Hassett and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Hassett, against a decision made by a delegate of the Chief Executive Officer of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). The dispute arose from the NDIA's review of the applicant's participant plan, specifically concerning funding for home modifications. The applicant's original plan, approved on 14 March 2017, allocated $1,475.00 for home modifications. Following an enquiry from the applicant's mother on 8 May 2017, which questioned the adequacy of this funding, the NDIA conducted an internal review. This review, communicated in a letter dated 3 November 2017, resulted in a significant increase in funding for home modifications to $81,842.05. The applicant sought review of this decision by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it had jurisdiction to review the NDIA's decision of 3 November 2017. This question turned on the characterisation of the decision made by the delegate of the Chief Executive Officer. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the decision was a "reviewable decision" made under section 100(6) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) (the Act), as section 103 of the Act grants the Tribunal jurisdiction to review decisions made under that specific provision.

The Tribunal reasoned that the correspondence from the applicant's mother, made within three months of the original decision and while the applicant was a minor, could be considered a request for review by the applicant himself. The Tribunal noted that the delegate's decision letter of 3 November 2017, which significantly varied the statement of participant supports by increasing the funding for home modifications, was an internal review. Although the decision letter did not explicitly state the section of the Act under which it was made, the Tribunal found that the nature of the decision – a variation of the statement of participant supports following an internal review – meant it was made under section 100(6)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal affirmed its previous position that a decision-maker is not strictly required to reference the statutory provision under which a decision is made, though it is desirable for clarity.

Consequently, as the decision of 3 November 2017 was characterised as a decision made under section 100(6)(b) of the Act, the Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to review that decision pursuant to section 103 of the Act.