Disabled students were failed on all fronts by the disgraceful and entitled behaviour of student politicians at the National Union of Students’ 2025 National Conference.

For the unfamiliar, NatCon is that wonderful time of year where the biggest StuPol Hacks on campus spend tens of thousands of dollars to speed through discussing policies which could drastically improve the lives of university students around the country (i.e. the people whose SSAF fees are covering the majority of the expenses), in favour of getting drunk on punch and screaming at each other over who knows what in their best impressions of rabid primary schoolers who don’t want to share the sandpit at recess.

This year, like many years, NatCon was held at Federation University, Ballarat—a campus so inaccessible that it borders on comical, including having no accessible accommodation and very few elevators on the whole campus (and none in the main conference building). This also means that students with stricter access needs, such as wheelchair users or blind students, cannot attend altogether, including many SRC disability officers.

April Wright (formerly Victorian Alliance), a student disability activist and reporter for Deakin’s Pulse Magazine, told Farrago that “sometimes I find myself accepting excuses about how difficult it is to find another venue, but I have to remind myself of the privilege attached to that. As one of the voices in the room, it’s my responsibility to call attention to those who have been locked out.”

Supposedly, NatCon needs to be held at a campus in Regional Victoria. This has been verbally confirmed to Farrago by NatCon 2025 staff and attendees, as well as reported by various student publications over the years, including Farrago. Multiple sources have claimed to Farrago that no other eligible university is willing to host more than once, allegedly due to the behaviour of attendees. If true, this means that NatCon attendees decide every single year that their right to act like hooligans is more important than their disabled classmates’ right to physically access a conference their SSAF fees are paying for anyway.

However, neither the NUS constitution, regulations nor by-laws specify any sort of requirement for where NatCon is to be convened, not even that it be held at a university campus in the first place.

Apparently, the self-imposed and non-codified restriction to host NatCon in Regional Victoria is more important than allowing disabled students to attend. And because many of these students are refused a physical presence, they and their concerns are further separated from the rest of the reality of the StuPol body—something which is very clearly represented in the treatment of disability policy.

Of the 418 proposed policies in the 2025 policy book, 25 (6 per cent) are from the disability chapter, and were submitted by five factions: Socialist Alternative (SAlt), Forge, National Labor Students (NLS), New South Wales Labor Students (NSWLS) and Victorian Alliance (VA). No policies were submitted by any independents or the Student Unities (SDA/Vic Unity and Student Unity). 80 per cent of all disability policies were submitted by only three people.

SAlt submitted two policies, both on the NDIS. Policy 9.22, submitted by 2025 National Vocational Education Officer Ella Marchionda’s (Curtin), has two platforms, which ask NUS to support free and universal healthcare, and to recognise how the NDIS “fails to meet the needs of disabled and chronically ill Australians”. Policy 9.23, also on the NDIS, was submitted by Reema Ababneh (UniMelb). Ababneh, the only UMSU representative to either move or second a disability policy in 2025, does more than just ask the NUS to do more than just be aware of the consequences of cutting the NDIS, and is specific in what the consequences of the cuts are, includes action items, and explains how the NDIS cuts impacts disabled students, including highlighting rural and remote students.

Forge submitted three policies, including an NDIS policy (9.24) moved by Gabe Devine (UQ) with four lacklustre policies which ask the NUS to “recognise”, “acknowledge”, “condemn” and “call on” the NDIS and federal governments. Alyssa Roser (UQ) moved policy 9.20, “Implement the Royal Commission Recommendations”, which asks the NUS to “support” the Commission and to “[call] on both the Federal and State Government to implement all of the Commission’s recommendations”. Neither Devine nor Roser offer any productive suggestions for student unions or universities. In fact, neither mention the words “student” or “university” once.

Fortunately for Forge, Lucy Den Houting (UQ) seems to understand who the National Union of Students is supposed to be serving, and moved the only policy on student carers (9.21). Houting’s policy called for support for student carers and their struggles in “[navigating] university and higher education”. The platform calls not just for the existence of financial and academic supports, but for them to be “clearly communicated”.

NLS’s five policies were moved by Josh Chuah (Monash). The policies covered campus inaccessibility (9.07 and duplicated in 9.08), autonomy in student unions (9.11), requirements for medical certificates (9.13), attendance and participation hurdles (9.19) and hidden disabilities (9.26), demonstrating that Chuah actually understands what NUS stands for. Speaking with Farrago, Chuah said that his primary motivation for moving his policies was “to make sure that the NUS never drops the fight” for disabled students.

