Submission 152

20/05/2026

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

Submission

deeply concerned about the potential impact of this legislation.

Dear Committee Members,

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

Summary

While Therapy Shmerapy supports the overarching intent of ensuring the long-term financial sustainability of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and eradicating predatory provider behaviour, we hold grave concerns regarding the structural constraints, compressed timelines, and operational blind spots embedded within the Committee’s Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Securing the NDIS for Future Generations Bill 2026. This submission critiques the ToR from a professional standpoint, highlighting how an overemphasis on narrow fiscal indicators risks dismantling therapeutic progress, clinical independence, and participant safety.

Submission 152

Compressed Timeline and Consultation Scope

The current Terms of Reference operate within a highly compressed, politically driven timeframe that

generally 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 and the people we serve, digesting the

legalities of this text requires significant resources. By severely limiting the public hearing window

and submission period, the ToR effectively silences the very individuals the scheme was built to

support: participants with profound communication and cognitive impairments. This process

fundamentally contradicts the government’s public commitment to the “co-design” of NDIS rules.

RECOMMENDATION 1

THAT THE COMMITTEE EXTEND THE REPORTING TIMELINE BY A MINIMUM OF 90 DAYS TO FACILITATE ROBUST, ACCESSIBLE, AND INCLUSIVE CO-DESIGN CONSULTATIONS WITH PARTICIPANTS, PEAK BODIES, AND ALLIED HEALTH CLINICIANS.

Critique of Schedule 1 & 4: Standardised Assessments vs. Clinical Reality

The ToR focuses heavily on reviewing the shift away from diagnosis lists toward “Evidence-Based Standardised Assessments” to evaluate functional capacity. As practitioners, we warn that standardised assessment tools, when weaponised as a cost-cutting gatekeeper rather than a diagnostic aid, fail to capture the nuanced realities of intersectional, psychosocial, or fluctuating

disabilities.

Furthermore, the requirement for a “Direct Causal Connection” between a funded support and a participant’s primary eligible impairment demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of contemporary disability and allied health care. For example:

Submission 152

• A participant with a primary diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) may experience severe secondary physical deconditioning due to profound sensory processing barriers.

• Under a rigid interpretation of “direct causal connection,” vital physiotherapy or occupational therapy addressing these secondary impacts could be arbitrarily denied because it does not strictly align with an administrative checklist of primary diagnoses.

By restricting the scope of inquiry to rigid definitions of direct causality, the ToR risks forcing participants into a regressive model of medical categorisation, stripping away holistic, client-centred multi-disciplinary support.

RECOMMENDATION 2

THAT THE TERMS OF REFERENCE EXPLICITLY MANDATE THE COMMITTEE TO EVALUATE THE CLINICAL VALIDITY OF PROPOSED STANDARDISED ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORKS, ENSURING INDEPENDENT ALLIED HEALTH PRACTITIONER REPORTS RETAIN PRIMARY LEGAL WEIGHT OVER AUTOMATED OR OUTSOURCED ADMINISTRATIVE TOOLS.

3. Critique of Schedule 3: Automated Decision-Making and Arbitrary Funding Caps

The inclusion of automated administrative processes and Ministerial authority to impose funding caps on “social, civic, and community participation” budgets represents a systemic threat to participant autonomy and clinical efficacy.

Therapy does not occur in a vacuum. A person using an Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) device requires “social and community participation” funding to practice those skills in real-world settings. Capping community participation budgets through blunt Ministerial determinations directly undermines the clinical outcomes of mental health support, speech pathology, and occupational therapy.

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.

 4.  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, The ToR must balance regulatory enforcement with provider sustainability.

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

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
and 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 a scheme that respects
c临ical expertise, values holistic and individualised care, and treats the disability sector as partners
rather than adversaries. We urge the Committee to widen its lens, slow its pace, and prioritise the
lived experience of participants and the clinical insights of the providers who support them.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission. We are available to be contacted for further
questions or consultation.

Sincerely,

Thalia Koulas (they/she)
BPsySc, MCoun, M.A.C.A (Level 3)
Director, Founder, and Counsellor – Therapy Shmerapy