Cameron and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) - [2025] ARTA 1795

Cameron and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 1795 (10 September 2025)
Applicant/s:  Joanne Cameron
Respondent:  National Disability Insurance Agency
Tribunal Number:                2024/6323

Tribunal:General Member J McAteer
Place:Sydney
Date:10 September 2025

Decision:The Tribunal dismisses the application pursuant to s 101 (1) (b) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth).

.......................................................................
Catchwords       NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME – participant supports – reasonable and necessary supports – transitional supports rules – all terrain vehicle – personal mobility devices – What is not an NDIS Support – NDIS Support
Legislation National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back
  on Track No 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
  National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.
1)    (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Cth)

Cases FSWN and the National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 114
DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION FOR REVIEW STATEMENT OF REASONS

Ms Cameron, the Applicant applied for administrative review with the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) previously the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), on 21 August 2024 following a refusal on Internal Review to provide funding for a certain participant support in her NDIS Plan. Ms Cameron was accepted into the NDIS on 21 August 2023 with a primary disability of Multiple Sclerosis.
On 28 May 2024 Ms Cameron was provided with a statement of participants supports (SOPS) approved by the delegate of the CEO.
Ms Cameron sought an Internal Review of the SOPS seeking the inclusion of funding for a Kymco ultra-terrain vehicle (UTV) requesting additional funding in the amount of $18,490.00 including GST.
The National Disability Insurance Agency (the NDIA) by a decision of the delegate of the Chief Executive Officer (the CEO) refused Ms Cameron’s request on Internal Review for inclusion of the funding for the UTV in the SOPS and NDIS Participant Plan on 3 June 2024. In their view the UTV was not a NDIS support and the original Plan decision was affirmed.
A decision not to vary a participant’s plan under s 47A (4)(b) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) is a reviewable decision in accordance with Item 6A of the Table to s 99 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) (the NDIS Act).
The NDIA refused to fund the UTV because they determined that the request was not likely to be an effective and beneficial support and therefore did not meet the criteria under s 34 (1) (d) and (e) of the NDIS Act which relevantly provided at the time of the decision that:
NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME ACT 2013 - SECT 34
Reasonable and necessary supports
(1) For the purposes of specifying, in a statement of participant supports, the general supports that will be provided, and the reasonable and necessary supports that will be funded, the CEO must be satisfied of all of the following in relation to the funding or provision of each such support:
.…
…
…
(d) the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for the participant, having regard to current good practice;
(e) the funding or provision of the support takes account of what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide;
…
Reliance was also placed on the NDIS Rules in particular rule 5.1 (a) that the support could create a risk of harm, rule 5.1(b) that the support was not related to the participant’s disability, and rule 5.1 (d) that it relates to a day to day living cost.
Since the decision under review was made there have been legislative amendments to the NDIS. As a result of those amendments the Respondent now argues that the application cannot and should not proceed before the Tribunal as it no longer has any prospects of success following those amendments.
On 3 October 2024, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No 1) Act 2024 commenced. Those amendments relevant to this application amended sections 33, 34 and 35 of the NDIS Act. Under subitem 129 (1) of Schedule 1 of the Amending Act, sections 33, 34 and 35 (as in force after 3 October 2024) apply to a SOPS approved or varied after that date. Subitem 129 (2) of Schedule 1 of the Amending Act provides that if a SOPS is varied on or after 3 October 2024, the amendments apply irrespective of when the SOPS came into force, being before or after the amendments.
The relevance of this retrospective provision to the current matter whereby the Applicant is seeking to have her SOPS varied to include finding for the UTV, lies in other amendments that came into effect on 3 October 2024. The Tribunal notes that it is the SOPS not the participant’s NDIS Plan that the Tribunal is reviewing. As such the application is determined by way of a review where the question is should the SOPs via the Plan be approved, varied or modified.
The Amending Act varied s 34 of the NDIS Act which now provides:
Reasonable and necessary supports
(1) For the purposes of specifying, in a statement of participant supports, the general supports that will be provided, and the reasonable and necessary supports that will be funded, the CEO must be satisfied of all of the following in relation to the funding or provision of each such support:
(aa) the support is necessary to address needs of the participant arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements (see section   24) or the early intervention requirements (see section   25);
(a) the support will assist the participant to pursue the goals, objectives and aspirations included in the participant's statement of goals and aspirations;
(b) the support will assist the participant to undertake activities, so as to facilitate the participant's social and economic participation;
(c) the support represents value for money in that the costs of the support are reasonable, relative to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternative support;
(d) the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for the participant, having regard to current good practice;
(e) the funding or provision of the support takes account of what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide;
(f) the support is an NDIS support for the participant.
