NDIS Staffing: Permanent, Casual or Contractor?

Will, EnableUs Community

Welcome to the show. Winter, here's the number I'd want every NDIS provider to keep in their head: up to $495,000 per contravention for sham contracting. [short pause] That is a VERY expensive way to learn that contractors, casuals, and permanent staff are not interchangeable.

Winter, EnableUs Community

[skeptical] The $495,000 is the bit that sticks, hey. Because on paper someone goes, "Oh, contractor, easier, less overhead." But if the Fair Work Act says the real substance and practical reality matter more than the contract title, that cheap option can turn into a legal migraine... fast.

Will, EnableUs Community

Exactly. And that's the quiet trap in NDIS workforce planning. People treat this like a roster choice, when it's really a business model choice. It changes your compliance load, your cost base, and the consistency participants actually experience. Same worker, same shift, same client -- but a totally different legal reality depending on how you've engaged them.

Winter, EnableUs Community

[curious] So if I'm a small provider and I'm looking at three columns on a spreadsheet, what am I missing? Because the spreadsheet usually starts with hourly rate, yeah?

Will, EnableUs Community

It does, and that's where people get fooled. The NDIS weekday support price limit is currently $70.23 an hour. A worker might receive somewhere around $30 to $45 of that, and the gap is doing a lot of heavy lifting -- super, workers comp, leave entitlements, admin, compliance. From 1 July 2025, super is 12%, so even before you get fancy, the true cost is never just the headline hourly number.

Winter, EnableUs Community

Wait -- the $70.23 is useful because it sounds high to outsiders, but then you stack 12% super, workers comp, paid leave, training, onboarding... and suddenly that "margin" looks less like cream and more like the engine room.

Will, EnableUs Community

[matter-of-fact] That's right. And when people compare permanent versus casual, the award rates show it clearly. As of July 2025, a Level 2.1 support worker under SCHADS is roughly $33.41 an hour as a permanent employee, and around $41.76 as a casual. That casual number includes the 25% loading because they don't get paid annual leave or personal leave.

Winter, EnableUs Community

[responds quickly] The $41.76 versus $33.41 is the whole story in miniature. Casual looks flexible, but it's not a budget hack. You're pre-paying for the lack of leave.

Will, EnableUs Community

Yes -- and then you add penalties. Public holidays are a good example. Permanent employees get 250% of base rate on a public holiday. Casuals get 250% plus the 25% loading, so 275%. If you've got a service mix heavy on weekends, evenings, or public holidays, the engagement model shows up in your P&L very quickly.

Winter, EnableUs Community

[half-laughing] Two hundred and seventy-five percent is one of those figures that should be written in giant text above the roster desk. Because that's where "we'll just keep it flexible" starts sounding a lot less relaxed.

Will, EnableUs Community

And there's another layer: participant consistency. In disability support, the staffing model isn't just internal admin. If a participant gets the same worker regularly, trust builds, routines settle, quality usually improves. When providers bounce between whatever labour type is cheapest this week, the participant feels that instability first.

Winter, EnableUs Community

I think that's the part operators sometimes underweight. They're solving for today's shift fill, but the participant is living with the cumulative effect. Three different workers in a fortnight can feel minor on a roster and major in someone's actual life.

Will, EnableUs Community

[reflective] Well put. So the practical headline is: don't ask, "Which model is cheapest?" Ask, "Which model matches the work, the predictability of demand, and the level of control we're exercising?" That's the question that keeps you out of trouble.

Winter, EnableUs Community

Alright, so let's sort the models properly. Permanent first. Full-time is 38 ordinary hours a week. Part-time is regular hours under 38. Both are permanent, both sit under the SCHADS Award, and both come with National Employment Standards entitlements. The upside is boring in the best possible way: stable hours, cleaner supervision, cleaner records, and usually better continuity for participants.

Will, EnableUs Community

[warmly] "Boring in the best possible way" is very good. Because compliance culture usually grows better in stable teams. Qualifications, training records, screening checks, incident processes -- all of that is simply easier when you've got a core workforce you directly manage and see regularly.

