Submission 346
SUBMISSION TO THE INQUIRY INTO THE NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE
SCHEME AMENDMENT (SECURING THE NDIS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS)
BILL 2026
Jun 1 2026
Submission 346
Introduction
Dear Members of the Inquiry,
The National Union of Students Disabilities Department is the peak representative body for
d/Disabled undergraduate students across Australia. Our work centers around advocacy and
activism, with the Disabilities Department’s core mission being to create an environment where
d/Disabled students feel their opinions, aspirations and needs can be represented in full to those
that enact change.
With this ethos, I welcome the opportunity to submit on behalf of the NUS to this Inquiry and am
thankful to be able to voice my excitement and concern for the aspects of this tabled Bill. I write
however with deep anxiety and a responsibility to represent the d/Disabled undergraduate student
community. These amendments in their current form, understood with the limited information
publicly provided, are in my opinion a cause for concern for d/Disabled students across the
country.
My name is Mia Williams and I am the 2026 National Union of Students d/Disabilities Officer
and I write to this Inquiry today to give voice to those students who feel that the current system
Submission 346
of disability support has dampened their voices, and fear silencing entirely as a result of elements
of the Bill tabled at this inquiry.
The National Union of Students has an established and nuanced stance on the NDIS,
understanding that the system in its current capacity has revealed inequity in its application and
is in dire need of reform, however what is paramount to our advocacy work is “Nothing about us,
without us” and it is evident to me, and the many student union Disabilities Officers who I work
alongside, that the amendments as they currently stand have not been introduced to Parliament
through efforts of co-design. These amendments leave many unanswered questions for students
on the Scheme, and moreover highlight a variety of concerns around the motivations and
outcomes of these amendments as a whole. The NUS Disabilities Department has attached
recommendations to the Inquiry alongside our submission.
Key Issues
Reduced eligibility to the Scheme for current and future participants
The proposed amendments to defining functional capacity and to introduce a standardised
assessment tool that defines eligibility based on functional capacity outside of assistance from
others, assistive technology, personal modifications and environmental and personal
circumstances “as far as possible”, give rise to a genuine concern regarding how this threshold
will be able to accurately assess individuals with fluctuating lifelong conditions, individuals from
rural and remote areas, students and young adults with limited informal supports, and First
Submission 346
Nations individuals. Creating an assessment model that removes human discretion and social
factors from eligibility outcomes, raises concerns regarding whether undergraduate students with
a d/Disability will be adequately supported under the new system. Additionally, the automated
assessment systems proposed in conjunction with the removal of 160,000 current participants
from the Scheme, again give rise to questions regarding the integrity of the suggested reform and
indicate to students on the Scheme across the country an abandonment of the central principles
of support in which the NDIS was created. These automations would substantially increase the
frequency and impact of errors due to the widened scale of automated processes, as seen with
Robodebt. It is in the rushed nature of these changes, that these amendments are so concerning to
the d/Disabled student population, falling in the proverbial grey area of non-eligibility for
Thriving Kids, and facing restrictions to Social and Community supports which allow members
of my community to thrive in universities, the d/Disabled student population faces the possibility
that these new assessment structures could be voted into law before a substantial and
encompassing understanding of the function of this new legislation has been delivered to the
people who will be directly affected. The nuance of lifelong disability can only be understood by
d/Disability and health professionals, NDIS participants and the d/Disabled community, not a
survey, standardised digital test or an automated system.
Amendments to narrow interpretation of “reasonable and necessary” supports
Arguably one of the most significant and potentially damaging proposed amendments are that to
the funded supports of Scheme participants. There is great concern from the NUS Disabilities
Department arising from the proposal that funded supports must only be given to participants
Submission 346
where the need arises “directly” from the impairment identified in functional capacity
assessments. The Explanatory Memorandum makes clear this amendment is intended to reverse
previous Tribunal and Federal Court decisions that broadened the scope of funded
supports. This includes supports where there is only a “causal” or “contributory” (rather than a
direct) link between a support and the impairments that meet the accessibility Criteria. Where
multiple impairments or co-morbidities exist, only the support needs arising
directly out of impairments that meet the disability or early intervention requirements will be
funded. This will substantially impact members of the d/Disabled student community, many of
whom have indicated use so-called “casual” supports to engage in university with the dignity that
other students are innately given. There is no standardised metric for universities internal
systems of support to be delivered equitably, and given current concerns arising from different
universities regarding campus accessibility and Disability consideration, it is clear that without
these NDIS supports students will face significant barriers to accessing university like the rest of
young Australia.