Note: For the purposes of paragraph   (aa):
(a) the time at which the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements need to be met is the time the CEO decides to approve the statement of participant supports; and
(b) a participant's disability support needs arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements may be affected by a variety of factors, including environmental factors or the impact of another impairment in relation to which the participant does not meet either of those requirements.
(2) The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may prescribe methods or criteria to be applied, or matters to which the CEO is to have regard, in deciding whether or not he or she is satisfied as mentioned in any of paragraphs   (1)(aa) to (f).
Under s 34 (1) (f) the CEO (and the Tribunal standing in their shoes on administrative Review) must be satisfied that the requested support is a NDIS support. Section 10 of the NDIS Act now provides that:
NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME ACT 2013 - SECT 10
Definition of NDIS support
Supports that are NDIS supports
(1) Subject to subsections (4) and (9), a support is an NDIS support for a person who is a participant or prospective participant if the support is declared by National Disability Insurance Scheme rules made for the purposes of this subsection to be an NDIS support for :
(a) participants or prospective participants generally; or
(b) a class of participants or prospective participants that includes the person.
Note: The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may declare a support for the purposes of this subsection by identifying a class of supports (see subsection 13(3) of the Legislation Act 2003).
(2) Before making National Disability Insurance Scheme rules declaring a support for the purposes of subsection (1), the Minister must be satisfied:
(a) for rules to which paragraph (1)(a) applies--that the support is appropriately funded or provided through the National Disability Insurance Scheme for participants or prospective participants generally; or
(b) for rules to which paragraph (1)(b) applies--that the support is appropriately funded or provided through the National Disability Insurance Scheme for participants, or prospective participants, in the relevant class.
(3) National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may declare a support for the purposes of subsection (1) only if at least one of the following applies:
(a) the declaration of the support implements Australia's obligations under:
(i) the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities done at New York on 13 December 2006; or
(ii) any other agreement with one or more other countries;
(b) the declaration of the support enables the provision of sickness benefits.
Section 10 of the NDIS then sets out what are supports which are not NDIS Supports. Subsections (4)- (9) provide as follows:
Supports that are not NDIS supports
(4) The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may declare that a support is not an NDIS support for:
(a) participants or prospective participants generally; or
(b) a class of participants or prospective participants.
Note: The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may declare a support for the purposes of this subsection by identifying a class of supports (see subsection 13(3) of the Legislation Act 2003 (Cth)).
(5) Before making National Disability Insurance Scheme rules declaring a support for the purposes of subsection (4), the Minister must be satisfied:
(a) for rules to which paragraph (4)(a) applies--that the support is not appropriately funded or provided through the National Disability Insurance Scheme for participants or prospective participants generally; or
(b) for rules to which paragraph (4)(b) applies--that the support is not appropriately funded or provided through the National Disability Insurance Scheme for participants, or prospective participants, in the relevant class.
(6) The CEO may determine, in writing, that a support is taken to not be declared under subsection (4) in relation to a participant if:
(a) the support is prescribed by the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules for the purposes of this paragraph; and
(b) the support would, apart from subsection (4), be an NDIS support for the participant; and
(c) the participant applies to the CEO in accordance with subsection (7) for the determination; and
(d) the CEO is satisfied that:
(i) the support would replace one or more other supports that are NDIS supports for the participant; and
(ii) the cost of the support is the same or lower than the total of the costs of the supports it would replace; and
(iii) the support would provide the same or a better outcome for the participant than the supports it would replace; and
(iv) any other conditions specified in the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules for the purposes of this subparagraph are met in relation to the support, the participant, or both.
Note 1: A determination may be revoked under subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth).
Note 2: The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may prescribe a support for the purposes of paragraph (a) by identifying a class of supports (see subsection 13(3) of the Legislation Act 2003 (Cth)).
(7) An application under paragraph (6)(c) must:
(a) be in the form (if any) approved by the CEO; and
(b) include any information, and be accompanied by any documents, required by the CEO; and
(c) be made in accordance with any other requirements specified in the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules for the purposes of this paragraph, which may include requirements as to the circumstances in which an application may, or may not, be made.
