By Jacqueline Carceller | Payroll Consultant, Australian Payroll Association
Last week, I attended an open forum of the Fair Work Ombudsman's Disability Support Services Inquiry. The purpose of the inquiry is to better understand the factors contributing to non-compliance with workplace laws and identify practical ways to support a sustainable culture of compliance across the sector.
The forum brought together employers, industry representatives, payroll professionals and other stakeholders to share their experiences and perspectives. One message was clear throughout the discussion: disability support providers are committed to meeting their legal and ethical obligations, but the complexity of the operating environment is making compliance increasingly challenging.
Some of the key themes discussed included the following:
An increasingly intricate rulebook:
Providers are juggling three overlapping frameworks, the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services (SCHADS) Award, state and federal work health and safety (WHS) requirements, and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) rules.
Each change frequently, yet the changes are not synchronised. For payroll teams, this creates an increasingly complex environment where legislative changes, award variations and funding requirements must all be considered when processing payroll accurately.
Funding that lags behind service reality:
Several speakers stressed the growing gap between NDIS price limits and the actual cost of delivering quality, compliant support.
Where participants need highly flexible rosters or additional supervision, the existing funding model does not always cover the higher wage and WHS costs. This financial tension can push payroll teams into grey areas, for example, shortening paid hand-over time or delaying overtime payments.
Awards that no longer mirror modern practice:
The SCHADS Award still assumes a traditional residential service model, yet the sector now emphasises individualised support, gig-style shifts, and technology enabled remote services. Applying provisions such as broken shifts, minimum engagements, travel time and kilometre allowances within these modern operating models can be complex and may lead to differing interpretations.
Technology vendors left out of the loop:
Payroll, time-and-attendance and rostering system providers do not seem to be consulted when award variations are drafted. As a result, award clauses are issued in legal prose that is difficult to translate into system rules, leaving administrators to rely on spreadsheets and manual overrides.
Conclusion
Compliance in disability support is now a strategic capability, not an administrative afterthought. Organisations that invest in deep award knowledge, data-driven rostering and proactive vendor relationships will be best placed to protect vulnerable participants, satisfy regulators and remain financially viable.
A sincere thank you to the Fair Work Ombudsman for giving all stakeholders in this space a voice to be heard. Hopefully, this will result in more clarity, ease of administrative burden and ultimately better care for our vulnerable members of society.
For readers who wish to develop their expertise further, Australian Payroll Association’s Understanding the SCHADS Award course provides a focused exploration of pay rates, shift penalties and flexible work provisions specific to the sector.
This article is intended as a high-level overview. For detailed guidance, please consult the full legislation, the Fair Work Ombudsman, the Australian Taxation Office and your professional advisers.
