Harris and National Disability Insurance Agency

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the dispute between Mr. Harris, an applicant with multiple sclerosis, and the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). Mr. Harris sought funding for bathroom modifications as part of his NDIS plan. The core of the dispute concerned whether the requested modifications constituted "reasonable and necessary" supports under subsection 34(1) of the *National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013* (Cth) and whether such support aligned with NDIS rules and guidelines.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the NDIA's decision to refuse funding for the bathroom modifications was correct. Specifically, it had to assess if the proposed modifications met the criteria for reasonable and necessary supports, which include considerations of whether the support is likely to be effective, offers value for money, and is most appropriately funded or provided through the NDIS. The Tribunal also had to consider if the support was consistent with NDIS operational guidelines and policies.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied the principles outlined in section 34 of the Act, focusing on the individual needs of the applicant and the purpose of the NDIS. It considered evidence regarding Mr. Harris's condition and how the proposed modifications would address his functional limitations and promote his independence and safety. The Tribunal found that the NDIA had not adequately considered all relevant factors in its initial assessment. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the NDIA's decision and remitted the matter back to the NDIA with directions to reconsider the application, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of the requested bathroom modifications against the legislative criteria.