Senate Submission · June 2026

The Hidden Cost: Disabled Children, Adverse Childhood Experiences, and the Prevention Economics Case Against This Bill

A submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Inquiry into the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 — arguing that the Bill's cost modelling is fiscally incomplete and will predictably increase harm to disabled children.

Dr Kate Renshaw · RPT-S™/APPTA · Founding Director, Play & Filial Therapy · drplay.com.au

67% of NDIS participants are aged 15 or under
160,000 Australians at risk of losing NDIS access
$46B/yr estimated cost of disability-related maltreatment (Disability Royal Commission)
62.2% of Australians have experienced child maltreatment (ACMS, 2023)

Preventing harm to disabled children is not just a welfare argument. It is a prevention economics argument.

This submission addresses five provisions of the NDIS Amendment Bill 2026 that, taken together, will predictably increase disabled children's exposure to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) — and generate downstream costs across health, child protection, and justice systems that far exceed any projected NDIS savings.

The Bill's projected $37.8 billion in savings does not account for what Centrelink, Medicare, state mental health services, child protection, and the justice system will spend absorbing what it removes.

Five federal and national evidence bases are cited: the National Mental Health Commission (2021), the Disability Royal Commission (2023), the Australian Child Maltreatment Study (2023), the Parenting Research Centre (2026), and the Productivity Commission (2020).

Five provisions addressed:

Proposed section 17B and amended section 34(1): legislating parental responsibility obligations

Proposed subsection 9B(1): functional capacity access criteria

Proposed subsections 24(5)(a) and 25(1B)(a): requirement to exhaust all appropriate treatment

Proposed section 25B: eligibility exclusions based on access to other service systems

Proposed section 34A: Ministerial determination enabling 50% reduction in social participation funding

Read the Full Submission

⬇ Download PDF

Your browser doesn't support inline PDF viewing.

⬇ Download the PDF instead

Six Recommendations

The Committee is respectfully asked to recommend:

Rec 1 Section 17B / 34(1) — Amend parental responsibility provisions to require independent assessment of parental capacity before any obligation threshold is assigned, with explicit protections for parents of disabled children under 18.
Rec 2 Section 9B(1) — Explicitly protect children whose functional needs are developmental and fluctuating; require standardised tools to demonstrate validity across disability profiles before implementation.
Rec 3 Sections 24(5)(a) / 25(1B)(a) — Any treatment a child must exhaust must be developmentally appropriate, neuro-affirming, and practically accessible — with the NDIA required to consider cost, travel, and waitlist time as barriers.
Rec 4 Section 25B — Eligibility exclusions must require demonstrated practical access (not nominal access), with specific protections for children in regional, rural, and remote areas.
Rec 5 Section 34A — Social and community participation funding for children with disability must be explicitly protected from the proposed 50% reduction.
Rec 6 Whole-of-government modelling — The Government must table projected downstream expenditure across health, mental health, child protection, housing, and justice systems before the Bill proceeds to a vote.

Interested in this work?

Dr Kate Renshaw is available to provide further evidence to the Committee, speak with media, or brief advocates and organisations working in disability, child protection, and early intervention.

Contact Dr Kate
Submitted by Dr Kate Renshaw, RPT-S™/APPTA
Organisation Play & Filial Therapy
Website drplay.com.au
Submitted to Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Date 1 June 2026