Blattman and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application by Mr. Blattman to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of a decision by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). The dispute centred on whether Mr. Blattman, who has a C6/C7 tetraplegia, was entitled to receive funding for transport as a "reasonable and necessary support" under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Mr. Blattman had previously received a mobility allowance before becoming an NDIS participant and argued he should continue to receive transport funding under a "no disadvantage principle."

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the transport funding sought by Mr. Blattman constituted a "reasonable and necessary support" in accordance with the NDIS legislation. Secondly, if it did not, whether Mr. Blattman was entitled to receive such funding based on the "no disadvantage principle," given his prior receipt of a mobility allowance.

The Tribunal found that the transport support requested by Mr. Blattman did not meet the criteria for "reasonable and necessary support" as defined by the NDIS rules and the Act. The evidence indicated that Mr. Blattman could independently drive his modified private vehicle, which was the most cost-effective, time-efficient, and safest method for him to travel to work and for social engagements. While the NDIA had previously provided transport funding, their explanations for discontinuing it were unsubstantiated. Regarding the "no disadvantage principle," the Tribunal noted the COAG Agreement's commitment to ensuring participants were not disadvantaged during the transition to the NDIS. However, Mr. Blattman provided no evidence that he had suffered any disadvantage, either financially or in his social and economic participation, since the transport funding ceased.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the transport funding was a reasonable and necessary support. Furthermore, as Mr. Blattman had not demonstrated any disadvantage arising from the cessation of this funding, the Tribunal affirmed the NDIA's decision.