(8) The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may make provision for determining any matter for the purposes of subsection (6), including by prescribing requirements with which the CEO must comply, methods or criteria that the CEO is to apply, or matters that the CEO may, must or must not take into account, in deciding whether to make a determination under that subsection.
(9) A support is not an NDIS support for a participant or prospective participant if the support consists of the provision of:
(a) sexual services; or
(b) alcohol; or
(c) drugs, the possession of which is a contravention of a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
The Transitional Rules set out what are and what are not NDIS Supports.
Part 2—What supports are NDIS supports
5 What supports are NDIS supports—general rule
Supports that are NDIS supports unless otherwise provided
(1) For the purposes of subsection 10(1) of the NDIS Act, a support covered by column 2 of an item in the table in clause 1 of Schedule 1 to this instrument is an NDIS support (subject to subsections 10(4) and (9) of the NDIS Act and subsection (2) of this section) for:
(a) participants specified in column 3 of the item who have old framework plans; and
(b) prospective participants specified in column 3 of the item, other than prospective participants who, if they were participants, would be required to be given notice under subsection 32B(2) of the NDIS Act (participants that are to have new framework plans).
Note 1: Subsection 10(4) of the NDIS Act allows supports to be declared to not be NDIS supports for participants or prospective participants. Those supports are declared under subsection (2) of this section.
Note 2: Subsection 10(9) of the NDIS Act provides that a support is not an NDIS support for a participant or prospective participant if the support consists of the provision of:
(a) sexual services; or
(b) alcohol; or
(c) drugs, the possession of which is a contravention of a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
Supports that generally are not NDIS supports
(2) For the purposes of subsection 10(4) of the NDIS Act, a support covered by column 2 of an item in the table in clause 1 of Schedule 2 to this instrument is not an NDIS support for any participant (subject to subsection 10(6) of the NDIS Act) or prospective participant.
Note 1: Subsection 10(6) of the NDIS Act allows the CEO, on application by a participant, to determine that a support is taken to not be declared under subsection 10(4) of that Act in relation to the participant if, among other things, the CEO is satisfied that the support would replace one or more other supports that are NDIS supports for the participant.
Note 2: Determinations under subsection 10(6) of the NDIS Act are referred to in this instrument as replacement support determinations. For additional rules about replacement support determinations, see section 7 of this instrument.
Interpretive provision
(3) A reference in this section to a provision of section 10 of the NDIS Act is a reference to the provision as modified (if at all) by item 124 of the amending Act.
Note: That item provides that, until the first National Disability Insurance Scheme rules are made for the purposes of subsection 10(1) of the NDIS Act, section 10 of that Act has effect as if a reference in that section to the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules were a reference to rules made under item 138 of Schedule 1 to the amending Act.
Schedule 1 of the Transitional Rules sets out he types of Supports that are NDIS Supports unless otherwise provided. It provides 36 Categories of supports in Column 1 as well as practical descriptions of those supports in Column 2 including at times the context that they might operate.
Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules sets out Supports that generally are not NDIS supports. Schedule 2 sets out 24 categories of matters in Column 1 with descriptions of the types or form that the supports in the categories might take – listed in Column 2.
Item 6 in Schedule 2 is titled ‘Day-to-day living costs – travel and transport’. Under Column 2 the following relevant matters are listed:
(b) vehicles, including motor vehicles, motorbikes, watercraft, all-terrain vehicles, standard bikes and scooters, and other recreational vehicles. (Emphasis added)
The question for the Tribunal is whether the claimed UTV is a support listed at Schedule 1 and / or Schedule 2 Item 6 of the Transitional Rules and if so as such does it constitutes a non-NDIS support.
I note that the original decision maker identified a lack of evidence at that time that the UTV was a disability support specifically related to Ms Cameron’s MS diagnosis. The delegate also noted that whilst consideration of disability specific mobility options were referred to in the Assistive Technology (AT) assessment the UTV had not been trialled to determine their suitability for the Applicant and that under the NDIS Guidelines concerning funding for vehicles the NDIS would not fund the purchase of a motor vehicle of any description to enable to participant to access a rural property, as that would be the participant’s responsibility.
The Tribunal has since had the benefit of the General Assistive Technology report from the Assistive Technology Assessor J Amos completed 8 November 2023 and the Amos updated Occupational Therapy Report dated 4 June 2024.