Winter, EnableUs Community

The downside, though, is obvious. If demand dips and you've contracted regular hours, you're still carrying those hours. So permanent works best when service volume is predictable, not when your roster looks like weather in Melbourne.

Will, EnableUs Community

[chuckles] Brutal and fair. Casuals are where providers reach for flexibility. No guaranteed hours, no ongoing expectation of work. But again, the rules have tightened. Australia now has a legal definition of casual employment from 26 August 2024, and casual employees can choose to convert after six months -- or 12 months if the business has fewer than 15 employees.

Winter, EnableUs Community

The six months is the bit I'd underline. Because some providers still talk about casuals like they're indefinitely casual by default. They're not. You can only refuse conversion if they still genuinely meet the definition of casual or you've got fair and reasonable operational grounds.

Will, EnableUs Community

Correct. And if you have 15 or more employees, you've also got an ongoing paperwork obligation. You need to give casual staff the Casual Employment Information Statement before, or as soon as possible after, they start, then again at six months, at 12 months, and every 12 months after that.

Winter, EnableUs Community

[questioning tone] Which means casual is flexible, but not "set and forget." Plus the right to disconnect matters here too, yeah? Workers can reasonably refuse to monitor or respond to contact outside working hours, including from participants or even the NDIS Commission.

Will, EnableUs Community

Yes, and that's a real operational issue for last-minute roster changes. If your whole staffing strategy relies on people answering texts after hours, that strategy is now a bit shaky. You need systems, not wishful thinking.

Winter, EnableUs Community

Now the spicy one: contractors. [pauses] Because this is where providers can talk themselves into trouble. If a support worker has an ABN and sends invoices, that does NOT automatically make them a genuine independent contractor.

Will, EnableUs Community

[firm] Exactly. Since the Closing Loopholes No. 2 Act 2024, the test is the real substance, practical reality, and true nature of the relationship. So if you decide when, where, and how the support worker provides services, they're almost certainly functioning as an employee in substance. Calling them a contractor in the agreement won't save you.

Winter, EnableUs Community

Let me try to say that back. If I'm setting the shift, telling them which participant to see, directing the work, and basically plugging them into my roster like staff... that's not really "independent business to business." That's employee-shaped, even if the PDF says contractor.

Will, EnableUs Community

[approving][short pause] That's it. And one more thing providers miss: super. Since 1 July 2022, if contractors are paid mainly for their labour, they're treated as employees for super guarantee purposes. So if more than half of what you're paying is for their labour, you may still owe super -- ABN or not.

Winter, EnableUs Community

The 1 July 2022 super rule is one of those gotchas that can quietly blow a hole in the "contractors are simpler" story. And in participant-facing work, there are also safety and quality risks. Contractors may carry more responsibility for their own WHS, training, supervision -- but participants aren't always in a position to judge whether those safeguards are actually solid.

Will, EnableUs Community

That's why contractors can make sense for genuinely independent allied health professionals working across multiple organisations, running their own practice, carrying their own insurance. For standard support workers under your direction? That's where the risk gets very hard to justify in the current environment.

Winter, EnableUs Community

So the practical answer for most growing providers is... a mix. Permanent staff as the anchor -- relationships, quality, compliance. Casuals around the edges for leave cover, growth, variable demand. Contractors only where the independence is real, not cosmetic.

Will, EnableUs Community

[calm] And whichever model you use, put a non-solicitation clause in the contract. Support workers build close bonds with participants. If that worker leaves and takes the client directly because there was no restraint, you've lost revenue and disrupted care in one move.

Winter, EnableUs Community

The non-solicitation clause is such a practical finish to this. Because after all the legal definitions and pay rates, the thing you're really protecting is the participant relationship. That's the asset. That's the trust. If your staffing model doesn't protect that, it isn't working as well as you think.

Will, EnableUs Community

[reflective] Yeah. In NDIS, the workforce decision isn't just who fills the shift. It's who holds the relationship -- and who carries the risk when that relationship moves. Thanks, Winter.

Winter, EnableUs Community

Thanks, Will.