VA’s seven policies were moved by Alex Gliders and Paul Ting on behalf of Rem Randall (all Deakin). This was Randall’s first year at NatCon and at writing policies, and they were without a doubt among the best written in the entire book—especially considering how consistently and refreshingly concise they were. Randall’s policies covered the NUS’s lack of meaningful actions (9.01), accessibility and the NUS (9.02), staff training (9.03), emergency evacuation procedures (9.04), accessible campuses (9.05), official documentation requirements (9.12) and assistive and flexible learning options (9.18).

NSWLS had the most policies submitted this chapter, with all eight of their policies moved by Caitlin Veigel (UOW). Her policies covered stronger disability housing regulations (9.06), the need for a more effective National Disability Officer (9.09), universities’ responsibility to serve disabled students (9.10), access plan challenges (9.14), the NDIA (9.15), disability support pensions (9.16), flexible delivery modes (9.17) and the impacts of the NDIS cuts of rural and regional students (9.25). Like Randall, what makes Veigel’s policies so entrancing is the incredible specificity and knowledge of the issues faced by disabled students in the context of being a student at an Australian university as well as solutions that she displays across the preambles, platforms and actions. Policy 9.15 is also the only policy to mention the NDIA, a fact which the 2026 National Disability Officer, Mia Williams (USyd, NLS), highlighted when speaking to Farrago at NatCon 2025.

It should also be noted that even for the policies I have critiqued stronger than others, each and every policy in the disability chapter are actually about disability in a way that, even tangentially, impact disabled students, as well as having a bit firmer grasp on what could be considered realistic or relevant to the NUS’s scope. As an NDIS participant, I am more than a little cynical on the likelihood of the government rolling back the NDIS cuts, but fighting for it is much more within the NUS’s scope than AUKUS or the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

But despite being filled with such strong policies, the fate of the 2025 disability chapter was always grim from the outset.

“The NUS has not historically been kind to the disability policy chapter,” Chuah explained to Farrago. “Year after year, the disability chapter is brushed aside by the conference, moved en bloc with reduced speaking times.”

This tradition was amplified this year due to NatCon 2025 being particularly horrendous on almost all fronts. Due to the massive schedule delays caused by StuPol hacks’ standard time-wasting conference habits, a standstill caused by petty factionism causing the conference not to start until day three, and day four not being able to start until 2pm due to the RO getting into a car crash driving in from Melbourne that morning (don’t worry—he’s fine), only around 20 per cent of the 418 proposed policy were covered, as estimated by Honi Soit. Eight of the 13 chapters—Trade Unionism, Welfare, Queer, First Nations, Disability, International, Small and Regional, and Environment—never made it to floor.

Rather than being put to vote before the representatives elected by student bodies across the country, these forgotten policies are later voted on by the National Executive Committee, a board elected each NatCon based on faction politics from wannabe-career-politicians’ desired resume fodder.

As a result, there is not an opportunity to speak to these policies before student politicians, something which is particularly important for what are known at the equity chapters: women, queer, first nations, disability, international, ethnocultural, and small and regional.

As Wright explained to Farrago:

     “With how big the policy book is, it’s easy for things to get lost and for people not to read everything. It’s important for people to speak on motions to spread their message and share their story. There are so many causes out there that student unions should be talking about, but that they don’t know exist, and this is a great way to make people aware. It’s important for the student leaders in the room to know about the policies in the policy platform, and listening to others speak on them is a great way to learn.

It can also be a really powerful moment for people newer to advocacy to stand in front of a room and speak on what they are passionate about. For some, it may be where they find their voice for the first time; it’s empowering to stand there and address a room of your peers – especially to talk about a way you’ve been marginalised or silenced. For those listening, it can mean finding someone who understands something they’ve gone through and is safe to talk to about it. Building networks is so essential for student politicians and leaders; speaking on a motion is like a beacon saying ‘Hey, I’m working on this thing that I really care about. Come talk to me about it or collaborate with me’.”

This is even further compounded for disabled students, whose issues are often not those which can help catapult hacks’ political careers—unlike having one of those shiny National Executive titles to put on a resume, which is why half of NatCon got wasted in the first place.

