., Annear, K., Eapen, V., Feary, J., Goodall, E., Pilbeam, T., Rose, F., Sadka, N., Silove, N., Whitehouse, A. (2022). National guideline for supporting the learning, participation, and wellbeing of autistic children and their families in Australia. Autism CRC.
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Treaty Series, 2515, 3. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights persons-disabilities
United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. Treaty Series, 1577, 3. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
Williams, D. L., & Mazefsky, C. A. (2023). Brain-behaviour connections in autism. In P. Wolfberg & K. Dunn Buron (Eds.). Learners on the autism spectrum: Preparing educators and related practitioners (3rd Ed.). Routledge.
Page 18 of 18