22/04/2026
RAPID REBUTTAL TO PRESS CLUB
KEY POINTS and KEY ISSUES FOR MEDIA, DROS and COMMUNITY
1. Thriving Kids / Section 25
- Children are part of the core purpose of the NDIS.
- Section 25 (Early Intervention) is a core, co-equal pathway in the law.
- Kids who meet this threshold belong in the Scheme.
- Claims that children are not central to the NDIS are incorrect.
2. Fraud narrative
- Fraud in the NDIS is not unique.
- It sits in line with other government programs at around 2%.
- Broad cuts risk hitting legitimate supports, not just fraud.
3. Legislation and co-design
- Major legislative change must be co-designed with Disabled people and their representative organisations.
- NDIS vs aged care framing
- This is a false trade-off.
- NDIS and aged care are separate systems with separate obligations.
4. Mandatory registration
- Mandatory registration will push out small providers.
- This reduces choice and threatens access, especially in SIL and regional areas.
- Registration ≠ safety
- Registration does not equal safety.
- Most serious harm has occurred within large, registered providers.
5. Access to justice / separation of powers
- References to the ART and Federal Court raise serious concerns.
- Administrative and judicial review are core legal safeguards under the Scheme.
- Any attempt to bypass, limit, or pre-empt access to these pathways risks undermining separation of powers and the rule of law.
- People must be able to challenge decisions through independent tribunals and courts. Any negative attention given to the Federal Court or ART is inappropriate and unacceptable from a Minister of Government.
> Impact line
These changes push children out, shrink the provider market, and cut core supports.
The result is less access, less choice, and higher risk of harm.
QUESTIONS FOR JOURNALISTS
If Section 25 is a core pathway in the law, why are children being pushed out of the Scheme?
On what legal basis are “foundational supports” replacing NDIS access?
Where is the Parliamentary oversight for this shift?
If fraud is only around 2%, and consistent with other government schemes, why are broad cuts being applied across the Scheme?
Why frame this as aged care versus children when both have separate legal entitlements?
What modelling shows mandatory registration will not reduce access, especially in regional areas?
If large, registered providers are where most harm occurs, how does registration improve safety?
What is the meaning of the Minister's criticism of the Federal Court and ART?
Does this approach risk undermining separation of powers by applying negative attention to independent review?
Closing question
If children are part of the original purpose of the NDIS, why are they being treated as expendable?
Sarah
Australian Neurodivergent Parents Association
'Nothing About Us Without Us'
Email: exec@thisisanpa.org
