A dedicated Support Coordinator paints a stark picture of a pervasive issue undermining the NDIS. She alleges that providers routinely sideline or remove Support Coordinators who challenge substandard practices, billing irregularities or participant exploitation.
She describes this as very common when a Support Coordinator calls a provider out on issues. According to the coordinator, some providers will do what they can to remove the coordinator, often culminating in manipulative tactics where providers lie to and manipulate clients for financial gain and threaten to remove engaged supports to benefit themselves financially.
In one cited instance involving Integrated Clinical Supports, the participant ended up under their Support Coordination arm, highlighting how such removals can pave the way for in house or affiliated coordinators to assume control.
This frontline testimony underscores what the coordinator sees as a hidden threat to scheme integrity, where retaliatory removals silence ethical oversight and perpetuate conflicts of interest, funding depletion and participant vulnerability.
For industry leaders including CEOs of NDIS registered providers, plan management entities and peak organisations, these practices signal significant governance risks. These include potential enforcement action by the NDIS Commission, reputational damage and barriers to collaborative reform. As the NDIS evolves under the 2026 reforms, understanding these tactics is crucial to mitigating liability and advancing participant centred models.
Complaints and compliance on the rise
Data from the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission reinforces the scale of concern around Support Coordination.
The Commission’s Own Motion Inquiry into Support Coordination in August 2023 analysed 460 complaints about Support Coordinators from January 2022. It found that 43 per cent involved integrity breaches such as conflicts of interest, coercion and sharp practices. Many were linked to bundled service models that can enable provider driven removals.
Notably, 87 per cent of complaints raised concerns about care and skill, including cessation of Support Coordination services and depletion of participants’ NDIS funds. These findings align with the coordinator’s observations of providers maximising budgets at participants’ expense.
Overall complaints surged from 1,422 in 2018 to 2019 to 29,054 in 2023 to 2024, with Support Coordination accounting for a disproportionate 13 to 17 per cent of sampled issues despite its relative market share.
By 2025 to 2026, the Commission had executed 35,519 compliance actions, a 3.7 fold increase from the prior year, reflecting intensified scrutiny of non compliance, including alleged retaliatory behaviour.
Fraud and integrity concerns drove major investment, with 468.7 million dollars allocated in 2025 to 2026 for detection and enforcement uplifts. This resulted in 6,841 actions in the first quarter of 2026 alone and introduced new penalties of up to 16.5 million dollars or imprisonment for severe misconduct under the 2026 NDIS Amendment Bill.
Conflicts of interest and bundled services
The coordinator links removal tactics to deeper systemic enablers, particularly inherent conflicts in bundled service delivery.
She argues that providers should stick to one focal point, stating that a Support Coordinator should only offer Support Coordination and remain independent. In her view, this would better protect participant choice and control and prevent fraud and wrongdoing within the NDIS.
Her perspective aligns with reform measures progressed through the 2026 NDIS Rules amendments, which move towards deeming it inappropriate for a provider of Support Coordination to also deliver other funded supports in order to curb exploitation.
In her own practice, the coordinator enforces strict boundaries. She does not allow providers unrestricted access to a client’s NDIS plan or funding, citing frequent overcharging, attempts to maximise funding and disregard for participant preferences. Instead, she consults participants directly to align budgets with genuine needs.
Burnout and retaliation
Burnout, she says, exacerbates vulnerability to these tactics. She describes feeling exhausted by repeatedly raising concerns about alleged misconduct, only to see little change.
She also alleges retaliatory complaints against her for speaking out. This reflects broader concerns raised during the Support Coordination inquiry, including complaints lodged by Support Coordinators about other supports. Such patterns raise questions about the adequacy of whistleblower protections for ethical coordinators.
Funding constraints further compound the problem. She notes that some participants receive as little as one hour of Support Coordination per month, which she argues is insufficient. She believes many clients require at least six hours per month to ensure proper oversight. Limited funding can force coordinators to work unpaid and reduce their capacity to proactively safeguard participants, indirectly enabling questionable practices.
Role confusion and regulatory gaps
Sector confusion around roles and responsibilities also facilitates removal practices.
She argues that not every participant can access a Support Coordinator and that clearer boundaries are needed. She believes Support Coordinators should monitor participants’ funding closely, while plan managers should proactively notify both the participant and the coordinator before budgets are exhausted.
Ambiguity around invoice approval authority and budget tracking creates opportunities for providers to shift blame onto Support Coordinators, potentially justifying their removal.
She calls for clearer regulatory guidance and stronger collaboration between the NDIS and Support Coordinators to eliminate fraud and ensure that genuine coordinators are properly vetted and approved. She also acknowledges that fraud can occur among both providers and participants, and that the issue is not one sided.
A strategic imperative for leaders
She emphasises that closer collaboration between the NDIS and ethical Support Coordinators could help eliminate fraud, while maintaining safeguards against misconduct such as coordinators steering participants towards preferred providers.
For executives, this presents strategic imperatives. These include strengthening internal compliance frameworks to prevent retaliatory complaints, advocating for minimum Support Coordination funding benchmarks aligned with current pricing consultations, and preparing for mandatory Support Coordinator registration aimed at addressing conflicts of interest.
With enforcement activity significantly increased in 2025 to 2026 and ongoing fraud crackdowns in 2026, proactive reform may be the key to transforming removal threats into an opportunity for a more resilient and participant focused NDIS ecosystem.
Support coordinators must be independent and function as an oversight mechanism for case managers, not only within the NDIS but also across the aged care sector.
Clinical, financial, and governance reviews need to be embedded in the system and led by a separate, independent entity—one that is accessible, transparent, accountable and proactive.
Too often, those who raised concerns were pushed out of the sector, had their reputations damaged, or were targeted simply for having the courage to expose rorting and advocate for vulnerable clients.
While some of us succeeded in workers’ compensation claims, this did not allow us to re-enter the sector. Instead, we were forced to pivot away from work we were deeply committed to.
Whistleblower protections are largely ineffective. It quickly becomes obvious who has spoken up, and misinformation spreads rapidly, further undermining credibility.
In the meantime, rorting continues, along with entrenched bullying and coercive control practices—leaving the system fundamentally unchanged.
I have ask if there is enough in the (downwardly) revised RoboAge system to encourage similar behaviours? The government’s own carefully designed delays are probably enough to limit it’s the clients get zero for up to years in the new system but the careful discouragement of self management and the provider overrides might be enough: let’s find out