Gelzinnis and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application by Ms Gelzinnis, a participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) with a severe psychosocial disability, against a decision of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). Ms Gelzinnis sought to use her existing NDIS funding to cover the costs of monthly internet services and the purchase of a new motor vehicle. The dispute centred on whether these requested supports were "reasonable and necessary" under subsection 34(1) of the *National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013* (Cth).

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues: first, whether internet services at $85 per month constituted a reasonable and necessary support for Ms Gelzinnis, and second, whether the purchase of a new motor vehicle, with an estimated cost of $30,000 to $40,000 plus ancillary expenses, was a reasonable and necessary support. These issues were to be considered in light of Ms Gelzinnis's severe psychosocial disability, which significantly impacted her daily functioning, safety, and ability to participate in community life, and her expressed desire for greater autonomy and freedom.

The Tribunal reasoned that while Ms Gelzinnis had significant unspent funds in her NDIS plan, largely due to difficulties in securing suitable service providers, the core question was the nature of the requested supports. The Tribunal found that the internet services, costing $85 per month, were a reasonable and necessary support as they would facilitate Ms Gelzinnis's access to assistive technology, thereby supporting her goals. However, the Tribunal determined that the purchase of a new motor vehicle was not a reasonable and necessary support under the Act, as it did not meet the criteria for funding in this instance.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the NDIA's decision and remitted the matter with directions. The Tribunal ordered that the cost of internet services ($85 per month) be recognised as a reasonable and necessary support, while the purchase of a new motor vehicle was deemed not to be a reasonable and necessary support.