Groves and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application for review by Dr Mark Groves and Dr Peta Groves against the National Disability Insurance Agency. The applicants, who were appointed as joint plan nominees for an NDIS participant and also as guardians by the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT), sought to challenge the Agency's decision to limit communications with them in their capacity as plan nominees. The applicants contended that the Agency had failed to appropriately record their guardianship status, leading to complications in managing the NDIS plan funds and that the Agency continued to direct correspondence to a previous guardian.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to review the Agency's decision to impose restrictions on communications with the applicants as plan nominees. The core of the dispute revolved around the nature of the Agency's decision and whether it constituted a reviewable decision under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (NDIS Act).

The Tribunal found that its jurisdiction to review decisions is established by section 103(1) of the NDIS Act, which permits applications for review of decisions made by a reviewer under section 100(6). While decisions to appoint or cancel/suspend a nominee are reviewable under section 99 of the NDIS Act, the Tribunal noted that the Agency had not purported to cancel or suspend the applicants' appointment as nominees. The Agency's decision to limit communications was not identified as a decision that fell within the scope of reviewable decisions under the NDIS Act. The Tribunal acknowledged that restrictions on communication could be problematic if they undermined a SACAT guardianship order, suggesting further reflection on this aspect.

Ultimately, the Tribunal determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Agency's decision to place restrictions on communications with the applicants as joint plan nominees. Consequently, pursuant to section 42A(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the application for review was dismissed.