Australia's higher education sector is set for a significant shift in how disability support funding is managed, with new governance structures giving people with lived experience of disability a central role in decision-making. Federal guidelines issued by Education Minister Jason Clare require publicly funded universities to establish dedicated disability governance committees, ensuring that staff and students with disabilities hold the majority on bodies overseeing allocations from the expanded Disability Support Fund.
Background to the Disability Support Fund Reforms
The Disability Support Fund, part of the Higher Education Disability Support Program administered by the Australian Government Department of Education, provides supplementary funding to Table A universities. In the 2024 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the fund was quadrupled from approximately A$13 million to around A$53 million annually, reflecting broader commitments under the Australian Universities Accord to enhance equity in higher education. This increase aims to better support the growing number of students with disability, who in 2024 numbered 98,061 domestic undergraduates, representing 13.5 per cent of the undergraduate headcount according to analysis from the Australian Centre for Student Equity and Success.
Previously, universities had flexibility in spending these grants, but concerns from disability advocates highlighted inconsistent governance and limited input from those directly affected. The new requirements address calls for greater accountability and inclusion, drawing parallels to successful oversight models used in other equity programs.
Details of the New Disability Governance Committees
Effective from July 2026, every eligible university must form a disability governance committee to qualify for Disability Support Fund grants. These committees will oversee and advise on the allocation and use of the funding, which can reach up to A$50 million across the sector each year. Composition rules ensure meaningful representation: people with disabilities must form the majority, with at least two disabled students included. Additional mandatory members include a senior executive at pro vice-chancellor level or higher, at least two academics, one professional services staff member, and two independent appointees.
The committees are required to be properly resourced, with operational costs potentially covered by the fund itself. This structure empowers those with direct experience to influence priorities, such as staffing for disability services, staff training, modifications to teaching materials, and support for individual students where costs exceed A$5,000 per year.
Additional Requirements: Inclusion Strategies
Beyond funding oversight, the guidelines mandate two new strategies at each university: a disability education inclusion strategy and a disability workforce inclusion strategy. Both must be developed in consultation with disabled students and staff, and they fall under the governance committee's supervision. These documents will outline multi-year actions, including key performance indicators, to improve access, participation, and completion rates for students with disability, as well as recruitment, professional development, and promotion pathways for disabled staff.
Activities eligible for funding under the expanded program now explicitly include implementation of Universal Design for Learning principles and bulk purchases of assistive IT licences, broadening the scope for systemic improvements.
Implications for Australian Universities
Institutions across the Group of Eight, Innovative Research Universities, and regional providers will need to adapt their governance frameworks quickly. Larger universities with established equity offices may integrate these committees into existing structures, while smaller or regional institutions could face greater resource demands. The changes align with broader equity goals in the Australian Universities Accord, though disability-specific targets remain a point of ongoing discussion.
Universities will also need to demonstrate compliance through reporting mechanisms tied to grant eligibility. This could lead to more transparent spending and targeted initiatives that reflect actual community needs rather than top-down assumptions.
Stakeholder Perspectives and Advocacy Context
Disability rights advocates and academics have welcomed the move as a step toward genuine co-design. Governance expert and blind law scholar Paul Harpur noted the resemblance to arrangements under the Indigenous Student Success Programme, which have delivered positive outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation. He expressed hope that the new model will intensify focus on disability governance and foster a more inclusive sector for the more than one in ten people in Australian higher education living with disability.
Earlier advocacy highlighted gaps in the Universities Accord's approach to disability data and the lack of specific participation targets, prompting calls for stronger mechanisms. The guidelines respond directly to demands for disabled voices in decision-making processes.
Impact on Students and Staff with Disability
For students, the changes promise more responsive support systems, potentially improving retention and success rates. With disability identification rising steadily, from 12.7 per cent in 2023 to 13.5 per cent in 2024, tailored funding decisions could address barriers in course delivery and assessment more effectively.
Staff with disability stand to benefit from enhanced workforce strategies, including better pathways to leadership roles. The requirement for majority representation on committees ensures lived experience shapes policies on reasonable adjustments, workplace culture, and professional development.
Challenges in Implementation
While promising, rollout may encounter hurdles. Universities must recruit suitable committee members, including independent experts, while maintaining operational independence. Ensuring genuine consultation without tokenism will require careful process design. Smaller institutions may need additional support to meet the resourcing and reporting standards.
Balancing the committee's advisory role with existing university governance, such as academic boards and councils, will also demand clear delineation of responsibilities to avoid overlap or conflict.
Broader Context Within Australian Higher Education Policy
These reforms sit alongside other equity initiatives, including funding for under-represented groups and responses to the Universities Accord. The Department of Education continues to monitor outcomes through the Higher Education Disability Support Program, with payments structured around enrolment numbers and individual support reimbursements.
The approach echoes international best practices in disability-inclusive governance and builds on Australia's Disability Strategy framework, which emphasises co-design and lived experience.
Future Outlook and Sector Transformation
Over the coming years, the disability governance committees could drive measurable improvements in participation and inclusion metrics. By embedding accountability at the institutional level, the policy positions Australian universities to lead in equitable higher education practices.
Longer-term, success will depend on sustained funding, robust evaluation through key performance indicators, and ongoing dialogue between committees, university leadership, and the broader disability community. Advocates anticipate this model could serve as a template for other equity areas.
Photo by Martin David on Unsplash
Practical Steps for Universities and Job Seekers
University administrators are advised to review the official guidelines promptly and begin establishing committees ahead of the July 2026 deadline. Professional development opportunities around disability-inclusive governance are likely to emerge.
For academics and administrators interested in these roles, positions on the new committees or related equity portfolios may open as institutions adapt. Those pursuing careers in higher education administration should monitor developments through the Department of Education and sector bodies.
