22/04/2026
The NDIS is not just a support scheme. It is a privatised market.
The NDIS was sold as choice and control.
But what it has become is a publicly funded marketplace where disabled people carry the risk, while providers, charities, church-linked agencies, non-profits, private companies, lawyers and consultants all compete around our plans.
The money is public.
The system is market-driven.
The burden is put on disabled people.
In 2024–25, the NDIS paid around $46.35 billion in participant supports. That is not small money. That is a massive public funding stream being pushed through a provider market.
Every disabled person’s plan becomes a business opportunity.
Providers compete for the hours.
They compete for the housing.
They compete for therapy money.
They compete for support coordination.
They compete for behaviour support.
They compete for the package.
And let’s be honest: not-for-profit does not mean not-commercial.
Not-for-profit does not mean small.
Not-for-profit does not mean transparent.
Not-for-profit does not mean disability-led.
Not-for-profit does not mean there is no surplus, no executive class, no market strategy, no tendering, no mergers, no property interests and no competition for public money.
Start with just a few of the large organisations.
CPL – Choice, Passion, Life reported about $209 million in revenue in 2024–25.
Endeavour Foundation reported about $383 million in total revenue, including about $212 million in NDIS revenue.
Aruma reported about $522 million in revenue, including about $381 million in NDIS funding.
The Benevolent Society reported about $180 million in total revenue.
UnitingCare Queensland, a church-linked registered charity, reported about $2.38 billion in total revenue, with separate NDIS services revenue and large family and disability program funding.
Not every dollar is NDIS money. But that is exactly the point. These organisations operate across public care markets: disability, aged care, housing, family services, therapy, health and community programs.
Many are registered charities. Many receive charity-tax concessions. Some are income-tax exempt. Some are public benevolent institutions. Some are linked to churches. Yet they still operate inside competitive markets built on public funding.
So when disabled people are blamed for “scheme sustainability,” we need to ask:
Who is receiving the money?
Who controls the services?
Who controls the housing?
Who controls the rosters?
Who controls the invoices?
Who controls the therapy waitlists?
Who gets the contracts?
Who gets the tax concessions?
Who gets to call themselves benevolent while disabled people fight for basic support?
And then there is the second market the NDIS created: the appeals and legal market.
When an NDIA planner or delegate refuses support, cuts a plan, rejects therapy, denies equipment, reduces support coordination, or says a support is not “reasonable and necessary,” that decision is not free.
It creates a whole legal pipeline.
Internal review.
Tribunal review.
Paperwork.
Evidence.
Reports.
Statements.
Directions hearings.
Conciliation.
Case conferences.
Law firms.
Barristers.
Months of delay.
The AAT has now been replaced by the ART, but the problem remains the same: disabled people are forced into a legalised process just to fight for supports they may have needed from day one.
In 2024–25, the Tribunal received 7,935 NDIS applications. It finalised 5,014 and still had 5,839 on hand. The median time to finalise NDIS matters was around 27 weeks.
That is not a quick correction.
That is half a year of someone’s life.
And look at the outcomes.
Out of about 5,006 NDIS review outcomes, only 106 were affirmed. Thousands were resolved by consent, withdrawn, set aside, dismissed or otherwise finalised. A consent outcome is not technically the same as a legal “loss,” but it shows something very important: in thousands of cases, the original NDIA decision did not simply stand.
So how much did the NDIA really “save” by refusing the support?
How much did the planner’s decision cost?
How much did the review cost?
How much did the paperwork cost?
How much did the delay cost?
How much did the legal defence cost?
How much did the participant lose while waiting?
NDIA legal spending tells its own story.
In 2023–24, NDIA legal expenditure for AAT matters was reported at around $46.3 million.
In 2024–25, an NDIA FOI release showed external law-firm spending for AAT/ART matters of about $60.8 million excluding GST.
That included firms such as Maddocks, Mills Oakley, Moray & Agnew, Sparke Helmore, Makinson d’Apice, MinterEllison, Australian Government Solicitor and Clayton Utz.
Another NDIA FOI release reported the average external legal cost of a substantive AAT hearing at about $51,447 excluding GST.
That is public money being spent to fight disabled people over reasonable and necessary supports.
The filing fee may be zero.
But the process is not free.
Disabled people pay with stress.
They pay with lost support.
They pay with deterioration.
They pay with unpaid labour.
Families pay.
Advocates pay.
Therapists pay by writing report after report.
And the public pays again through lawyers, planners, delegates, tribunal administration and delay.
So when we talk about NDIS “waste,” stop pointing only at participants.
Point at the privatised provider market.
Point at the tendering.
Point at the charity concessions.
Point at the giant non-profit agencies.
Point at the church-linked care empires.
Point at the law firms.
Point at the bureaucracy.
Point at planner decisions that have to be dragged through review before they are corrected.
Disabled people are not the sustainability problem.
A system that can spend tens of millions fighting disabled people, while billions flow through provider markets, is the sustainability problem.
The NDIS should be a human rights system, not a privatised care market.
Public money should come with public accountability.
That means full transparency on provider revenue, NDIS income, executive salaries, administration costs, related-party transactions, property arrangements, complaints, restrictive practices, worker conditions, legal spending and tax concessions.
Disabled people are not commodities.
Our plans are not tenders.
Our support needs are not litigation opportunities.
Our lives are not revenue streams.
“Reasonable and necessary” should not mean: fight the NDIA for six months while public money pays lawyers to defend a bad decisions.
Yet again we the disabled are treated less than, reduced to what people can make from us.
