Fernando and National Disability Insurance Agency

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a dispute between Ms. Fernando and the National Disability Insurance Agency concerning the provision of supports under the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Ms. Fernando, who lives with Rubinstein Taybi Syndrome, sought funding for Frame Running coaching and a membership fee for the Tutti Arts program. The core of the dispute revolved around whether these supports were "reasonable and necessary" within the meaning of the NDIS legislation, particularly in relation to value for money and the reduction of future costs.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the proposed 156 hours of Frame Running coaching represented value for money, considering the costs and benefits, and whether it was likely to reduce the cost of other supports in the long term. Additionally, the Tribunal had to assess whether the annual membership fee for the Tutti Arts program was a reasonable and necessary support, distinguishing it from standard equipment or registration fees for social and recreational activities. The Tribunal also considered relevant case law, including *Milburn and National Disability Insurance Agency* [2018] AATA 4928, in its determination.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that the Social and Recreation Supports Operational Guideline explicitly states that registration fees and standard equipment for social and recreation activities are not funded. Regarding the Frame Running coaching, the Tribunal found that the evidence did not sufficiently address the costs or demonstrate that it represented value for money, nor was there evidence that it would reduce the cost of other supports in the long term. For the Tutti Arts program membership, while acknowledging the benefits of participation, the Tribunal distinguished the situation from that in *Milburn*, which involved a gym membership, and found that the membership fee was akin to a registration fee for social and recreational activities, which are generally not funded.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the Reviewable Decision.