This article is written by Allan Hunter, NSW Reference Group Member.
Residential fire deaths are tragic, and sprinklers can help prevent them — but the NDIS is under real budget pressure. The SDA Alliance and HIA campaign for mandatory sprinklers in all Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) raises hard questions about costs, benefits and who gets a say. The campaign, led by HFSC Australia, relies on emotional appeal because the statistics and cost data don’t hold up under scrutiny.
What the code already requires
NDIS SDA already carries fire protection obligations under the National Construction Code (NCC), via Schedule 1 of the SDA Rules. Group homes (4–5 bedrooms) are built to Class 3, which already mandates sprinklers, fire doors and alarms; apartments over four storeys (Class 2) already require sprinklers for everyone. The real dispute is over 1–3 bedroom houses, villas, duplexes and townhouses, which Schedule 1 allows to be built as Class 1a, 1b or 3: should participants choose mainstream family homes as registered SDA, or should the NDIA override Schedule 1 and force an institutional Class 3 standard on all SDA?
Statistics don’t support the claim
The largest study of preventable residential fire fatalities (900 fatalities, 2003–17) defines “disability” broadly and includes dementia and heart disease — far wider than NDIS eligibility. Fatalities of people who relied on a lifter was less than 1% full; elderly mobility- aid users made up 12.6% of recorded cases. The oft-cited “62% of deaths involved a disability” conflates a multi-factor risk statistic with an actual single-cause rate of ~46.7%. The data’s own conclusion: elderly people living alone are highest-risk — not NDIS Participants.
Costs are understated
Claims of $5,000–$20,000 per home don’t match Ernst & Young’s 2022–23 pricing review, which put sprinkler costs for a three-bedroom home at ~$59,280 plus $800–$2,800/year in inspections — before add-ons like water-main upgrades (~$20,000) or a Class 1b-to-3 shift ($180,000 in one case). No NDIA cost-audit program exists. Unmet SDA demand has held near 38% for three years as costs nearly doubled — a mandatory cost item risks worsening both, with no demonstrated benefit. Spending at this scale would normally trigger a formal regulatory impact statement.
Other red flags
Cheaper alternatives (alarms, fire blankets, training, reduced ignition risk) haven’t been evaluated. The ABCB’s 2015 egress review found evacuation risk “very small” and recommended the status quo; the Productivity Commission urges regulating only where there’s clear market failure, and proponents should offset new regulation with deregulation elsewhere, with the Office of Impact Analysis strengthened and made Independent.
Since 2022 the HIA has campaigned against affordable accessible mainstream housing while backing the SDA new-build program — a proposal it developed with the SDA Alliance coincided with contrary ABCB advice being taken offline.
The NDIA’s Home and Living branch has meanwhile assumed a quasi-regulatory role — setting standards, certifying assessors — apparently beyond its APTOS mandate, ignoring calls for independent review from a 2023 SA parliamentary inquiry and the NDIS review, and no independent economic and regulatory impact assessment has been conducted.
Missing voices
Disability groups, peak bodies and specialist research centres are largely absent from the SDA Design Standard Review Technical Working Group, which building-industry lobbyists dominate. Also missing: the millions needed to fit assistive technology for severely disabled participants whose needs fall outside the SDA’s “one size fits all” commercial template.
Conclusion
Sprinklers are a valid safety tool, but mandating them across all SDA — removing the choice of family homes — isn’t supported by the evidence, offers no proof a mandate would save a single life, and conflicts with existing legislation. Billions in vacant SDA stock and unmet housing need deserve priority over a new mandatory cost burden driven by an industry-backed campaign.
