National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2760
Friday 29th of May 2026
Attention: Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
Submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry into Proposed NDIS Changes by Belinda Adams OAM
This submission expresses my deep concern regarding the proposed 2026 NDIS Bill and its potential to dismantle the safeguards currently protecting some of Australia’s most vulnerable citizens, particularly those living with Traumatic and Acquired Brain Injury (TBI/ABI). The draft legislation introduces a requirement for a “standardised, evidence-based assessment of functional capacity” to determine eligibility, commencing 1 January 2028. While the intent to create consistency is noted, this approach is fundamentally flawed for conditions characterised by fluctuation, invisibility, and a lack of self-insight.
The Bill’s mandate for a “standardised” assessment creates a systemic risk that functional capacity will be measured in a vacuum - specifically, without assistance, assistive technology, or environmental modifications. While the stated goal is to identify baseline impairments, this methodology is critically deficient unless the assessor possesses specific, advanced training in the nuanced presentation of brain injury. Without such expertise, a standardised protocol is unlikely to correctly interpret raw data or distinguish between a true deficit and a compensatory strategy that is merely absent in the testing environment. This limitation is compounded by the nature of TBI itself, which often deprives individuals of the insight required to recognise their own deficits (anosognosia). Therefore, excluding carers from the assessment process removes the essential external perspective needed to complete the clinical picture. For brain injury survivors, whose abilities vary drastically depending on fatigue, sensory environments, and the presence of supportive carers, a rigid “standardised” assessment creates a distorted reality. It reduces a complex, dynamic neurological condition to a static snapshot, threatening to deny essential supports to individuals who have relied on them for stability.
The consequences of denying support to TBI and ABI survivors are not merely administrative; they are life-threatening trajectories toward accelerated decline. The brain requires rehabilitation, structure, and cognitive scaffolding to maintain function. When these are removed, neurological damage can compound rather than stabilise. Evidence suggests that without sustained support and cognitive rehabilitation, TBI survivors are at a significantly elevated risk of developing dementia and other neurodegenerative conditions later in life. The brain injury acts as a catalyst, lowering the threshold for cognitive decline, and the absence of early, continuous intervention accelerates this process. By failing to recognise the fluctuating nature of brain injury and cutting off support during periods where a person might appear “stable” in a controlled assessment setting, the proposed framework guarantees that these individuals will eventually require much higher rates of care. The cost to the healthcare system and the human toll on families will be exponentially greater than the investment required to maintain stable, preventative support now.
Furthermore, the proposed changes place individuals with decision-making capacity impairments at an unacceptably high risk of being overlooked. The current framework already struggles to identify invisible deficits such as executive dysfunction, memory loss, and neuro-fatigue. By narrowing review rights and expanding ministerial powers to determine eligibility through opaque rules, the Bill removes the very mechanisms that allow ordinary people to challenge unlawful or unreasonable government decisions. For a person whose capacity fluctuates from day to day, a rigid, point-in-time assessment is not just inadequate; it is dangerous. The transfer of substantive decision-making from Parliament to the executive creates a legal shell where rights become unstable, posing a direct threat to the personal safety and family integrity of those with impaired decision-making capacity.
The burden of these proposed changes extends far beyond the individual, falling heavily and disproportionately on unpaid carers who are already operating at the breaking point. When the system withdraws formal support, the gap is filled by the exhaustion of family members who must provide complex neurological care without training, respite, or recognition. This forces many carers to reduce working hours or leave the workforce entirely, sacrificing their economic security. Moreover, the relentless psychological toll of navigating a labyrinth of bureaucratic red tape fighting for basic approvals
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
Submission 2760
and proving the fluctuating nature of a loved one’s condition creates a chronic state of high stress that erodes the carer’s own health. The proposed framework effectively outsources federal responsibility to families, ignoring that unpaid care in Australia falls disproportionately on women and is a critical, yet unsupported, pillar of the national economy.
While the global community moves toward integrated, person-centred, and scientifically informed approaches to brain health and dementia prevention, the trajectory of the proposed NDIS legislation suggests a retreat toward rigid, exclusionary models that ignore biological realities.
I urge the Committee to amend the definition of functional capacity to reflect the reality of fluctuating conditions and the necessity of assessing with support where appropriate; explicitly recognise brain injury as a distinct neurological condition requiring specialised assessment pathways that mandate the inclusion of carer testimony; and maintain robust safeguards to protect those with decision-making impairments from the risks of executive overreach and opaque rule-making. To do otherwise is to accept a future where a whole section of the most vulnerable Australians is left to face cognitive decline and dementia without the support they need to survive, undermining the very foundations of our social contract and Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Submission by Belinda Adams OAM
Carer and Brain Injury Advocate
Director | Citrine Sun EntertainmentP: E: W: www.citrinesunentertainment.com
Atlantic Fellow for Equity in Brain Health 2026/27 cohort | Global Brain Health Institute UCSFAmbassador | The Hopkins Centre: Research, Rehabilitation & Resilience Program
Adjunct Fellow | Griffith University