Branch and Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application for review by an existing participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) against a decision of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the National Disability Insurance Agency. The applicant sought to challenge the Agency's record of his diagnosis or impairment, arguing that it did not form part of the statement of participant supports. The applicant also sought to include the subsistence and care costs of his pet dog in his statement of participant supports, contending the dog was an assistance animal and that these costs were not merely day-to-day living expenses. The application was heard by Member P French of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether it had jurisdiction to review the applicant's record of diagnosis or impairment, and whether the applicant's requests regarding his pet dog were valid and supported by evidence. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the diagnosis or impairment itself was a reviewable decision under the NDIS Act, and if the costs associated with a pet dog, which was not an assistance animal, constituted an impairment-related support or were simply personal living expenses. The Tribunal also considered whether the application, in its entirety, was misconceived or lacking in substance, warranting summary dismissal.

The Tribunal reasoned that a diagnosis or impairment, as recorded by the Agency, does not form part of a statement of participant supports and therefore falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction to review in this context. Regarding the pet dog, the Tribunal found no evidence that the dog qualified as an assistance animal or that its subsistence and care costs were other than day-to-day living expenses. Consequently, the request to include these costs in the statement of participant supports was deemed lacking in substance. The Tribunal concluded that the application was misconceived in part and otherwise lacking in substance.

The application for review was dismissed pursuant to section 42B(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. The Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that the primary outcomes sought by the applicant lay outside its jurisdiction, and to the limited extent that this was not the case, the applicant had not established a proper basis for review.