Joseph and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) - [2025] ARTA 786

Joseph and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 786 (18 June 2025)
Applicant/s:  Stephen Joseph
Respondent:  CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency
Tribunal Number:                2024/1022
Tribunal:Senior Member A Clues
Place:Hobart
Date:18 June 2025
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the matter for reconsideration in accordance with the following orders:
a. The reviewable decision is set aside and remitted for reconsideration with a direction that the statement of participant supports specifies that the reasonable and necessary supports include:
i.   $5,000.00 a year for AT trial and rental small aids, various accessories;
ii. Level 2 transport funding from 11 October 2023.
iii. Funding for the previously approved AT composite power bed.
iv.   A power recliner with appropriate cushions.
v. A permobil M3 Power Wheelchair and seating components.
vi.   A low-cost Manual Wheelchair and appropriate cushions.
vii.   A tablet stylus and tablet head pointer (Quha Zono X).
viii. An SDA; design category: fully accessible, building type: villa/duplex/townhouse or apartment, 1 bedroom, 1 resident, onsite overnight assistance and fire sprinklers location: Eastern Suburbs Melbourne.

b. All other supports in the applicant’s existing statement of participant supports are to be replicated pro-rata from the date on which the supports in the paragraph above are included in the Applicant’s SOPs until the reassessment date.

………………[SGD]…………………….
Senior Member A Clues
Catchwords
NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME – plan review – request for 23 participant supports including specialist disability accommodation – reasonable and necessary supports – Rule 5.1 – application of Transitional Supports Rules – deteriorating conditions - including multiple sclerosis.
Legislation
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No.1) Act 2024 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Transitional Rules 2024
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Specialist Disability Accommodation) Rules 2020 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS back on Track No.1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Cases
Beezley v Repatriation Commission (2015) FCAFC 165
FSWN and NDIA [2025] ARTA 114
McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency [2017] FCA 308
National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF [2020] FCAFC 79
QKNJ and National Disability Insurance Agency [2023] AATA 794
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
YCTK and CEO, NDIA [2025] ARTA 536
Secondary Materials
Operational Guideline - Home Modifications
Operational Guideline - Supported Independent Living
Statement of Reasons
Background

The applicant is a 61-year-old man who is a participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). On 22 March 2018, he was granted access to the NDIS on the basis of impairments attributable to Multiple Sclerosis.
On 11 October 2023, a delegate of the respondent made a decision to approve a statement of participant supports (SOPS) in respect of the applicant under section 33(2) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) (NDIS Act).[1] On 13 October 2023, the applicant requested an internal review of the decision pursuant to section 100(2) of the NDIS Act.[2] On 18 January 2024, a different delegate of the respondent made a decision confirming the internal review decision (the reviewable decision).[3] On 13 February 2024, the applicant lodged an application for external review of the reviewable decision with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) pursuant to section 100(6) of the NDIS Act.[4] On 10 September 2024 the respondent subsequently approved a new SOPS for the applicant with respect to the period 10 September 2024 to 10 September 2025 (current plan). By virtue of section 103(2)(e) of the NDIS Act, the decision to approve the SOPS in the current plan is the subject of this review.
[1] JTB 113-125.
[2] JTB 68-69.
[3] JTB 21-32.
[4] JTB 4-6.
On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No.1) Act 2024 (Cth), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.
The SOPS under the current plan provides $219,450.95 in funding from 10 September 2024 to 10 September 2025. A breakdown of that funding is summarised as follows:

Current Approved Support Details

10/9/2024 – 10/9/2024

Funded

CORE

$177,524.36

Consumables

Low-cost AT - personal care and safety $1,500 per year

Disability-related health consumables - low-cost $1,500 per year

$3000

Daily activities

Assistance with self-care activities standard weekday daytime

$65.47 x 20 hours per week = $68,088.80

Assistance with self-care activities standard Saturday

$92.12 x 4 hours per week = $19,160.96

Assistance with self-care activities standard Sunday

$118.78 x 4 hours per week = $24,706.24

Assistance with personal domestic activities $55.03 x 5 hours per week = $14,307.80

Housecleaning and other household activities

$54.07 x two hours per week = $5623.28

Daily activities budget of $131,887.08 has been allocated for flexible support within the home, which may include, but is not limited to: assistance with personal care, respite, house/yard maintenance; and assistance with other activities of daily living, food preparation and delivery.

