Hill and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application by Mr Hill for review of an internal review decision made by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) regarding his participant plan under the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The dispute centred on the amount of transport support to be funded within Mr Hill's plan, with Mr Hill seeking to restore previous funding levels and consider increases in other support categories. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine the scope of its jurisdiction and the effect of remittal orders in reconsidering the NDIA's decision.

The Tribunal was tasked with determining the meaning of "decision as varied" in the context of remittal and whether the scope of the original decision was limited by the variation of its content. Specifically, the Tribunal needed to consider the legal principles governing the assessment of "reasonable and necessary supports" under the NDIS Act, including the meaning of "effective and beneficial" and "current good practice," as well as the reasonable expectations of family support. The ultimate question was the appropriate amount of transport support to be funded in Mr Hill's plan.

The Tribunal reasoned that the parties had agreed to remit the matter for reconsideration, and that the NDIA had agreed that certain supports, including various forms of assistance with self-care activities and capacity building supports such as coordination of supports, speech therapy, occupational therapy, and behaviour support plan implementation, should be funded as reasonable and necessary. The Tribunal noted that the NDIA's internal review decision had stated that transport support could be funded from Mr Hill's core budgets, as these could be used flexibly. The Tribunal's ultimate orders reflected the parties' agreement on the specific supports to be funded.