_edited.png)
What Is the Purpose of the SIL Commissioning Consultation — and Can the Disability Community Trust It?
“When government asks people with disability to ‘have their say’, the real test is not whether government listens. It is whether what they say can change the decision.”
Image description: A photo of a door to a room in an abandoned institution. There are noticeable scratches on the door where a person confined to this room attempted to claw their way out. Superimposed on the door are the words “SIL COMMISSIONING. Another form of institutionalisation?”
Abstract
The Australian Government’s 2026 consultation on the possible commissioning of part of the Supported Independent Living (SIL) market is presented as an opportunity for people with disability and other stakeholders to influence whether commissioning should proceed and, if so, how it should operate. This essay argues that the consultation raises a much more fundamental question than the design of a new approach to SIL, that is whether government should assume greater control over the organisation and delivery of supports that were intended, under the original NDIS model, to be individualised and directed by people with disability.
Commissioning is not inherently incompatible with the objectives of the NDIS and may have legitimate applications in thin or specialised markets. However, its application to people requiring continuous or 24-hour support creates significant risks. A system in which government contracts selected providers, shapes service models and potentially influences staffing arrangements could weaken participant choice and control, encourage shared-support and group-home models, and threaten direct employment, service-for-one and other highly individualised arrangements. These concerns engage not only questions of service quality and cost but the right of people with disability to choose where, how and with whom they live.
The essay also examines why considerable scepticism surrounds the consultation. Previous NDIS reform processes have themselves been criticised as tokenistic, rushed and insufficiently consultative, creating a substantial legacy of distrust. Against that history, simply inviting people with disability to “have their say” is insufficient. Genuine consultation requires evidence that their views can materially alter the policy direction, including the possibility that Government may decide not to proceed with SIL commissioning at all.
The essay therefore argues that the burden of rebuilding trust rests with Government. It must identify the problem commissioning is intended to solve, provide evidence that commissioning will improve participant outcomes, demonstrate why less restrictive alternatives are inadequate, explain how individualised arrangements and the right to refuse inappropriate shared support will be protected, and transparently show how consultation feedback changes its decisions. Ultimately, the SIL consultation is a test of whether the NDIS will continue to organise services around individual people or increasingly require people with disability to fit within service systems designed, contracted and controlled by government and providers.
If you want to read the complete essay, click on the link below.
Comments