$131,887.08

Social community and civic participation

Access community social and rec activities

weekday daytime

$65.47 x 12 hours per week

$40,853.28

Transport

Includes general and specialised transport for accessing your day service and community

$1,784

CAPACITY BUILDING

$37,426.59

CB daily activity

Occupational therapist $193.99 x 60 hours per year = $11,639.40

Speech pathology $193.99 x 24 hours per year = $4,655.76

Podiatrist $193.99 x 5 hours per year = $969.95

Physiotherapist $193.99 x 20 hours per year = $3879.80

$21,144.91

CB health and well-being

Funding of $1080 for your gym membership and $14,000 for a gym assistant

$15,080

Support coordination

Support coordination level 2

$110.14 x 12 hours per year

$1201.68

CAPITAL

$4500

Home modifications

Design consultation with builder per year $4500 builder support has been added to fund the consultation with builder and get quotes for:

1.       Bathroom and shower, including installation of a bidet;

2.       Ramp access at rear;

3.       Dishwasher; and

4.       Garage door replacement - needs electricity and remote operation

$4500

Total

$219,450.95

The applicant’s position is that this level of funding is insufficient. The applicant has sought the supports listed below to be included to his SOPS. The respondent has accepted some of the requested supports as reasonable and necessary supports for inclusion in a new SOPS for a plan period of 12 months, those that have been marked below as ‘accepted’. The respondent submits that some of the requested supports are not ‘NDIS supports’ because they fall within the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track) Transitional Rules 2024 (the Transitional Rules) which came into force on 3 October 2024 and are expressed to apply to a SOPS approved or varied after that date irrespective of whether a participant’s plan came into effect before, on, or after the commencement of those amendments. The respondent further submits that some of the requested supports that are ‘NDIS supports’ are not ‘reasonable and necessary’ supports. Those have been marked below as ‘rejected.’
1. $5,000.00 a year for Assistive Technology (AT) trial and rental of small aids and various accessories; accepted.
2. Level 2 transport funding from 11 October 2023; accepted.
3. Plega adjustable bed and ensemble; accepted on the basis of reinstatement of funding for a previously approved AT composite power bed (quote required).
4. Power recliner with appropriate cushions; accepted.
5. Manual wheelchair and appropriate cushions; accepted (low-cost manual wheelchair and appropriate cushions).
6. Powered wheelchair for home and community access; accepted (Permobil M3 power wheelchair and seating components);
7. Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) (high physical design, 1 resident, Eastern Suburbs Melbourne, house or ground floor unit); accepted in principle but the design category, building type and number of bedrooms remains in dispute.
8. Purchase and installation of a bidet; accepted in principle but says that it should not be purchased or installed until applicant moves into SDA.
9. Purchase and installation of an electric garage door; rejected not NDIS support Transitional Rules Schedule 2, item 1 (c), (e) and (j) standard fencing, gates, home improvement or renovation, household item.
10. Purchase and installation of a dishwasher; rejected not NDIS support Transitional Rules Schedule 2, item 1(i) standard household item/appliance.
11. Prescription reading glasses and prescription sunglasses; rejected not NDIS support Transitional Rules Schedule 2, item 12(h) prescription spectacles.
12. Audible and other applications for reading and listening to books; rejected not NDIS support Transitional Rules Schedule 2, item 4(f) subscription for a streaming service.
13. Dry mouth oral Biotine or oral 7 items; rejected not NDIS support Transitional Rules Schedule 2, item 4(s) non-prescription medicine or vitamins.
14. Prescription Medications; rejected not NDIS support Transitional Rules Schedule 2, item 12(d) pharmaceuticals (prescription and non-prescription).
15. Tablet and phone mounts; rejected not NDIS support Transitional Rules Schedule 2, item 4(d) and/or (f) internet devices, tablets or standard computer accessories.
16. Tablet Stylus; rejected not NDIS support Transitional Rules Schedule 2, item 4(d) and/or (f) internet devices, tablets or standard computer accessories.
17. Tablet Head Pointer (Quha Zono X); rejected not NDIS support Transitional Rules Schedule 2, item 4(d) and/or (f) internet devices, tablets or standard computer accessories.
18. Dining Chair; rejected not NDIS support Transitional Rules Schedule 2, item 1(j) standard furniture.
19. $3,745 of funding for an Eight Sleep cooling pod; rejected not NDIS support Transitional Rules Schedule 2, item 1(i) standard household item or appliance.
20. $400.00 a week for assistance with meal preparation and delivery; rejected not NDIS support Transitional Rules Schedule 2, item 3(a) and (b) groceries including food and fast food services.
21. Additional 10 hours of speech pathology; rejected already sufficient funding, duplication and/or not value for money.
22. Additional 20-25 hours to assist the applicant with AT integration (85 hours total); rejected already sufficient funding, duplication and/or not value for money.
