Submission from Tim Noonan

To the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee

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

I make this submission as a blind person, as the partner of a person who provides substantial informal support to me, and as a family member involved in trying to secure safe and dignified support for my brother , who has significant disability and support needs.

I support responsible administration of the NDIS. I am not opposed to genuine reform, safeguards against fraud, or improvements that make the scheme easier, fairer and safer for participants. My concern is that the Bill and the related reform program place the burden of system control too heavily on disabled people and their families, including people who are already isolated, unable to self-advocate, or dependent on limited informal support.

My immediate concern is the proposed reduction to social, civic and community participation supports. The Government’s own public material says that from 1 October 2026, budget allocations for social, civic and community participation supports will be reduced by 50 per cent as plans are reassessed or renewed.

This must not be treated as a minor or optional category of support.

For many disabled people, social and community participation support is the difference between having a life in the community and being largely confined to home. It affects relationships, confidence, safety, employment, volunteering, ordinary social contact, mental health, and the ability to be seen and treated as part of the community.

As a blind person, I know how much informal and formal support can shape a person’s real opportunity to participate. My partner assists me in many practical ways that make daily life and community participation more possible. That support is real work. It should not be invisible simply because it happens inside a relationship.

The assumption that family or partners can simply absorb reductions in funded support is not fair or realistic. It shifts labour and stress onto unpaid carers. It also creates unequal outcomes, because not every disabled person has the same informal support.

In my own family, my brother and his wife are both blind and live in a rural area. Unlike me, they do not have family members able to provide the kind of assistance provides me. Lack of support in those circumstances limits their opportunities for social interaction and community engagement and can make people largely housebound. A cut to social and community participation support in a situation like theirs is not just a reduction in outings. It is a direct reduction in equality, independence and community life.

• My brother ’s situation shows another risk. has significant support needs and has difficulty managing safely and appropriately in the community without support. He needs help to regulate his emotions, move away from crowded, busy or noisy environments before distress escalates, and receive one-to-one guidance. He also needs support so he can present with dignity and be treated respectfully in public.

    cannot reliably advocate for himself. If supports are cut, he is unlikely to be
  

able to explain what has gone wrong, complain effectively, protect his own interests, or ask for the right help at the right time. As he moves from family living toward supported living, one-to-one support and community participation support become more important, ot less. Without them, he is at risk of distress, unsafe public situations, isolation, and being treated as a problem rather than as a person needing appropriate support.

I am also deeply concerned about the public narrative that has accompanied these reforms. Disabled people and NDIS participants are increasingly being portrayed as the case of the scheme’s financial problems, or as people taking advantage of the system. Fraud and provider exploitation should be addressed, but participants should not be smeared as cheats, thieves or burdens.

This matters. Public regard affects whether disabled people are treated with dignity, whether the community supports the scheme, and whether participants feel safe asking for what they need. The harm is not only financial. It is also social and reputational. Disabled people should not have to defend their legitimacy as human beings because the scheme needs better administration.

The principle of “nothing about us without us” is also important. A short submission period and reforms driven mainly through financial and administrative framing do not give disabled people, especially people with complex communication needs or limited support, a fair opportunity to be heard. Reform should be shaped with disabled people, families and carers, not imposed upon them.

I ask the Committee to recommend that the Bill not proceed in its current form.

At a minimum, I ask the Committee to recommend:

1. That the proposed 50 per cent reduction to social, civic and community participation supports be reconsidered, particularly for participants whose disability makes community access unsafe, impossible or severely limited without support.

2. That the Bill include safeguards against discriminatory practical impacts on people with vision impairment, intellectual disability, psychosocial disability, Down syndrome, rural isolation, limited informal support, or limited capacity to self-advocate.

3. That the Government undertake genuine consultation with disabled people, families and carers before implementing changes that affect daily life, independence, dignity, safety and community participation.

Recommendations

• That reform focus on provider misconduct, fraud, poor administration and system design, rather than shifting the burden onto participants and unpaid carers.

• That the NDIS continue to uphold the principles of dignity, self-determination, community participation and “nothing about us without us”.

• That the Committee recognise the flow-on effect of support reductions on unpaid cares, partners and families, including disabled caress and ageing cares.

The NDIS can and should be improved. But reform should strengthen the ability of disabled people to live safely and with dignity in the community. It should not make disabled people more isolated, more dependent, or more vulnerable to crisis.