Goodwin and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application by Mr Goodwin for access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Goodwin met the disability requirements for NDIS participation. The primary dispute centred on whether Mr Goodwin's permanent impairments resulted in a substantial reduction in his functional capacity, as required by section 24(1)(c) of the *NDIS Act 2013* (Cth).

The Tribunal was tasked with assessing Mr Goodwin's eligibility against the criteria set out in the *NDIS Act 2013*. Specifically, it needed to consider whether his permanent impairments, including a right shoulder injury, lower back injury, visual impairment, chronic pain disorder, depression, and anxiety, led to a substantially reduced functional capacity in one or more of the specified activities: communication, social interaction, learning, mobility, self-care, and self-management. Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether Mr Goodwin met the early intervention requirements under section 25 of the Act.

The Tribunal found that while Mr Goodwin met several NDIS access requirements, including age, residence, and certain disability criteria under sections 24(1)(a), (b), and (d), he did not satisfy the crucial requirement under section 24(1)(c). The Tribunal concluded that his impairments did not result in a substantially reduced functional capacity in any of the listed activities. Furthermore, regarding the early intervention requirements, the Tribunal determined that Mr Goodwin's conditions were long-standing, with interventions occurring over 14 years prior, placing them outside the scope of "early intervention" as contemplated by the Act, which aims to alleviate the impact of impairments at the earliest possible stage.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that Mr Goodwin does not meet the disability access criteria to become a participant in the NDIS. As he failed to satisfy section 24(1)(c), it was unnecessary to consider section 24(1)(e). The Tribunal was also not satisfied that the early intervention requirements were applicable to his circumstances.