23. Supported Independent Living (SIL) funding; rejected, does not require a minimum of 8 hours of personal care support per day.
ISSUES
The issues for the Tribunal to determine in this matter are:
a)What is the appropriate design category, building type and number of bedrooms for the applicant’s SDA that the respondent has agreed to fund as part of the applicant’s plan;
b)Whether the requested supports are ‘NDIS supports.’; and
c)If they are ‘NDIS supports’ whether they are ‘reasonable and necessary’ supports
The hearing
The hearing proceeded by Microsoft Teams video on 28, 29 and 30 April 2025. The applicant was self-represented but had his social worker, Ms Evans, supporting him at the hearing. The respondent was represented by counsel, Ms L Martin.
The following witnesses gave oral evidence at the hearing:
·The applicant with assistance from Ms Evans (social worker).
·Mr G Bell, the applicant’s neurological physiotherapist.
·Mr D Harraway, the applicant’s, occupational therapist.
·Ms M Parker, the applicant’s occupational therapist.
·Mr A Baldock, the occupational therapist who assessed the applicant on behalf of the respondent.
The Tribunal accepted into evidence by consent the following documents:
·E1 - Joint Tender Bundle (JTB) pages 1 to 781.
·E2 - respondent’s Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions (SOFIC)
·E3 - applicant’s response to the respondent’s SOFIC.
As a result of some confusion during closing submissions, the Tribunal issued directions requiring the respondent to make submissions in relation to the following:
a.What SDA is being offered to the applicant;
b.The terms of the orders being sought by the respondent; and
c.The respondent’s position in relation to backpay for the reinstatement of level II transport funding
The Tribunal directed the respondent to file and serve those submissions by 1 May 2025, and allowed the applicant until 6 May 2025 to file a response to those submissions. The Tribunal received those submissions and will refer to them as E4 and E5, respectively.
Legislative Framework
The National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No 1) Act 2024 (Cth) (‘the Amending Act’) commenced on 3 October 2024. Schedule 1 of the Amending Act introduced into the NDIS Act a new definition of ‘NDIS support’ in section 10 and specified additional criteria within section 34 (reasonable and necessary supports) that must be satisfied before a support can be approved for inclusion in a participant’s SOPS under section 33(5). Sections 129(1) and (2) of Schedule 1 of the Amending Act provide that sections 33 and 34 as in force on and after 3 October 2024 apply to a SOPS approved or varied after that date, irrespective of whether a participant’s plan came into effect before, or on, or after commencement. The implication of this for the applicant’s case is that because the Tribunal’s decision in this review is being made after 3 October 2024, the requirements introduced by the Amending Act must be satisfied, even though the decision under review was made before 3 October 2024.[5]
[5] FSWN and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) (FSWN) [2025] ARTA 114 at 31] – [32].
Further section 138 of Schedule 1 of the Amending Act provides that the Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules in relation to the NDIS Act. Pursuant to that power the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth) (the Transitional Rules) were made. The Transitional Rules also came into force on 3 October 2024 and must be applied in the review of a decision concerning a SOPS completed on or after that date, even if that decision predates the date that the Transitional Rules came into force. To put it simply, the Transitional Rules designate, by operation of Rule 5 and by reference to Schedules 1 and 2 of those Rules, those supports that are ‘NDIS supports’ and those that are ‘generally not NDIS supports’ for the purpose of s 10 of the NDIS Act (as amended by the Amending Act).[6]
[6] FSWN at [36] – [37].
Section 34(1) of the NDIS Act, now provides as follows:
(1) For the purposes of specifying, in a statement of participant supports, the general supports that will be provided, and the reasonable and necessary supports that will be funded, the CEO must be satisfied of all of the following in relation to the funding or provision of each such support:
(aa) the support is necessary to address needs of the participant arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements (see section 24) or the early intervention requirements (see section 25);
(a) the support will assist the participant to pursue the goals, objectives and aspirations included in the participant’s statement of goals and aspirations;
(b) the support will assist the participant to undertake activities, so as to facilitate the participant’s social and economic participation;
(c) the support represents value for money in that the costs of the support are reasonable, relative to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternative support;
(d) the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for the participant, having regard to current good practice;
(e) the funding or provision of the support takes account of what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide;
