The Finance Function With a Hole in It
The Finance Function With a Hole in It
Every role in a typical $4 million provider's finance structure is doing its job. None of them is doing financial control. That's a design problem, not a competence one — and design problems don't fix themselves as you grow.
Picture the finance structure of a $4 million NDIS or community provider. A bookkeeper, part-time or outsourced, running payroll and reconciling the bank. Possibly an AP/AR officer submitting claims. An external accountant preparing annual statements months after year end. And a founder or CEO who opens the accounting file once a month and forms a general impression.
Every one of those roles is doing its job competently. And there is a body of work none of them is doing.
Nobody is calculating the true cost per billable hour by service line. Nobody is reconciling delivered services against claimed revenue to find what was never billed. Nobody is testing whether the Award interpretation baked into the payroll configuration still matches the current Award. Nobody is running the rolling cash forecast that would flag a problem in October rather than January.
That work is financial control. It sits between transaction processing and annual compliance — in the space between two roles that both exist.
How the gap gets made
No organisation sets out to build a finance function with a hole in it. It accretes, one reasonable decision at a time. The chart of accounts came from a template. The payroll configuration came from whatever the software defaulted to at onboarding. The claiming process came from a peer provider. And the whole thing was signed off by an accountant who is genuinely competent, but who has never worked inside this sector.
That last one does the most damage, precisely because it carries authority. A general practice accountant gives advice that is correct for a business with customers, invoices and staff. It is not correct for an organisation whose revenue is capped by a Commonwealth price schedule, arrives through several payment channels with different timing profiles, must trace to a service agreement and a delivery record to survive audit, and runs a payroll governed by one of the more interpretively difficult modern awards going.
The result is recognisable across a lot of providers: a single revenue account with no split by service line or management type, no unbilled revenue concept, and cost centres that mirror the org chart rather than the service lines. You can report on your team structure and not your economics. None of this hurts at $800,000 of revenue. All of it hurts at $4 million.
Remediation costs nothing like setup: a few days of specialist work at the outset, versus restructuring the chart of accounts, restating comparatives, running a retrospective payroll review and potentially funding back-pay three years later — all while continuing to operate and claim. The bill arrives when you try to sell, refinance, pass an audit, or explain a variance.
Why the gap got more expensive this year
Providers have run this structure for years and survived. Three things have made that harder, and they are all specific and dated.
The claiming window is now law, not proposal. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Act 2026 received Royal Assent on 20 August 2026, and the 90-day claiming window applies from 1 December 2026, down from two years. Under the old window a claim stuck in a rejection queue was an annoyance. Under 90 days it is forfeited revenue with no recovery path, and the discipline that prevents that — a weekly owned rejection queue, reconciled against delivery records — is one most providers do not run.
Price relief is not coming. In the 2026-27 Annual Pricing Review the NDIA again held support coordination price limits at Level 2 and Level 3 — $100.14 and $190.54 an hour. Those rates have not moved since 2019-20, while wage costs rose through successive Fair Work decisions. You can charge less than the schedule; you cannot charge more.
The sector's own numbers say the squeeze has arrived. National Disability Services' State of the Disability Sector Report 2025 found nearly half of providers reported a financial loss in 2024-25, and 81% agreed they were worried they could not keep providing NDIS services at current prices.
|
Nearly half
Of providers reported a financial loss in 2024-25, per National Disability Services' State of the Disability Sector Report 2025. Eighty-one per cent were worried they could not keep providing at current prices.
|
Since 2019-20
Level 2 and Level 3 support coordination price limits have not moved, while wage costs rose through successive Fair Work decisions.
|
When you cannot raise prices, margin is entirely a function of operational and financial discipline. Utilisation, casual-to-permanent mix, overtime percentage, rejection rate, overhead per billable hour, cancellation recovery. Every one of those is a finance-controlled lever sitting in the part of the structure that has no seat.
