The disability accommodation new build program is worth about $4 billion so far, dominated by a handful of big investment funds, but it needs a shakeup.
Spinifex is an opinion column. If you would like to contribute, contact us to ask for a detailed brief.
Since the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) engaged KPMG to do a 12 month review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, limited to just the content of the Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) Design Standard, this might be an opportune moment to take another look at the standard’s history
I am a retired systems engineer with a background in defence as a support reliability engineer. I also happen to be a C3/C4 quadriplegic who has designed and built his own (now SDA registered) fully accessible home.
Due to the refusal by the NDIA to fix an error regarding backup power supplies in the SDA Design Standard, first requested in 2021, I’ve been digging into the what’s been going on behind the scenes at the NDIS.
Four Corners investigates but needed to go further
Last year’s ABC Four Corners program highlighted hundreds of vacant SDA properties, but it didn’t move past the SDA industry spin that this was due to poor location.
I’d suggest most of the problems are that the properties are not fit for purpose. They cater mainly to people needing wheelchair access but not people with more complex needs.
I’d also suggest that most of the problems can be traceable to a 2018 decision by the then Liberal minister Stuart Robert to handball the new build SDA Design Standard redesign to Livable Housing Australia, which failed to meet ambitions.
In August 2019 Robert had outlined actions the federal government was taking to ramp up the SDA market.
“We are determined to see the burgeoning specialist disability housing market build with investors, developers and existing and new providers growing with confidence, and in confidence with SDA,” he told an accessibility conference.
But the 2019 SDA Design Standard claims to be suitable for the most disabled in our community. It’s not.
What actually happened is that the standard reflected the skill sets of its three authors and a select group of building industry interests (check out the free advertising for the various organisations on page 2 of the standard).
It is simply a template for a very expensive, commercial, wheelchair accessible rental property, complete with NDIA issued checklists to be completed by select trades and professions the NDIS has deemed worthy to be an SDA assessor.
Why the standards fail
The standard fails to address important considerations regarding people with an intellectual disability, autism, cerebral palsy, or acquired brain injury. Let alone a diverse range of debilitating conditions such as motor neuron disease, multiple sclerosis and injuries or the complex assistive technology required for some, such as high-level quadriplegics like me.
“Technology ready” doesn’t cut it. At least some of the homes were identified by Four Corners as vacant because they required modification before someone with a severe disability can move in. I couldn’t live in one without adding extensive assistance technology.
On the other hand, NDIA-funded home modifications(not new build SDA) comply with Australian state and territory health legislation requiring assessment by someone with a three year university degree.
They also require the assessor to be registered as an allied health professional – an area which is dominated by occupational therapists, which is what you’d expect for the 6 per cent most disabled in the Australian community.
State and territory legislation initially applied to new-build SDA from 2016 onwards.
A redesign in 2019 removed regulatory and technical oversight by fully qualified professionals and created a complete new ecosystem of rules and regulations unique to the NDIS and overseen by the NDIA Home and Living branch.
This made the NDIS an ersatz “Australian Buildings Codes Board” for disability housing – responsible for review, certification, and policing of regulation and ensuring standard compliance for the SDA.
The SDA standards were later incorporated into the National Building Code.
What’s meant by “NDIS SDA assessor” now
The newly created role of “NDIS SDA assessor” deserves special mention.
The decision to award a monopoly to provide SDA accreditation for assessors to private company, Access Institute, for the training and certification of “NDIS SDA assessor” bypassed state and territory legislation requiring all trades and professions involved in the building industry qualification recognised by the Department of Education Workplace Relations (DEWR).
There is mandatory prerequisite that all SDA assessors have a CPP40821 Certificate IV in Access Consulting (an eight day online course for $5500 provided by Access Institute) even though government training agency, Training.gov.au, says of the certificate that “No licensing, legislative or certification requirements apply to this qualification”.
The SDA new build program put key members of the peak body for access consultants Access Consultants Association in charge to the extent of delegating NDIA authority to issue “clarifications” to the SDA Design Standard.
On top of that, there is anecdotal evidence of SDA assessors charging $5000 to $10,000 for what in some cases is only a few hours work.
This is ironic considering that the 2015 Applied Principles and Tables of Support (ATPOS) agreement between the states and Commonwealth stated the NDIS would be responsible for:
Working with other parties to facilitate appropriate housing options and improve accommodation choices for people with disability, including through developing partnerships with housing providers and influencing the development of housing options and housing design (not regulation or setting standards in housing design).
Not mentioned so far is the four or five big investment funds that dominate the (so far) $4 billion SDA new build program.
However, some of these have struggled to find tenants, thanks to the unsuitability of the properties for people with disabilities who need more than wheelchair access.
Too bad for all the NDIS participants, family members, disability advocates and representative groups and anyone else with an interest in housing for the severely disabled. They don’t get a voice.
Conflicts of interest, rorts, including “NDIS approved, medical grade UPS [uninterrupted power supply], project management and governance deficiencies, missing cost control and quality assurance regimes, and the close relationships between NDIA senior managers and favoured business interests and consultants that’s delivered $4 billion of taxpayer funded privatised rental accommodation, is also not being scrutinised.
Time for an independent, public review scrutinising all aspects of the taxpayer funded NDIS new build program. And putting the interests of the 6 per cent most disabled in our community first.
Surely someone in the political sphere would take action on this huge waste of money so that housing is designed for those who need it most – not line the pockets of developers.