(f) the support is a NDIS support for the participant.
Note: For the purposes of paragraph (aa):
(a) the time at which the disability requirement or the early intervention requirements need to be met is the time the CEO decides to approve the statement of participant supports; and
(b) a participant’s disability support needs arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements may be affected by a variety of factors, including environmental factors or the impact of another impairment in relation to which the participant does not meet either of those requirements.
The Tribunal must be positively satisfied about each of the matters set out in section 34(1) of the Act.[7] The applicant must adduce sufficient evidence to satisfy the Tribunal that the criteria are met.[8]
[7] National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF [2020] FCAFC 79 at [202].
[8] See Beezley v Repatriation Commission (2015) FCAFC 165 at [68].
The term ‘reasonable and necessary support’ is not defined in the NDIS Act. In McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency [2017] FCA 308 Mortimer J (as she then was), made the following observations at [91] (prior to the recent amendments):
Whether a support is “reasonable” requires a different assessment to whether a support is “necessary.” Again, it is not necessary in the context of this proceeding to be definitive about the nature and extent of the meaning of the phrase, or its components. It is enough to observe that using the concept of necessity would appear to tie one aspect of the CEO’s assessment to an evaluation of the kinds of factors set out in s 34(1)(a) and (b) and (d). The word “reasonable” would appear to be directed at factors such as those set out in s 34(1)(c) and (f). That is not to say the meaning of each word is exhausted by the factors set out in s 34(1): rather, it is to illustrate the different work that each concept does as an adjective in the phrase “reasonable and necessary supports”.
The Full Court in National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF [2020] FCAFC 79 at [151] considered the meaning of reasonable and necessary supports:
…there is no doubt that the contextual use of the phrase in this Act links it to public funding to be provided to a participant. In that context, the phrase connotes supports which meet a threshold which justifies - by reference to the context, objects and guiding principles of the Act and the facts of the case - the expenditure of public funds for that support, for a particular participant. As we have already explained, the phrase also needs to be understood taking into account what has qualified a person as a participant, and the links between a person's impairment and their full participation in the community, in the same variety of ways as persons without a disability might choose to participate.
The Rules contained in Part 3 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Cth) (the Supports Rules) must also be applied in assessing if a requested support is reasonable and necessary for the purposes of section 34(1). The following Rules are relevant in this case:
Value for money
3.1 In deciding whether the support represents value for money in that the costs of the support are reasonable, relative to both the benefit achieved and the cost of alternative support, the CEO is to consider the following matters:
(a) whether there are comparable supports which would achieve the same outcome at a substantially lower cost;
(b) whether there is evidence that the support will substantially improve the life stage outcomes for, and be of long-term benefit to, the participant;
(c) whether funding or provision of the support is likely to reduce the cost of the funding of supports for the participant in the long term ...
(d) for supports that involve the provision of equipment or modifications:
i.the comparative cost of purchasing or leasing the equipment or modifications; and
ii.whether there are any expected changes in technology or the participant’s circumstances in the short term that would make it inappropriate to fund the equipment or modifications;
(e) whether the cost of the support is comparable to the cost of supports of the same kind that are provided in the area in which the participant resides:
(f) whether the support will increase the participant’s independence and reduce the participant’s need for other kinds of supports (for example, some home modifications may reduce a participant’s need for home care)
Effective and beneficial and current good practice
3.2 In deciding whether the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for a participant, having regard to current good practice, the CEO is to consider the available evidence of the effectiveness of the support for others in like circumstances. That evidence may include:
(a) published and refereed literature and any consensus of expert opinion;
(b) the lived experience of the participant or their carers; or
(c) anything the Agency has learnt through delivery of the NDIS.
3.3 In deciding whether the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for a participant, having regard to current good practice, the CEO is to take into account, and if necessary, seek expert opinion.
…

