There’s been considerable media commentary in recent weeks about how to bring NDIS spending within more sustainable levels. Amid this discussion, we want to contribute a perspective we believe is important and has been largely absent from the public conversation.
The core issue between federal and state governments is that Australians with significant disability need both appropriate housing and daily support, yet responsibility is split. The Commonwealth funds the NDIS (including SDA and supports), while states manage broader housing, health, hospitals and legacy accommodation. This creates cost-shifting, unclear accountability, and leaves too many people in unsuitable settings such as aged care, hospitals, inappropriate public housing or traditional group homes.
Specialist Disability Accommodation is not the main cost pressure in the NDIS. The bigger challenge is high-cost Supported Independent Living (SIL), where participants receive intensive, line-of-sight support, which serves only a small proportion of participants but consumes a large and growing share of expenditure. Concerns also persist about states shifting legacy housing costs into the scheme.
For 24/7 support needs within SDA settings, integrated housing and support design matters significantly. Two models warrant distinct consideration:
For people with high physical support needs who can identify when they require support: well-designed accessible housing paired with Onsite Shared Support (OSS), where support staff are based on or near the site, providing 24/7 non-intrusive care to multiple residents in nearby dwellings, delivers better independence, safety and value than traditional group homes.
For participants requiring line-of-sight, intensive supports: Supported Independent Living (SIL) remains necessary, though its growth and cost warrant separate scrutiny.
Two critical gaps deserve Commonwealth attention. First, clear national guidelines are required on the right SDA cohort for each of these models—including extreme functional impairment, very high support needs, mobility requirements, age 18+, location matching, and indicative primary/secondary support hours. This will ensure the right tenants are placed in the right locations with the right housing models.
Second, the Commonwealth should consider explicitly endorsing and facilitating cohort-matched support delivery models, including OSS for physical support needs. This would accelerate supply of quality, efficient accommodation through better staffing models and clearer policy intent.
The key is matching the right housing and support model to the right participant group. To make the NDIS sustainable, governments must move beyond “who pays” arguments and focus on what works: investing in accessible housing, improving support efficiency, clarifying accountability, and enabling genuine independence for people with disability.
