Chau and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application by Ms Chau against a decision by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) concerning her participant plan. Ms Chau, who had experienced a stroke resulting in ongoing weakness and balance issues, sought increased funding for transport to attend hydrotherapy and gym sessions at a leisure centre. Her existing plan included funding for domestic assistance, social and community participation, a contribution towards transport costs, and allied health services including hydrotherapy. Ms Chau proposed to use the additional funding for three return trips per week to the leisure centre, calculated at $3,744 per annum.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the requested transport funding constituted a "reasonable and necessary support" under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Act. This required the Tribunal to consider whether the proposed transport assistance would help Ms Chau pursue her goals and aspirations, facilitate her social and economic participation, represent value for money, be effective and beneficial, take into account informal supports, and be most appropriately funded by the NDIS. The Tribunal also had regard to the objects of the NDIS Act, particularly those relating to supporting independence, social and economic participation, and the provision of reasonable and necessary supports.

The Tribunal affirmed the NDIA's decision, finding that the requested transport funding was not a reasonable and necessary support. While acknowledging Ms Chau's goals and the benefits she derived from attending the leisure centre, the Tribunal noted that her existing participant plan already provided for significant support worker assistance for social and community participation. It was considered that this existing support could be utilised to facilitate her transport to the leisure centre, thereby negating the need for additional dedicated transport funding. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the requested transport costs did not represent value for money, given the availability of alternative support arrangements within her current plan.