In addition to mobility options for the Applicant, the original delegate also referred to the potential risk of harm which might arise from use of any funded UTV by the Applicant and noted that under the NDIS (Supports for Participants) Rule 5.1 (a) the NDIS is unable to fund a support likely to cause harm to a participant or others. They based the consideration of this issue on the outcome of the functional capacity assessment (item 5) concerning the impact of the condition on the Applicant’s functioning.
Further analysis occurred by the delegate concerning the recommendation that the UTV be funded to enable the Applicant to have a mobility device to access all areas of her property, including paddocks and where her stock (cows) are moving around the house yard. The delegate observed that being able to access all areas of a rural property was considered as a standard requirement of all individuals who live in rural / rugged areas or people who manage a large property. They surmised that obtaining off road vehicles to facilitate access to the entire property was considered a standard non disability related expense which would ordinarily be incurred privately.
The delegate concluded that the UTV was considered a day to day living cost in operating a rural property and a s a result the request was denied.
Applicant’s submissions
The Applicant noted that the 44-acre property was her home and that one of her main goals concerned her animals (cows) and wood work. She referred to the cows as her ‘girls’. Her submissions which were mixed with evidence referred to having raised the cows from when they were calves. The Applicant submitted that being on her property and being able to access it was her life and that the UTV would allow her choice, control safety and dignity.
Reference was made to the property requiring all terrain mobility due to it having uneven ground, reactive soil, clumpy grassy areas, gravel paths and incline and that meant that a normal or modified motorised wheelchair could not handle the outdoor areas on the property. Submissions set out the position that the MS diagnosis makes physical effort something that causes significant and overwhelming fatigue for the Applicant. Further submissions referred to environmental factors such as cold and wind triggering the Applicant’s symptoms and that the UTV would have a weather-shield to protect the Applicant from the weather and the elements as well as assisting the Applicant with carrying items for activities of daily living, (ADL’s) with her in the vehicle.

Submissions were also made linking the provision of the UTV to the Applicant meeting her NDIS Goals. She submitted that:
18. The mobility device that would safely manoeuvre my terrain is a Kymco. An all-terrain motorised wheelchair is a vehicle that as previously stated does not satisfy my personal safety requirements and my properties terrain.
Reference was made to an existing UTV. This it was submitted was a larger UTV which had come with the property and was fitted out for weed spraying. The Applicant submitted that this UTV was not suitable for her increasing personal mobility needs. Reference was also made to the Applicant’s ‘Whill’ brand personal mobility device with the submission that it could only be used indoors or on hard surfaces like concrete. It could be used to access the community and within the home, but it was submitted as being not appropriate for access to the general property for the reasons outlined above.
Further submissions were made in response to earlier submission of the respondent. The Applicant submitted that contrary to the expressed views of the Respondent the proposed UTV would not be used for any farm work.
The Applicant contended that the UTV would assist with her goals. It was submitted that it was support her social interactions with the animals, was value for money comparted to alternatives, would allow her to access areas safely as either driver or passenger and would meet funding criteria as linked to funded disabilities.
A further submission noted that unless the support worker could be in the Applicant’s immediate presence, then there was limited support that they could provide for the Applicant and this issue was magnified when outdoors on the property. The Applicant also put on submissions concerning the length of time that the process to approve funding for the UTV had taken.
Respondent’s submissions
The Respondent submitted that the UTV is not a NDIS funded support. They submitted that the Tribunal should go through the process as set out in FSWN and the National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 114 (FSWN) whereby the Tribunal outlined the nature and scope of the inquiry that is undertaken over two stages to determine whether a support is a reasonable and necessary support.
The respondent submitted that from FSWN step1 is to ascertain whether the support is a NDIS support as defined by determining if the support is identified in Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules, and if ‘yes’, then the support is not a NDIS Support and cannot be funded. If the answer is ‘no’ then moving to the second stage of step 1 the decision maker is to determine whether the support is of a character identified in Schedule 1 of the Transition Rules. If the answer to that question is ‘no’ then the support is not a NDIS support and cannot be funded.
The Respondent submitted that consistent with FSWN step 2 involves ascertaining whether the support satisfies each of the other criteria in paragraphs 34 (1) (aa) to (e) inclusive in the associated Rules. Following FSWN the Respondent submitted that it is not sufficient just to determine that a support is not excluded by Schedule 2, but that it is also included in Schedule 1.
