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, NDS 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.

• 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).