The Senate’s recommendation to delay any decision on the future of the Commonwealth Home Support Program (CHSP) until genuine consultation occurs was the only realistic outcome. All three sector peak bodies welcomed the recommendation. As Ageing Australia’s CEO, Tom Symondson, said, “We’re deeply concerned that moving CHSP into Support at Home, before the new program is operating effectively, creates significant risks for over 860,000 older Australians.”
The Senate report represents an important procedural milestone, but it is not a final decision on the future of CHSP. The committee’s recommendation of “no sooner than 1 July 2027” is intentionally non-binding rather than a confirmed transition timetable.
Support at Home continues to challenge providers operationally, and expecting organisations to absorb services for another 860,000 Australians while implementation issues remain unresolved would have risked compounding the very problems the reform was intended to solve.
Providers are understandably frustrated by the lack of certainty. But frustration isn’t a governance strategy. Boards still have decisions to make about technology, workforce, partnerships and capital investment, regardless of when the final policy settings are announced.
The delivery model is uncertain. Demand and scale are not.
Capability can’t wait
If CHSP eventually converges with Support at Home, organisations across the sector already know what capability looks like: scalable technology, stronger workforce pipelines, financial resilience, service integration, regional and remote partnerships, and better use of data, regardless of policy design.
None of these become wasted investments if the timeline shifts or the policy evolves.
Support at Home is building evidence for better reform
Amid the disruption, one of the unintended outcomes of the Support at Home rollout is the real-world operational evidence it’s producing.
Every implementation challenge, workaround and improvement in practice provides insight into what works and what needs to change before any future CHSP transition.
Rather than seeing the rollout solely as an arduous implementation exercise, the sector has an opportunity to treat it as a live pilot. The lessons emerging today should inform whatever comes next, whether that is integration, a revised model or something entirely different.
Co-design is already in motion
Through peak bodies, regional collaborations, executive roundtables and implementation working groups, the mechanisms for meaningful co-design already exist. Across the country, sector leaders are already solving practical problems before policy catches up.
That work needs to accelerate, not pause.
The current discussions around CHSP’s future give providers the opportunity to contribute practical evidence from the frontline rather than waiting for certainty to arrive from Canberra. Peak bodies have consistently argued that sequencing matters more than dates. Understanding what needs to be fixed before transition is more important than simply knowing when transition might occur.
That includes the fundamentals providers have been calling for: a clear implementation roadmap before transition dates are locked in, pilot programs in contained environments, transition funding, transparent communication, and ongoing guidance throughout the reform process.
The power to shape reform
Despite financial mechanisms still being unclear, providers are the ones with boots on the ground, skin in the game and the operational expertise to determine whether reform translates in practice.
The Government determines policy settings and funding mechanisms. Providers determine whether those policies succeed.
That is a far more influential position than many organisations give themselves credit for.
Transitioning to what’s next
With the Government now convening a roundtable on CHSP’s future, and broader debates continuing around issues such as human oversight of aged care assessments, the next phase of reform is already underway. Providers who want to influence the outcome should contribute operational evidence rather than simply respond to policy once it arrives.
Over the next three years, the conversation cannot simply be about when CHSP transitions. It needs to be about how providers become more capable organisations, regardless of the eventual policy model.
Whether CHSP remains separate, merges after 2027 or evolves into something entirely different, providers will still need organisations capable of delivering larger, more complex and more integrated services.
The organisations that emerge strongest from this transition are unlikely to be those that waited for certainty. They will recognise that the Senate had paused a policy decision, but not the work of leadership.
