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:
.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Cameron and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS)

Details

AGLC: Cameron and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 1795
Case: [2025] ARTA 1795
Decision Date: 10 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Cameron versus the National Disability Insurance Agency, the applicant sought funding for an all-terrain vehicle (UTV) to aid in her personal mobility and farm activities. The NDIS contested the request on the basis that the UTV did not align with the scheme's criteria for providing reasonable and necessary supports. The matter was decided by the tribunal, which had to determine whether the UTV qualified as an NDIS support under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act.

The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether the UTV could be considered an NDIS support. The tribunal examined if the UTV met the statutory requirements outlined in section 34 of the NDIS Act, specifically whether it was beneficial to the participant, linked to their disability, and constituted an NDIS support. The tribunal also considered the amendments introduced by the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No 1) Act 2024, which explicitly excluded all-terrain vehicles from the list of NDIS supports.

The tribunal concluded that the UTV did not qualify as an NDIS support. It reasoned that while the UTV might provide significant benefits to the applicant, it did not meet the criteria of being an NDIS support as defined by the Act. The tribunal noted that the NDIS scheme is designed to be sustainable and to meet its statutory objectives, and therefore, it does not support all potential benefits to participants. The tribunal also highlighted that the NDIS scheme has evolved to include restrictions and limitations to ensure sustainability, exemplified by the exclusion of motor vehicles for participants. Consequently, the tribunal found that funding for the UTV could not be made under the participant's Plan as it did not satisfy section 34(1)(f) of the Act. The tribunal noted that if the applicant chose to obtain the UTV through private non-NDIS funding, it would be open to her to use it, supported by other means provided in her NDIS Plan.

The tribunal did not make any further fundings for the UTV and observed that the applicant was already supported by other means in her NDIS Plan. The tribunal concluded that while the UTV might offer significant benefits, it did not meet the statutory criteria for NDIS support.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

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.