Choice and control means nothing if there’s no one left to choose from.
Reforming Support Coordination: Why the Order Matters
“On 7 July 2026, I made a submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. I made the submission because I support stronger quality standards, greater accountability and better value within support coordination. These are important reforms. My concern is that the changes currently proposed could achieve the opposite.”
The Bill would replace the existing support coordination market with a commissioned “support coordination and connection function” from 1 July 2028. Plan management would move to a commissioned panel from 1 October 2027.
Despite the scale of these changes, very little detail has been made public.
We do not know how providers will be selected, how quality will be measured, how many providers will operate in each region, how they will be paid or what will happen to existing relationships between participants and their support coordinators. At the same time, the Government has announced a target to reduce spending on support coordination and plan management by 30%.
Parliament is being asked to approve a major redesign of the market before the design itself has been properly explained or publicly consulted on.
The current market is already under pressure
Any future commissioning model will depend on there still being a strong group of experienced, independent providers available when the new system begins. Current pricing settings are making that increasingly difficult.
Support coordination price limits have remained unchanged for seven consecutive years. They have not increased since 2019–20. During that time, providers have absorbed higher wages, superannuation, insurance, registration, audit and compliance costs. The price of delivering the service continues to rise, while the amount providers can charge remains frozen.
For small, registered and appropriately staffed providers, this is becoming unsustainable.
Independent providers rely on support coordination being viable in its own right. Organisations that also deliver supported independent living, core supports or therapy may be able to continue offering support coordination because it creates referrals into their other services. This means the current pricing settings risk pushing independent providers out of the market while allowing organisations with greater conflicts of interest to remain.
By the time the Government is ready to select its approved providers, it may be choosing from whatever is left rather than from the strongest and most independent providers.
Pricing and registration should come first.
I have been saying this for years: if the Government wants to improve support coordination, the order of reform matters.
Pricing needs to be corrected first.
There should be an immediate, evidence-based adjustment that recognises the seven years without indexation, followed by a permanent and predictable process for future increases.
Mandatory registration should then be introduced as quickly as reasonably possible. Registration would give the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission and the NDIA proper visibility over the market. It would create clearer standards, audit requirements and compliance histories, and provide a better understanding of who is delivering support coordination. At present, many unregistered providers operate without the same level of oversight.
Registration also carries real costs. Providers operating on frozen 2019 prices cannot continue absorbing higher audit, staffing and compliance expenses, particularly when the Government has already announced its intention to replace the current market.
A properly priced and regulated market could deliver much of the accountability and quality assurance the Government says it wants without immediately removing participant choice or destabilising local services.
Choice and control must be protected.
Choice and control is a core principle of the NDIS.
Support coordination is also a relationship built on trust. Participants need someone who understands their circumstances, communicates clearly and knows the local services, housing options, health systems and community organisations available to them. A commissioned panel will reduce choice to some extent. How much depends on its design.
A broad panel with strong regional representation may still give participants meaningful options. A small panel dominated by large national organisations could significantly reduce choice and replace local, relationship-based support with a more centralised model.
If commissioning proceeds, participants must still be able to choose between multiple providers in their region. Small and medium local providers must have a genuine opportunity to take part, and existing relationships should be protected during the transition.
Independence must be treated as a measure of quality
One of the strongest concerns in my submission is the conflict that arises when an organisation provides both support coordination and other funded supports to the same participant. A support coordinator should be able to provide independent advice, monitor services and advocate for the participant without pressure from another part of their organisation.
That becomes difficult when the coordinator’s employer has a financial interest in where the participant’s funding is spent. The conflict is particularly serious when the same organisation provides both supported independent living and support coordination.
A support coordinator employed by a participant’s SIL provider cannot independently monitor that provider, recommend a change of service or advocate against their employer’s interests when the arrangement is not working.
My submission recommends that the same organisation, or related organisations, should not provide both SIL and support coordination to the same participant, except in very remote areas where no genuine alternative exists. Any future commissioning process should also assess quality through more than organisational size or tendering capacity.
Independence, local knowledge, registration history, compliance history, qualifications and experience should all carry meaningful weight.
Providers with adverse findings from the Disability Royal Commission or substantiated NDIS Commission compliance action should not be prioritised over independent providers with clean records, qualified teams and strong local knowledge.
Reform should strengthen the market
The support coordination market does need reform.
Participants deserve qualified providers, independent advice, clear standards and stronger accountability. But those problems will not be solved by allowing quality independent providers to become unviable while the details of a new commissioning model remain unpublished. Before the current market is replaced, the Government should publish the full design of the proposed system and consult publicly on it.
Pricing should be corrected. Mandatory registration should follow. Any later commissioning model should protect participant choice, local knowledge, continuity and provider independence.
The order matters.
Without those steps, there is a real risk that the providers best equipped to deliver independent and accountable support coordination will no longer exist by the time the new system begins.
You can read the full submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee below.