And what adds insult to injury, or, more appropriately, injury to insult, is that the disabled student activists who attended NatCon 2025 at great personal risk, purely to utilise NatCon’s platform to advocate for their community’s needs, did so for nothing. Randall, a cane user and Disability Representative for the Deakin University Student Association, reported to Farrago that they attended “against doctor’s advice” (and having received no response from the NUS on the NatCon’s accessibility), and experienced “significant pain for weeks after” the event.”

“We are shouting, we are proving our struggle over and over and on that day we couldn’t speak. I was crushed.”

Despite being “disappointed” at the chapter’s snub, Chuah told Farrago that he “would be lying if I said I was surprised.” Wright echoed this sentiment, saying that she “felt angry” even though “it’s not the first time I’ve been let down on that front.”

“I wanted to go up to the faction leaders and ask them if they were proud of themselves, if their infighting was worth the cost of pushing down our voices yet again,” Wright said—a thought which likely most of the student activists left NatCon thinking.

Chuah was looking forward to hearing policies 9.09 (Disability Inclusion on Campus), 9.10 (Universities are failing Disabled Students) and 9.15 (Reclaiming Public Disability Support from Privatisation) spoken to. Wright highlighted policy 9.04 (Everybody has the Right to Life, Liberty and the Security of Person) in particular, saying that “emergency evacuations are such a niche and unthought-of area of disability activism in student spaces, so I was looking forward to the room hearing about it and getting inspired to act.” Randall named policy 9.21 (Support for Carers) as the only motion focused specifically on carers, pointing out that “carers are often missed in the conversations around disability access” and NatCon 2025 “would have been a fantastic opportunity to bring carers further into the conversation during the year to come.”

But even though the NUS at large might be hellbent on letting down disabled students, the student activists who are actually fighting for the disability community truly deserve commendation.

One thing that struck me in particular was how truly supportive student disability activists were of each other, regardless of faction, but perhaps the fact that disability activism is perhaps the least effective way to jumpstart a political career is what makes student activists and politicians significantly more supportive of each other compared to other issues.

When asked if she would like to highlight any specific student disability activists, Wright said “There’s honestly so many incredible people in the disability and around the disability space, it’s hard to even pick.” But she did point to three in particular:

“Jordy Duffey from UQ. Jordy has been one of the key people keeping disability activism alive in the NUS over the past few years—contributing to policy, guiding newer activists, serving as an Access Officer at last year's NatCon and probably so much more I don’t know about. They deserve proper dues for their dedication and perseverance in such a painful and draining fight.

“I think it’s also important to acknowledge when disability activists break through the barriers into leading roles, so I would like to highlight Samuel Coombs, who made the jump from Disability & Carers Officer to President at RUSU.

“Jessica Wallace also deserves kudos. DivCon [NUS’s annual Diversity Conference] really showed how amazing and hardworking she is. On top of her responsibilities as NUS First Nations Officer, Jess was integral to the Disability section; she ran a workshop on chronic illness and sat on the accessible union governance panel (along with Sam). She even ran a women’s workshop and offered up her plenary spot to allow the Trans plenary to run.”

As these policies were left on the wayside, here are some statements covering what would have been said to the NUS had the disability chapter made it to floor:

9.01 More than Tokenism Please

Randall: The Disability Royal Commission has called the federal government for urgent reform to support the wellbeing of disabled students in education. This was over two years ago; current surveys show that there has been no meaningful change in these student’s wellbeing.

My concern here is what else can we do? It feels like we are shouting for help at the top of our lungs, and no one is hearing, like one of those horrible nightmares. What else can we say? How else can we ask?

9.04 Everybody has the Right to Life, Liberty and the Security of Person

Randall: In Australia there are no federal, state, or local laws, or any regulations regarding the safe evacuation of people with mobility issues. There are recommendations in case of evacuation to help the disabled person to a fire resistant or other safe space, close the doors and leave them for fire rescue. As someone with degenerative mobility issues, I face the reality that one day I may be left behind in a burning building in the hopes fire rescue will get to me in time.

Items such as stair sleds and chairs could and should be as commonplace as fire extinguishers, hoses, defibrillators, and first aid kits. We need federal building requirements for safe evacuation of people with mobility difficulties.

9.15 Reclaiming Public Disability Support from Privatisation

Chuah: There's no two ways about it, the NDIA needs to be better. People with disability are routinely let down and the NUS must advocate for students with disability who need the services provided by the NDIS to sustain a good quality of life.