Anassis and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Anassis, as the plan nominee for her adult son, Mr Anassis, against a decision of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). The dispute centred on specific provisions within Mr Anassis's Statement of Participants Supports (SOPS), particularly regarding the management of his NDIS plan, the engagement of support workers, and the use of specified service providers. The case was heard by K. Parker SM in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether it was compelled to grant Ms Anassis's request, as plan nominee, for Mr Anassis's NDIS plan to be "plan-managed" rather than "NDIA-managed" under section 43 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth). Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether a provision prohibiting family members from being paid as support workers should be removed from the SOPS, and whether a provision mandating the use of two specified service providers for core supports should also be removed.

The Tribunal reasoned that section 43 of the NDIS Act did not compel the approval of a plan nominee's request for plan management over the NDIA's decision for NDIA management, as the request was for "plan-managed" and not "self-managed" under section 44. The Tribunal noted that Ms Anassis's instrument of appointment as plan nominee did not prevent her from managing the plan or appointing a plan manager. The Tribunal also observed that while Ms Anassis had initially sought the removal of the prohibition on family members being paid as support workers, this request was later withdrawn. The Tribunal found that the NDIA's contention that Mr Anassis was free to use other service providers, even with the specified providers in the SOPS, was reasonable.

The Tribunal set aside the Decision Under Review and remitted the matter for reconsideration. The NDIA was directed to approve a new SOPS that was plan-managed, retained the prohibition against family members being paid as support workers, and specified that the currently engaged service providers could be used, alongside other providers to be identified later. The Tribunal also made non-binding observations regarding Ms Anassis's fulfillment of her duties as plan nominee and whether her authority should be limited.