Part 5 contains general criteria regarding supports and supports that will not be funded. Rule 5.1 provides:
5.1 A support will not be provided or funded under the NDIS if:
(a) it is likely to cause harm to the participant or pose a risk to others; or
(b) it is not related to the participant’s disability; or
(c) it duplicates other supports delivered under alternative funding through the NDIS; or
(d) it relates to day-to-day living costs (for example, rent, groceries and utility fees) that are not attributable to a participant’s disability support needs.
...
The NDIS Operational Guidelines are also relevant to making decisions in accordance with the Act. Operational Guidelines represent government policy and should be applied by the Tribunal unless there is good reason not to do so.[9]
[9] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at [635].
The applicant
Mr G Bell, neurological physiotherapist, prepared a report dated 24 March 2024 based on an assessment he conducted at the applicant’s home on 4 March 2024.[10] At that time, Mr Bell took the following history from the applicant: His parents are deceased, he has a brother who is deceased, and he has no contact with his other siblings. He has no friends whom he can rely on or ask for assistance, and his main support is Ms Evans, who is a trained social worker and is very supportive of him. She has been supporting him since around 2011 when she was funded by the Transport Accident Commission to assist him after a motorcycle crash. Ms Evans continues to assist the applicant and is funded as a support worker through the applicant’s NDIS self-managed plan. The applicant worked as an anaesthetic and mortuary technician at various hospitals and later as a network engineer with IBM computers. He stopped work altogether due to his disabilities in 2011.
[10] JTB 773 – 780.
In the same report Mr Bell noted that the applicant suffered injuries in two motorcycle crashes, the first in 1984 and the second in 2011. In 2001 he was diagnosed with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) and in 2019 he was diagnosed with myotonic dystrophy type 2 (DM2). The applicant has a number of impairments including the following:
·fused right wrist and partially fused left wrist;
·Limited dexterity in his right hand;
·Problems with his vision including periodic double vision and visual sensitivity to things like shiny surfaces and bright lights;
·Memory loss, particularly short-term memory;
·Weakness of the trunk and limb muscles;
·Altered sensation in his feet, trunk, legs and hands;
·Pain, cramps and muscle spasms in his legs and back;
·Sensations like someone is ‘pulling the skin off his body’;
·Pins and needles sensations over various parts of his body and face;
·Intolerance of heat with abnormal sweating;
·Diabetes;
·High cholesterol;
·Heart issues;
·Dysphagia and dysphonia; and
·Deterioration in cognitive function.
In a second report dated 4 February 2025,[11] Mr Bell noted that the applicant had deteriorated in his physical function and particularly his balance, as a result of which he had suffered three recent significant falls. He stated that in his opinion the applicant needs alternative accommodation. He is of the opinion that the applicant’s current rented accommodation is not suitable for him at all, and the applicant needs to move as soon as possible into satisfactory and safe Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA). The respondent agrees with this opinion.
[11] JTB 583.
Specialist Disability Accommodation
The requirements for SDA are set down in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Specialist Disability Accommodation) Rules 2020 (Cth) (the SDA Rules). Section 11 of the SDA Rules sets down that a participant is eligible to receive support for SDA if the participant has either an extreme functional impairment or very high support needs (as set down in sections 12 and 13 of the SDA Rules) and meets the SDA needs requirement (as set down in section 14 of the SDA Rules).
As stated by Senior Member Clausen in QKNJ and National Disability Insurance Agency [2023] AATA 794at[17]-[19]:
Once it is established that a participant is eligible for SDA, section 15 of the SDA Rules is engaged and defines those “matters to be determined by CEO in respect of each eligible participant.” It is stated in subsection 15(1) that:
(1) The CEO must determine the following matters for an eligible participant:
(a) the SDA building type that is appropriate to support the eligible participant (see section 16);
(b) the SDA design category that is appropriate to support the eligible participant (see section 17);
(c) the area in which the specialist disability accommodation is to be located (see section 18);
(d) whether the specialist disability accommodation is to be provided as an in‑kind support.
Note: The CEO may determine more than one SDA building type, SDA design category or location in relation to an eligible participant. The SDA building type, SDA design category and location must be specified in the eligible participant’s plan: see section 19.
In subsection 15(2) note 2 it is stated:
