Annual Report No. 2 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 16

7 May 2026

Submission to the NDIS General Inquiry

Topic: Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) – Vacancy Outcomes and Market Function

About the submitter

I am a private individual investor who delivered a newly built, SDA-compliant dwelling at Armstrong Creek, Victoria, in reliance on Australian Government policy settings and public messaging encouraging private sector investment to address housing shortages for people with disability.

Summary of the issue

Despite complying with SDA design and enrolment requirements, and despite sustained engagement with SDA providers, my dwelling remained vacant for approximately twelve months. Ultimately, I was forced to withdraw the property from the SDA market and lease it as a mainstream residential property at a significantly reduced return.

This experience suggests a material gap between SDA policy intent and actual delivery outcomes, particularly in relation to participant matching, scheme accountability, and investor risk.

Background and timeline

• A new SDA-compliant home was completed and made available for participants in Armstrong Creek, Victoria.
• The property was actively listed and marketed through two separate SDA providers over an extended period.
• While enquiries were generated, no participant placement was secured, despite sustained effort and provider engagement.
• A change of SDA provider did not improve outcomes.
• After approximately twelve months of vacancy, the property was withdrawn from the SDA market and placed into the mainstream rental market.

Observed systemic issues

Based on this experience, the following issues appear to be systemic rather than isolated:

a. Ineffective participant–dwelling matching There appears to be no effective mechanism to reconcile known participant demand with completed, compliant, and available SDA dwellings at a local level.

b. Limited provider accountability SDA providers face no evident consequences when dwellings remain vacant for prolonged periods, nor are investors provided with transparent explanations or data-driven feedback.

c. Risk asymmetry While policy communications encourage private investment into SDA, all vacancy and holding risk is borne by investors, even where compliance, provider engagement, and good-faith participation are demonstrated.

Annual Report No. 2 of the 48th Parliament

Submission 16

7 May 2026

d. Market distortion

Vacant, purpose-built SDA dwellings represent:

• stranded capital,
• lost housing supply for participants, and
• reduced investor willingness to engage with the SDA market in future.

5. Impact

As a direct result of prolonged vacancy:

• the dwelling was removed from the SDA system, reducing specialist housing supply;
• the property now generates a lower mainstream residential return, insufficient to cover prior SDA development assumptions; and
• confidence in the SDA framework as a viable investment pathway has been materially undermined.

6. Questions for consideration

I respectfully submit the following questions for consideration by the Inquiry:

1. What mechanisms exist (or should exist) to ensure timely matching of participants to available SDA dwellings?

2. How is provider performance measured where SDA stock remains vacant for extended periods?

3. What accountability applies to SDA providers when dwellings remain unused despite documented availability?

4. Is it appropriate that investors bear all vacancy risk in a scheme designed to deliver public benefit housing?

5. What data transparency improvements are needed to allow investors and policymakers to assess real SDA demand at a local level?

7. Closing remarks

I remain supportive of the objectives of the NDIS and SDA. However, my experience demonstrates that policy intent alone is not sufficient. Without effective delivery mechanisms, accountability, and meaningful participant matching, the SDA framework risks losing the confidence of the very investors it relies upon to function.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Inquiry.

Submitted by: Julius Wong Queensland (SDA Property located in Armstrong Creek, Victoria)