Deacon and National Disability Insurance Agency

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application by Dominic, the brother and primary carer of an adult NDIS participant, Patrick. Dominic sought to challenge a decision made by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) regarding Patrick's statement of supports, which had been the subject of an internal review. The core dispute centred on whether Dominic had the legal standing to lodge an application with the AAT in his own right, given that he was not the appointed plan nominee for Patrick, who required 24/7 care and had VCAT-appointed guardians and administrators.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Dominic was a person whose interests were affected by the NDIA's internal review decision, as required by section 27(1) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth), and consequently, whether he had standing to lodge an application for review. The Tribunal was also to consider, if standing was established, a request for an extension of time to lodge the application.

The Tribunal reasoned that while Dominic's personal circumstances and his deep involvement in Patrick's care were significant, the test for standing under section 27(1) required a direct affectation of his interests by the decision itself, not merely an indirect impact or a "ripple of affection." The Tribunal noted that the internal review decision, which concerned the provision of personal care support, indirectly impacted Dominic by potentially altering his role and financial position. However, it concluded that this indirect impact, even if substantial to his personal life, did not meet the threshold for having a legally recognised affected interest for the purpose of standing. The Tribunal considered the scope and purpose of the *NDIS Act* and the plan review processes, and noted that while the internal review decision referred to Dominic by name, this did not automatically confer standing.

Ultimately, the Tribunal determined that Dominic did not have standing to lodge an application for review as he was not a person whose interests were directly affected by the NDIA's internal review decision. Consequently, there was no valid application before the Tribunal, and it was unnecessary to consider the request for an extension of time.