Allan and National Disability Insurance Agency

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application lodged by Mr Allan concerning a decision made by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). Mr Allan sought payment for providing support worker assistance to an NDIS participant, with whom he had a rooming accommodation agreement. The participant's NDIS plan was agency-managed, restricting engagement to registered NDIS providers, and Mr Allan was not a registered provider. Mr Allan lodged the application for review in his own name, asserting he was authorised by the participant.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Allan had standing to lodge the application for review under section 27(1) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth), and consequently, whether the Tribunal had the power to substitute him for another person in the proceedings. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if Mr Allan was a person whose interests were affected by the NDIA's internal review decision, which confirmed the agency-management of the participant's NDIS funding.

The Tribunal reasoned that standing under section 27(1) requires a person to be "directly affected" by the decision under review. Applying this principle, and referencing the decision in *Deacon and National Disability Insurance Agency*, the Tribunal found that while Mr Allan and his wife might be indirectly impacted by the decision, for example, by being unable to receive payment for services or rent, this indirect impact, described as a "ripple of affection," was too remote to constitute an affected interest. The Tribunal emphasised that the NDIS is designed to support participants with disabilities, not to create employment or revenue streams for service providers or landlords. As Mr Allan was not a plan nominee, legal guardian, or administrator for the participant, his interests were not considered directly affected by the decision.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Allan did not have standing to lodge the application, rendering it invalid. The participant was informed that he was at liberty to lodge an application for review in his own name, and his brother indicated he would assist with this process.