The matters determined by the CEO under this section affect the amount of support that can be paid to an eligible participant for specialist disability accommodation. The SDA Price Guide sets out the maximum amount of support that is available for specialist disability accommodation.
Those matters “to be determined by CEO in respect of each eligible participant” in section 15(1) are comprehensively outlined in:
·Section 16: SDA Building type;
·Section 17: SDA Design category; and
·Section 18: the area in which SDA is to be located.
The respondent accepts that the applicant’s current rental property is unsuitable and that he is eligible for SDA.[12]
[12] E2 p 5.
The respondent has agreed to fund the following SDA for the applicant:
·Building Type: Villa/Duplex/Townhouse, 1 bedroom, 1 resident, with Onsite Overnight Assistance and Fire Sprinklers.
·Design category: Fully Accessible.
·Location: Eastern Suburbs Melbourne.
The applicant wants the following SDA:
·Building Type: Ground floor Apartment, 2 bedrooms, 1 resident, with Onsite Overnight Assistance and Fire Sprinklers.
·Design category: High Physical Support.
·Location: Eastern Suburbs Melbourne.[13]
[13] E5 p 2.
Accordingly, the only issues in dispute between the parties with respect to SDA are:
a.whether the design category should be fully accessible or high physical support;
b.whether the building type should be villa/duplex/townhouse with one bedroom or a ground floor apartment with two bedrooms.
The applicant submits that he has two progressive neurological disabilities that will continue to deteriorate and increase his risk of falling. Accordingly, he requires high physical support housing with structural reinforcement for a ceiling hoist and he requires a second bedroom for the storage of disability equipment and for overnight support staff. The applicant submits that the respondent’s SDA offer to him is at risk of becoming an offer only on paper as it is unlikely to eventuate in the foreseeable future due to the fact that the villa/duplex/townhouse option does not exist for single occupancy in the eastern suburbs of Victoria. He informed the Tribunal that following extensive research and advice from his specialists, he accepts that he might have to consider a ground floor apartment, given developers in the area are building high density SDAs, not villa/duplex/townhouse SDAs. He submits that his trauma history and functional decline dictate that he could not manage beyond the ground floor level in a multi-level building however he understands that apartment funding would need to be stipulated on the NDIS plan instead of villa/duplex/townhouse, otherwise he will not be able to accept a ground floor apartment given that they are different funding categories.[14]
[14] E5 p 2.
The respondent contends that as at the date of hearing there was at least one single occupancy villa/duplex/townhouse SDA that was available in the western suburbs of Melbourne, suitable SDAs do come onto the market and further that the availability of suitable SDAs for the applicant was something that the respondent has no control over.
The respondent submits that it does not consider the appropriate design category should be high physical support because the applicant does not currently have the requisite very high support needs. The respondent does not accept that the applicant requires or is likely to require a ceiling hoist or an emergency power supply. The respondent accepts that the applicant does need an SDA that is accessible for a powered wheelchair user and this requirement is met by the fully accessible design category.
The NDIS Pricing Arrangements for Specialist Disability Accommodation 2024-25, Table 5 contains a description of Minimum Design Category Requirements. Fully Accessible, is defined as:
Housing that has been designed to incorporate a high level of physical access provision for people with significant physical impairment.
High Physical Support is defined as:
Housing that has been designed to incorporate a high level of physical access provision for people with significant physical impairment and requiring very high levels of support.
Mr Adam Baldock (occupational therapist) assessed the applicant on behalf of the respondent in his current home on 6 March 2025. On that date Mr Baldock conducted the WHODAS 2.0 assessment on the applicant to understand the difficulties he has in the following six domains:
i.Cognition - understanding and communicating (speech impairment);
ii.Mobility - moving and getting around;
iii.Self-care – hygiene, dressing, eating and staying alone;
iv.Getting along - interacting with other people;
v.Life activities - domestic responsibilities, leisure, work and school; and
vi.Participation - joining in community activities.
In this assessment difficulty with an activity means increased effort, discomfort or pain, slowness, or changes in the way the activity is done. The applicant was asked to report on the average level of difficulty he had while doing activities in each domain over the past 30 days. The applicant’s score was 71%, which translates to the applicant perceiving himself to have a ‘mild’ functional impairment. This score indicates that the applicant, with his current level of support and a combined score of 71%, experiences ‘mild’ difficulty with activities of daily living, specifically in the areas of self-care, household activities and participation in society. The applicant maintains relative independence in cognition, mobility and getting along with people. Mr Baldock noted that the applicant’s occupational therapist, Ms Melissa Parker, obtained the same WHODAS score of 71% when she conducted the assessment with the applicant in or around July 2024. However, he notes that she ‘incorrectly zones’ the applicant’s level of impairment to be in the ‘moderate to extreme’ level (75%+) when her score indicates that the applicant has a ‘mild’ level of impairment.[15]