Three jobs, one and a half hires
Bookkeeper, finance manager and CFO get used loosely, which is part of why organisations under-resource. A bookkeeper answers is it recorded correctly. A finance manager answers are the numbers right and controlled. A CFO answers what should we do about it. Yesterday, this month, and the next three years. Without the first nothing gets recorded; without the second errors compound silently; without the third you find out too late.
A provider at this scale typically needs all three — more so where operations are multi-service and award-heavy — and can afford about one and a half as full-time hires. So the usual response is to hire up on the bookkeeper, which helps with the first job and very little with the third. It is the most common mis-hire in the sector, because the symptom prompting the hire (things feel messy) points at the wrong role.
Run the decision properly and there are four options. Each fails for a different reason.
Hire each level part-time. Sensible on paper; defeated by the market. Nobody capable wants a one-day-a-week finance manager role with no team and no progression, so you fill it with whoever was available rather than whoever was capable.
Hire one senior person full-time. The capability is right and the unit economics are wrong. A sector-experienced senior hire is, indicatively, a low-to-mid six-figure salary before on-costs, which on price-capped revenue has to generate a lot of identified value to break even.
Do it yourself. Where most founders land. The limitation isn't intelligence or effort; it's that financial control is largely about knowing what to look for, and you cannot look for something you have never seen. A founder catches what changed, not what should have been there and never was.
Do nothing. Revenue is growing, staff are paid, there's money in the account. The organisation appears to be working.
Almost everyone picks the fourth, and given the first three that is rational rather than lazy. But the decision was made against one mental model of senior finance capability: a full-time executive at full-time cost. What was rejected there is a shape of engagement, not a function — and the function is still needed, still unfilled, and still costing something every month.
What AI actually changes about the arithmetic
It changes the ratio of judgement to grunt work. Much of what made financial control expensive at this scale was preparation: normalising payroll exports, mapping cost centres to service lines, reconciling claims against delivery records. That is now much faster, so a smaller quantity of senior attention converts into more actual control. What it does not change is the judgement — which allocation base is defensible, how an Award clause reads against a roster pattern, whether a variance is timing or a problem. A confidently wrong allocation produces a confidently wrong answer that looks more credible for having come out of a model.
What "filled" looks like — and when it isn't worth filling
Whatever shape you choose — a fractional arrangement, a shared resource, a capable finance manager with senior support behind them — the test is an output test, not a process one. Within about two months you should be holding: claim rejection rate categorised by cause; unbilled revenue aged and quantified; utilisation rate; a cost-to-serve model by service line with overhead properly allocated; a live rolling cash forecast incorporating plan expiry and realistic claim timing; and Award exposure priced into the roster model. Numbers you keep, not a report someone presents. If what arrives instead is a strategy document, you have bought meetings.
It is worth saying plainly when none of this applies, because plenty of firms will tell you otherwise. Below roughly $1.5 million in revenue, a capable bookkeeper and a good accountant genuinely cover it. If you already have a competent internal finance manager, the answer is usually support and authority for that person, not a layer above them. If you have one presenting problem rather than a systemic one, buy that advice, not a retainer. And if the organisation won't change operational decisions as a result, better reporting produces documentation rather than improvement.
The test isn't cost. It's whether filling the gap pays for itself in identified margin. If you are running a high rejection rate, have never measured utilisation, and carry an unpriced Award exposure, it usually will. If those things are already tight, it won't — and you should keep your money.
Who in your structure owns cost per billable hour?
If the answer is "nobody, really," that's the hole — and it isn't filled by working harder at the roles you already have. PFL provides senior-level outsourced finance, management reporting, and AI automation for Australian NFP, NDIS, and SME organisations.
Talk to PFL →NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission — Parliament passed the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Act 2026
Department of Health, Disability and Ageing — About the changes to the NDIS
NDIS — Pricing updates
National Disability Services — State of the Disability Sector Report 2025 (PDF)
Fair Work Commission — Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award
Comments
Post a Comment