National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1362
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026
I write this submission as an unregistered independent support coordinator with seven years’ experience supporting National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) participants as a Support Coordinator opposing the proposed - Support Coordination Reform – Preferred Option 3
I worked for a large not-for-profit organisation for two years before becoming self- employed as a sole trader for the past five years. I currently support a caseload of 44 participants and additionally provide unpaid guidance and assistance to approximately 10 people on the scheme who do not have funded support coordination.
Over the past seven years, I conservatively estimate I have provided in excess of 1500 hours of unpaid coordination support, providing guidance for plan reassessment and evidence gathering, advocacy, crisis management, systems navigation, provider liaison, safeguarding activity, and emotional labour.
Participant Cohort and Complexity The participants I support are not low-complexity cases.
Of my current caseload: • 16 participants live in Supported Independent Living (SIL) arrangements with highly complex physical and neurological disabilities and large multidisciplinary teams involved. • 2 participants require 1:1 support arrangements due to serious behaviours of concern. • The remaining participants live with conditions including dementia, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, quadriplegia, acquired brain injuries, psychosocial disability, and other complex support and social needs.
Of my current caseload, I have supported: • 20 participants continuously for approximately seven years; • 15 participants for approximately five years; and • the remaining participants on a case-by-case basis over the past 12–18 months where significant support needs existed.
These relationships matter. The continuity, trust, stakeholder knowledge, communication styles, safeguarding concerns, and understanding of each participant’s support network cannot simply be transferred into a commissioned model without significant disruption and risk.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1362
Over the past seven years, I have also supported families through participant deterioration, end-of-life processes, and participant deaths — entirely unfunded. I did so willingly because when you have supported participants and families for many years, there becomes an unquestioned ethical obligation and human responsibility to continue supporting them during some of the most vulnerable and distressing periods of their lives.
Concerns Regarding Commissioning Support Coordination Providers I strongly oppose the proposal to commission a limited panel of support coordination providers under Option 3.
I deliberately left employment within a large organisation because I witnessed a culture where financial performance and billable outputs were prioritised over participant wellbeing and ethical practice.
Independent coordinators like myself exist because many participants and families actively seek providers who are values-based, relationship-driven, flexible, ethical, and deeply invested in participant outcomes.
Concerns Regarding Broader Legislative and Administrative Reforms A significant concern I have overall is that there does not appear to have been sufficient consultation directly with participants, families, independent coordinators, frontline clinicians, SIL providers, support workers, and informal support networks who are managing the practical realities of the Scheme daily.
I understand it is not realistic to individually consult every participant within the Scheme. However, I would willingly provide affidavits, participant statements, carer statements, and supporting evidence from participants with decision-making capacity, families, allied health professionals, SIL providers, support workers, and other stakeholders I work alongside who could directly outline the real-world implications these proposed changes may create but enforcing a tendered organizational model.
I am deeply concerned about increasing administrative burdens, stricter compliance requirements, automated decision-making systems, reduced flexibility in reassessments, and the potential for participants to lose supports due to communication barriers or inability to respond within rigid timeframes.
Many participants I support live with cognitive impairment, psychosocial disability, trauma, executive functioning deficits, neurological decline, behavioural concerns, and significant safeguarding risks. These participants are already vulnerable and often rely heavily on support coordinators, family where available, and informal supports to navigate NDIA systems. Many in SIL who are non verbal, non ambulant have plan nominees or guardians who are ageing and rely on myself heavily for support with basic administration.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1362
The Reality of Support Coordination Work The reform paper refers to support coordination and connection services as though the role primarily involves linking participants to providers.
In my experience, this represents only a very small component of the role.
The reality of support coordination extends far beyond service connection and includes crisis prevention and management, safeguarding vulnerable participants, navigating complex systems within the NDIA and other government departments, hospital liaison, SIL oversight, multidisciplinary coordination such a NCAT, DCJ, Hospital Interface, family mediation, advocacy, risk management, service escalation, navigating constant staff turnover within organisations, and extensive unpaid emotional labour.
Much of this work is invisible and cannot be adequately quantified through commissioned outputs, administrative reporting, or funding models.
Concerns Regarding Market Consolidation The proposal to reduce over 10,000 active providers into a commissioned market raises significant concerns.
A competitive merit-based commissioning process may favour organisations with greater administrative resources, larger corporate infrastructure, grant writing capability, and compliance departments, rather than providers delivering the strongest participant outcomes.
Independent sole traders who provide high-quality, ethical, relationship-based support may be excluded simply because they do not have the scale required to compete in procurement processes, nor the financial means to become registered providers due to the increasing costs of operating as a sole trader alongside the effective price freeze on Support Coordination for many years.
This would remove participant choice and disproportionately impact vulnerable people who intentionally moved away from large providers.
It would also remove our own professional autonomy and ability to choose who we work for and how we deliver supports ethically and independently.
Scheme Sustainability I support genuine reform aimed at improving participant outcomes and Scheme sustainability.
However, sustainability cannot come at the expense of participant safety, continuity, trust, safeguarding, and human relationships.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 Submission 1362
My concern is that unmet need and relationship disruption will ultimately increase long- term costs through participant crises, hospital admissions, provider breakdown, housing instability, mental health deterioration, carer burnout, and the need for more intensive interventions later. I am concerned by limiting participant choice and control you are only allowing support from a limited unskilled workforce.
Conclusion Independent support coordinators provide significant unpaid safeguarding work that is rarely acknowledged within policy discussions.
Participants should not lose trusted coordinators solely because government reform favours market consolidation. Nor should independent coordinators be forced to work under large tendered organisations simply to continue doing work we are proud of and deeply committed to.
The people I support are not numbers within a commissioning framework. They are human beings whose lives, safety, wellbeing, dignity, and stability rely heavily on trusted relationships, consistent advocacy, safeguarding, and genuinely person-centered support.
I urge the Government to seriously reconsider the proposed changes.