[15] JTB 685-686.
Mr Baldock also conducted a Care and Needs Scale (CANS) test to measure the applicant’s level of support needs. The applicant was assessed to meet level 3 support needs which means that the applicant can be left alone for a few days a week but needs support for occupational activities, interpersonal relationships, living skills or emotional support a few days a week. Further Mr Baldock conducted a falls risk assessment using the Falls Risk Assessment Tool (FRAT). He assessed the applicant as having a ‘medium risk’ of falls.
These tests do not support a finding that the applicant currently has a significant physical impairment requiring very high levels of support. Mr Baldock gave evidence that the rate of decline in relation to the applicant’s conditions is variable and that he does not require a SDA with high physical support. The applicant’s occupational therapist, Melissa Parker is of the opinion that the applicant will likely thrive in an accessible home.[16]
[16] JTB 561.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s functioning may decline over time. However, the extent and timing of that decline is unknown. Based on the evidence the Tribunal determines that the applicant’s needs both now and in the foreseeable future will be properly met by a SDA in the design category of Fully Accessible.
In relation to building type, the applicant’s original position was that he required a two-bedroom house. However, in his further submissions filed at the conclusion of the hearing, he requested that the Tribunal find that he requires an apartment [ground floor], one resident, two bedrooms. The Tribunal invited the respondent to make submissions in relation to the applicant’s post-hearing request for an apartment rather than a house. The respondent advised the Tribunal that its position regarding the SDA which it considers appropriate for the applicant remains unchanged and therefore it declined the invitation to file any further submissions.[17]
[17] the applicant filed a further report after the conclusion of the hearing. The Tribunal has not considered the contents of that report.
The applicant is now prepared to consider a ground floor apartment on the basis that his research indicates that developers in the area where he wishes to live [Eastern Suburbs Melbourne], are building high density SDAs not villas/duplexes/townhouses. No evidence of this was provided at the hearing. However, the Tribunal does accept that the applicant’s current accommodation is unsuitable, and he needs to move into an SDA as soon as possible. The Tribunal determines that the appropriate building type for the applicant either a villa/duplex/townhouse or an apartment [ground floor]. This determination should increase the number of suitable SDAs available to the applicant.
The applicant wants two bedrooms in his SDA for the storage of disability equipment and for overnight staff support. The respondent has agreed to provide the applicant with Onsite Overnight Assistance (OOA). In the respondent’s further submissions, the following explanation is provided in relation to OOA.
OOA is extra-funded supports allocated to the SDA providers to offer an overnight staffing space within the dwelling. An OOA room would typically be an additional space dedicated to staff providing overnight supports, however an OOA room is not typically considered a bedroom. The funding component for OOA is attached to SDA budgets to cover the cost of the building of an additional room for the dwelling. OOA is not a person-to-person support; it is included in the capital cost of the SDA. The Applicant is not obliged to use the OOA even if it is funded.
The Respondent notes that in accordance with the National Disability Insurance Scheme Pricing Arrangements for Specialist Disability Accommodation 2024-25, the OOA amount is only paid when an additional space is used by support staff, who provide support services overnight to participants living in the same dwelling as the OOA space or in a near-by dwelling.[18]
[18] E4 p 2.
It is clear from this explanation that the applicant does not require a second bedroom for overnight staff support, as this will be provided as part of his OOA. In relation to the applicant’s submission that he requires a second bedroom for the storage of disability equipment, the Tribunal notes that there was no evidence that the amount of disability equipment he has or will have (including a manual wheelchair and powered wheelchair) would warrant a second bedroom to be used solely for storage. Accordingly, the Tribunal determines that the appropriate building type to support the applicant is a villa/duplex/townhouse or apartment [ground floor] for one resident with one bedroom.