Restrictions on unscheduled Plan reassessment
The proposed changes to unscheduled plan assessment indicates yet another barrier d/Disabled
students will face as a result of this Bill. The Bill would introduce tighter controls around
participant-requested reassessments under section 48. It suggests reassessments would only
occur where there is a genuine “significant” and “ongoing” change; temporary changes may not
qualify. This is a concerning amendment for students as young adulthood can act as a
transitionary period for lifelong conditions with the sporadic environmental pressures of
university leading to temporary changes in impact of d/Disability. Additionally under these
Submission 346
changes, support coordinators and plan managers, those who are the only individuals outside of
the participant with a detailed and well rounded understanding of an individual’s lived experience
on the Scheme, would no longer be able to independently request reassessments. Many young
participants who work within student unions across the country have highlighted to me the
emotional and physical burden that is felt from the delays in NDIA decision making and appeals
processes, however despite calls for years from the d/Disabled community to reduce these wait
times, this Bill proposes that the NDIA decision timeframe would increase from 21 days to 90
days. It is evident to all those who work in Disability Assistance at Australian universities, and
students who live with d/Disability that the university environment uniquely positions d/Disabled
students to face unpredictability in both their conditions and their lives. The NUS is highly
concerned these changes may reduce flexibility for these students, and make university a hostile
learning environment for members of the d/Disabled community.
Increased focus on Scheme sustainability and compliance
The Bill repeatedly inserts “financial sustainability” into the principles and operation
of the NDIS. This represents a significant policy shift. Historically, the Scheme has been based
primarily on individual “reasonable and necessary” support. The proposed amendments place
greater emphasis on cost containment, efficiency of supports, and overall Scheme affordability.
This signals a shift not only in policy but in the purpose of the NDIS, and raises concerns to
young people about whose future this amendment Bill is securing; that of future and prospective
participants who will face harsher eligibility or that of lobbyists who find the NDIS and it’s
participants to be the ideal mechanism for funneling increased government funds into Defence
spending.
Submission 346
Changes to Provider Regulation and Compliance
The Bill also includes major compliance and anti-fraud reforms such as broader mandatory
provider registration and an amended definition of a “NDIS provider” alongside expanded
investigation powers and new arrangements for plan management. While the d/Disabled students
welcome the enshrining of protections around the responsibilities providers must uphold to
participants, there are concerns these changes may also impact provider availability and
participant choice, particularly to those at regional universities where specialised service markets
may not be as readily available, and regarding how these changes may implicate self-directed
supports.
Ministerial Powers to Reduce Funding
The Bill introduces “support determinations”, allowing the Minister to reduce funding
for categories of supports across the Scheme through legislative instruments. This mechanism
will be used by the government to reduce funding in plans for community and social
participation, and capacity building for daily activities, to an average of $26,000 per plan, as
announced by the Minister on 22 April 2026. It may also allow the Minister to make across the
board funding cuts for support coordination, and assistive technology. These Ministerial powers
implicate essential support for university students on the Scheme and importantly, these
reductions would not be merits reviewable. This, coupled with the lack of information the
community has received raises serious concerns as to the harm that may be caused to students
with a d/Disability,
Submission 346
Amendments to permanence and participant suspension powers
The amendment to the definition of permanence will disadvantage the disability community and
their support networks. The introduction of this proposal will mandate prospective participants to
have exhausted all appropriate treatments for NDIS eligibility to be considered, even if such
treatments are inaccessible due to cost or geographic location. This is entirely implausible for
young people and students hoping to gain access to the Scheme, the overwhelming financial
burden this could place on individuals already managing a variety of costly services (i.e.
university education) could exacerbate conditions and lead to harm of the individual. The right to
live a life based in dignity, autonomy, and self-determination through access to services and
support should not be contingent on one’s fiscal ability to “exhaust all other avenues of support.”
This proposal assumes both financial privilege and service availability, and will further embed
inequality as a part of the d/Disabled Australian’s lived experience. In the context of a cost of
living crisis that is disproportionately impacting young people, I truly believe this amendment is
short-sighted and highlights the importance of co-design in any change to the support our
d/Disabled community receives.
Recommendations
1. Engage in thorough, comprehensive conskultation and co-design with the disability and
carers community for all present and future changes to the NDIS and other relevant
programs.
Submission 346
2. Remove the Functional Capacity framework as the primary measure of eligibility; and
remove the standardised assessment tool (proposed s 9B of the NDIS Act; cl 4 of sch 1 to
the Bill).
3. Remove the requirement for all appropriate treatments to be considered in order for
permanence to be considered (part 8 of sch 1 to the Bill).
4. Remove the value for money considerations and keep existing legislation that requires
consideration of whether a lower-cost option would achieve the same or substantially
similar outcome (proposed ss 34(1A) and 34(1B) of the NDIS Act; cl 73 of sch 1 to the
Bill).
5. Remove “so far as is consistent with the financial sustainability of the scheme” (proposed
s 3(1)(d), cl 60 of sch 1 to the Bill).
6. Remove the automation of administrative action (proposed s 59B of the NDIS Act; cl 11
of sch 3 to the Bill).
7. Remove the ability to suspend a participant from the NDIS on the basis of non-contact
(proposed s 30(1A)(a)(i) of the NDIS Act; cl 70 of sch 1 to the Bill).