The Respondent noted that the UTV was listed in Item 6 of Schedule 2 and not specifically included in Item 28 of Schedule 1. Item 28 referred to ‘wheelchairs and motorised mobility devices.’ The Respondent noted that while the Applicant utilised a powered wheelchair for access to the community and general outdoor mobility, being a support that falls within Schedule 1, the Kymco UTV was not personal mobility equipment.
The Respondent submitted that even if the UTV satisfied the criteria for being a NDIS Support, the requested support did not satisfy the s 34 criteria in the NDIS Act. This was because on the Applicant’s own evidence the Respondent submitted that she would require the assistance of a support Worker to drive the UTV when the applicant was fatigued. Specific reference as made to s 34 (1) (d) of the NDIS Act.
(d) the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for the participant, having regard to current good practice;
The Respondent submitted that the support would not meet this criteria as the Applicant’s own evidence that she would need to be driven in the UTV by a support worker does not provide evidence of greater independence and effective and beneficial in meeting her disability support needs having regard to current good practice.
Consideration and findings.
I observe that even if the applicant intends to use the UTV for personal mobility, it is a piece of farm equipment designed specifically to perform and assist with the performance of various farm activities or functions that farmers and graziers undertake as part of the enterprise of farming. To distinguish them from quad bikes these UTV’s are often marketed as ‘Side by Sides’.
Whilst that piece of equipment may be well suited outside of the NDIS criteria to the Applicant achieving her various goals including the ability to effectively ingress and egress over the reach of the property, that does not mean that the NDIS will always provide the most appropriate or desirable options and outcomes for supporting a participant.
Many of the excluded items under Schedule 2 would understandably be of some benefit to a participant in appropriate circumstances. However, as the scheme has evolved over time changes sometimes characterised as restrictions and limitations have been placed on the Scheme to ensure that it is both sustainable and meeting its statutory objectives. It is not a Scheme that will provide a benefit by providing support in all circumstances. For example, during the life of the scheme to date motor vehicles (Cars) for participants are now excluded having been previously included.
I note that under s 34 of the NDIS Act reasonable and necessary supports must not only be beneficial for the participant and be linked to their disabilities as set out in s 34 (1) (aa) – (d) inclusive, but that also under subsection (f) the support is an NDIS support for the participant.
On a reading of the reference at Item 6 of Schedule 2 to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No 1) Act 2024 it is clear that ‘all-terrain vehicles’ are not NDIS supports. On this basis under s 34 (1) funding for such a support cannot be made in the participant’s Plan as section 34 (1) (f) is not satisfied. This finding is made irrespective of the benefits and support that such a vehicle might provide the Applicant in both supporting her as a result of her disability, but also assisting her in reaching her goals.
Without making any further fundings I observe that the Applicant is supported by the provision of support worker hours in her Plan. If the Applicant obtained such a UTV out of private non-NDIS funding it would clearly be open to the Applicant to be transported in that vehicle and supported in a way that enables her to access the stated benefits it may provide her by other supports in her NDIS Plan. This might be achieved by drawing on assistance such as the use of an existing support worker.
I note that the matter was listed for a dismissal hearing concerning the whether the UTV is a NDIS funded support. The matter was initially listed on 29 July 2025 for a dismissal hearing, and I note that both sides had an opportunity to file and serve written submissions. Due to technical difficulties with the Applicant’s telephone reception as well as a loss of time due to the Tribunal having out of date contact details the hearing could not proceed on the main issue and further directions were made. The matter was adjourned to 6 August 2025.
In addition to written submissions both parties made oral submissions at hearing and ran their respective cases articulately. I am satisfied that in these circumstances both parties were afforded procedural fairness including a reasonable opportunity to prepare for the hearing and be heard.
Having given the Applicant the opportunity to put on evidence and submissions about this matter, including an opportunity to be heard on the matter, I find that the support that Applicant seeks, funding for a UTV (Kymco Utility terrain / task vehicle - UTV) cannot be made as such a vehicle is not a NDIS support.
I also note that the only remaining issue in contention between the parties as of 6 August 2025 was the inclusion of funding for the UTV for the Applicant in her Participant Plan. I note the finding that I have made on that matter as set out at [41] and [45] above.
As such the application before the Tribunal has no reasonable prospects of success and in accordance with s 101 (1) (b) of the ART Act, the proceedings are dismissed.