NDIA Accountability Project

This project is in DRAFT

Critique of NDIS amendment bill's impact on therapeutic practices and participant safety (Provider advocacy)

‹ PrevPage 1 of 5 · Source p. 1Next ›

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 152

TherapysHmErApy

Contact Information:

Date Sent: May 20/2026

RE: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission

Dear Committee Members, My name is Thalia Koulas, and I am writing as the Director of Therapy Shmerapy representing both our staff community that we support. We are a national peer mental health service neurodivergent LGBTQIASB+ people approximately half participants primarily under Autism Spectrum Disorder or psychosocial disabilities We also have staff who participate Our ethos built empowering maximum independence inclusion functional agency.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 152

Compressed Timeline and Consultation Scope

The current Terms of Reference operate within a highly compressed, politically driven timeframe that actively compromises meaningful democratic oversight. A Bill exceeding 100 pages, which alters the core structural architecture of the NDIS cannot be properly evaluated by the sector in a matter of weeks. For complex therapeutic practices like Therapy Shmerapy\nand the people we serve,digestingthe legalitiesof this text requires significant resources.By severely limiting \nthe public hearing window and submission period,the ToR effectively silences the very individuals the scheme was built toso: participants with profound communication and cognitive impairments.This process fundamentally contradictsthegovernment’spublic commitment to th e“co-design”o fNDIS rules.

Recommendation 1

THAT THE COMMITTEE EXTENDTHE REPORTING TIMELINE BY A MINIMUM OF90 DAYS TO FACILITATEROBUST, ACCESSIBLE,A ND INCLUSIVE CO-DESIGN CONSULTATIONS WITH PARTICIPANTS ,PEAK BODIES AND ALLIED HEALTH CLINICIANS .

Critique Of Schedule I &4 : Standardised Assessments vs. Clinical Reality TheTo R focuses heavily on reviewingtheshift away from diagnosis lists toward “Evidence-BasedStandardisedAssessments“to evaluate functional capacity.As practitioners,we warn thatstandardised assessment toolswhen weaponis ed as acost-cutting gatekeeper rather than adiagnostic aid,failtocapture thenuanced realities o fintersectional,pyschosocial or fluctuatingdisabilities.Furthermore,

The requirement for a “Direct Causal Connection between afunded support anda participant’s primary eligible impairment demonstratesa profund misunderstanding of contemporary disabilityanda lli d health care.For example:

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2026

Submission 152

  • A participant with a primary diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder may experience severe secondary physical deconditioning due to profound sensory processing barriers.
  • Under rigid interpretation of “direct causal connection,” vital physiotherapy or occupational therapy addressing these impacts could be arbitrarily denied because it doesn’t strictly align with an administrative checklist for diagnoses.

By restricting inquiry scope based solely upon direct causality definitions, ToR risks forcing participants into regressive medical categorization models that strip away holistic client-centred multi-disciplinary care supports.

Recommendation 2:

The Terms Of Reference explicitly mandate Committee evaluation on Clinical Validity For Proposed Standardised Assessment Frameworks ensuring independent Allied Health Practitioner reports retain legal weight over automated tools.

Critique Schedule: Automated Decision-Making And Arbitrary Funding Caps The inclusion of automated processes and Ministerial authority imposing funding caps on ‘social/civic/community’ participation budgets represents systemic threats towards participant autonomy & efficacy in therapeutic settings. Therapy does not occur independently; individuals using Augmentative Alternative Communication (AAC) devices require community-participation funds within real-world practice environments. Capping such budget allocations through blunt ministerial determinations directly undermines clinical outcomes related mental health support speech pathology – occupational therapy.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 152

Furthermore, expanding automated decision-making without explicit, legally binding human-in-the-loop safeguards will inevitably lead to a cascade of administrative errors, disproportionately harming vulnerable participants who lack the capacity or support networks to navigate complex appeal processes.

Recommendation 3

THAT THE COMMITTEE AMEND THE SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY TO COMPREHENSIVELY MAP THE FINANCIAL AND SYSTEMIC FLOW-ON EFFECTS THAT ARBITRARY CAPS ON COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION WILL HAVE ON ACUTE STATE HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE, CRISIS MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, AND LONG-TERM PARTICIPANT INSTITUTIONALISATION.

Critique of Schedule 2: Anti-Fraud Mechanisms vs. Provider Suffocation Therapy Shmerapy explicitly condemns fraud, price-gouging, and unethical behaviour. We welcome the integration of the Regulatory Powers Act to root out providers who exploit the system. However,

toR must balance regulatory enforcement with provider sustainability Restricting and heavily regulating plan managers under stringent deeds of arrangement paired aggressive over-regulation providers risks driving ethical smaller-to-mid sized practices out of the NDIS ecosystem entirely The administrative burden compliance must not outpace actual delivery therapeutic hours If costs force specialised therapy providers close Participants lose choice control continuity care leaving them vulnerable large corporatised service aggregates that prioritise profit margins clinical outcomes.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026

Submission 152

Recommendation 4

**That The TOR require an Independent Regulatory Impact Statement explicitly assessing whether the proposed compliance burdens will reduce provider diversity and thin the market in rural, regional, AND SPECIALISED THERAPEUTIC SECTORS.

The Terms of Reference for the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for future generations) bill 2026 are currently structured through A fiscal lens that views participants can their therapy providers as liabilities to be managed rather than human rights To Be realised. If the ndis is truly to be secured For “future generations,” it must remain scheme That respects clinical expertise values holistic individualised care And treats disability sector As partners Rather Than adversaries We urge Committee widen its lens slow Its pace Prioritise lived experience Participants Clinical insights Providers who support them Thank you opportunity provide submission Are available contacted further questions or consultation Sincerely Thalia Koulas they/she BPsySc MCoun M.A.CA Level3 Director Founder Counsellor – Therapy Shmerapy