Spinifex is an opinion column. If you would like to contribute, contact us to ask for a detailed brief.
Fatalities in residential fires are always tragic, and sprinklers can help prevent them happening; but the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) is under real budget pressure. The Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) Alliance and the Housing Industry Association) HIA campaign for mandatory sprinklers in all SDA raises hard questions about costs, benefits, and who gets a say in the decision.
The campaign
The recent SDA alliance and Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition (HFSC) in Australia campaign on the ABC is the latest salvo in a campaign by the coalition, led by Mark Whybro. The campaign rests on emotional appeals, but the underlying case for sprinklers in SDA relies on statistics and cost data that doesn’t hold up well under scrutiny.
Some facts – the NCC
The NDIS SDA program already includes fire protection provisions under existing National Construction Code (NCC) requirements. Schedule 1 of the NDIS SDA Rules sets out which NCC class applies to each SDA Classification.
In practice, SDA group homes (4–5 bedrooms) are built to NCC Class 3 (residential care) standards, which already mandate sprinklers, fire doors, alarms, and more. Apartment buildings over four storeys (NCC Class 2) require sprinklers for everyone, not just SDA residents.
The core issue – choice, control, and the family home
The real debate is about 1–3 bedroom houses, villas, duplexes, townhouses, and homes which Schedule 1 currently allows to be built as NCC Class 1a, 1b, or Class 3.
This is the core issue: should NDIS Participants be able to choose to live in (NCC Class 1a) mainstream housing, including family homes, as registered SDA?
Or should the NDIA be able to override Schedule 1 of the SDA legislation and force all SDA to comply with an institutional standard NCC Class 3 complete with fire protection sprinklers and emergency exit lights?
Statistics
The largest study of fatalities in preventable residential fires in Australia, believed to be “approximately 900 fatalities between 2003 – 2017”, is extensively and incorrectly quoted. It defines “disability” broadly, including age-related conditions like dementia and heart disease — not the much tighter definition of disability required to be eligible for the NDIS.
Looking closer: fatality numbers for people using hoists were under five (roughly a 1 per cent fatality rate), while elderly people using mobility aids like walking frames made up 46/365 = 12.6 per cent of fatalities for whom use (or otherwise) of assistive technology was recorded.
The oft-cited claim that 62 per cent of fire deaths involved a “disability” conflates a multi-factor risk statistic (which sums past 100 per cent across categories) with the actual single-cause death count of about 46.7 per cent.
The report’s own data indicates the group actually at highest risk is elderly people living alone with health issues — not NDIS participants.
Costs
Claims that sprinklers would cost $5000 – $20,000 per home don’t hold up to scrutiny. EY’s 2022–23 pricing review put the cost of sprinklers for a three bedroom high physical support SDA home at roughly $59,280, plus $800 – $2800 per year in inspections.
Other cost blowouts are possible: inadequate water mains connections could add $20,000, and shifting a build from Class 1b to Class 3 added $180,000 according to one builder. There is no NDIA cost audit program or cost data being collected, so real figures are not available.
Meanwhile, unmet SDA demand has stubbornly stayed around 38 per cent for three years while SDA costs have nearly doubled. Adding a new mandatory cost item risks worsening both problems without demonstrated life-saving benefit.
Given the scale of spending involved, a formal regulatory impact statement would normally be required under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act.
Other considerations
Alternatives such as modified hardwired alarms, fire blankets, extinguishers, training, and reducing ignition risks — haven’t been properly evaluated against the sprinkler mandate the SDA Alliance is pushing.
The emergency evacuation of people with disabilities from buildings was examined in 2015 by the Australian Building Codes Board. They found:
“From a life safety perspective, the risk to life is very small. Emergency events are rare in Australia, and new buildings are considered generally very safe”
and
“Based on COAG (Council of Australian Governments) best practice regulation requirements, this RIS recommends that the status quo remains.”
This aligns with the Productivity Commission’s recent call to:
“Only regulate housing design features when there are clear market failures and allow household to choose and pay for other features they value”
To borrow a sentiment from the Productivity Commissioner:
“[proponents of fire protection sprinklers] should be required to offset new regulations with deregulation elsewhere”
“The Office of Impact Analysis—the office that oversees regulation impact analyses—should be strengthened. It should be more independent from government, with a statutory commissioner to oversee it.”
Conflict of interest
Since 2022, the HIA have been running a campaign to oppose or defer adoption of cheap and widely available accessible mainstream housing, instead endorsing the government funded NDIS SDA new build program.
Advice was provided by the ABCB to the NDIA in 2023 and published online – consistent with Schedule 1 of the SDA legislation. That same year, the HIA and the SDA Alliance developed a proposal for a new SDA NCC classification – and the ABCB advice was taken down without explanation.
Adoption of the mandatory fire protection requirement in SDA would send a powerful signal to the broader housing community – effectively eliminating mainstream NCC Class 1a family homes from funding in government funded programs in line with HIA policy. And with significant profit implications for the building industry interests represented by the HIA.
Who’s in charge of decision making?
After 10 years of operation, you’d think there would be an established decision-making process with responsibilities clearly defined. You’d be wrong.
Starting with the 2019 update, the NDIA Home and Living branch has set itself up as an ersatz Australian Building Codes Board, developing a completely new definition of disability housing along with an implementation program for SDA in new build. Which appears to be outside the scope of work legally authorised under the APTOS intergovernmental agreement allowing for NDIA activities:
“developing partnerships with housing providers and influencing the development of housing options and housing design (not regulation or setting standards in housing design).”
No mention of NDIA creating a new regulatory structure including assuming the role of technical authority and appointing SDA assessors, as well as implementing, without legislative authority or public review, an NDIA-unique disability housing design standard. Complete with training and certification courses to provide a very profitable monopoly to selected building interests while ignoring Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and Australian Skills Quality Authority registration requirements.
Plus overriding Schedule 1 of the SDA legislation by mandating fire protection sprinklers in SDA.
All while NDIA ignores recommendations such as the 2023 South Australian parliamentary enquiry, NDIS review, and the need for a dependent economic and regulatory impact assessment.
Missing
Voices largely absent from this policy conversation include disability representative groups, peak bodies, and specialist research centres — while well-funded building-industry lobby groups, including those aligned with the SDA Alliance’s campaign, dominate the SDA Design Standard Review Technical Working group providing advice to the NDIA and the KPMG review.
And then there’s the millions of dollars required to fit assistive technology to meet the needs of some severely disabled NDIS participants with a diverse range of disabilities not accounted for; those not catered for by the SDA “one size fits all” commercial wheelchair accessible rental property template that complies with the SDA Design Standard.
Conclusions
Sprinklers remain a valid part of the fire-safety toolkit, but mandating them across all SDA -removing choice, including the option of family homes – isn’t supported by the evidence. The SDA Alliance’s campaign lacks a credible cost-benefit case, offers no proof a mandate would save a single life, and its position conflicts with existing legislation.
Larger problems — a billion dollars in vacant SDA stock and unmet housing need — deserve priority over adding a new mandatory cost burden driven by an industry-backed campaign.