In summary, the Tribunal determines the appropriate SDA for the applicant is as follows:
Design Category: Fully Accessible
Building Type: villa/duplex/townhouse or apartment; one resident, one bedroom
Location: Eastern Suburbs Melbourne
Onsite Overnight Assistance (OOA): Yes
Fire sprinklers: Yes
The applicant submits that there are no SDAs available in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne that are suitable to meet his needs. The applicant is of the view that it is unlikely that a suitable SDA will become available for him in the foreseeable future. He is concerned that finding an SDA to meet his needs may take quite some time. For this reason, the applicant submits that he requires the immediate purchase and installation of a bidet, electric garage door and dishwasher in his current rented accommodation. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to support the applicant’s submission that a suitable SDA will not become available to him in the near future.
Bidet
The respondent accepts that the purchase and installation of a bidet is an NDIS support and that, in principle, it may be a reasonable and necessary support for the applicant, however it should not be provided to the applicant now when the respondent has agreed to provide funding for the applicant to move into a SDA.
Section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act states that requested support must represent value for money. Rule 3.1(b) of the Support Rules states that in determining whether the support represents value for money, consideration needs to be given to whether there is evidence that the support will substantially improve the life stage outcomes for, and be of long term benefit to, the applicant. Given that the applicant will be moving to a suitable SDA in the foreseeable future, the Tribunal finds that there is no long term benefit to the applicant in providing him with a bidet now.
There is some evidence in the form of a quote from The Bidet Shop dated 15 May 2024 that the cost of a suitable bidet was $1,295.[19] There is also some evidence from the applicant and Ms Parker that the bidet may be portable and could be removed and taken to the SDA. However, in Ms Parker’s report, titled ‘Recommendation for Bidet’ (undated) she states that the amount of $4000 should be allowed for the bidet to be purchased and installed by a plumber and electrician.[20] Accordingly, even if the bidet is portable, the costs associated with installing it, then uninstalling it, repairing any damage caused by the initial installation and then reinstalling it in the SDA is not reasonable. Even if it takes 6 -12 months to find a suitable SDA for the applicant, it is the Tribunal’s view that if a bidet is an NDIS support, the purchase and installation of a bidet now is not reasonable, and if the SDA that the applicant moves into does not have a bidet already installed, the respondent should fund the purchase and installation of a bidet at that time.
[19] JTB 770.
[20] JTB 363.
Electric Garage Door
In relation to the purchase and installation of an electric garage door, the applicant submits:
I require an electric wheelchair and at present I have nowhere to store and charge the wheelchair. My current house is not wheelchair accessible. Until I have appropriate, disability housing I would use the electric wheelchair to access the community. I require an electric garage door as the current garage door is too heavy for me to open and close. The garage door is a disability related request.[21]
[21] E3 p 12.
The respondent submits that the purchase and installation of an electric garage door is not a NDIS support because it is excluded under the Transitional Rules, Schedule 2, item 1 (c), (e) and (i) as it is comes under standard fencing, gates, home improvement, renovation, or a standard household item. The applicant’s evidence is that he is unable to physically lift the existing garage door on his rented property because it is too heavy. Funding for an electric wheelchair has been approved by the respondent. The garage is the only place where he can store an electric wheelchair because he cannot manually lift the garage door, and consequently he would not be able to use his electric wheelchair to access the community at times when his support worker is not with him. The Tribunal accepts this evidence.

The installation of an electric garage door may be described as a home improvement, however, it is probably best described as a ‘home modification.’ In the Operational Guideline relating to ‘Home Modifications,’[22] home modifications are described as changes to a participant’s home that help them manage their disability. The changes can be minor or more complex. They can help a participant safely access or move around their home. They can also help make daily tasks easier.[23] The Operational Guideline states that the requested home modification needs to be value for money. One of the considerations in making a determination in relation to value for money is how long the participant plans to stay in their home and whether the home modification is good value for this length of time.[24]
[22] Dated 7 April 2025.
[23] Operational Guideline - ‘Home Modifications’ p 1.
[24] Support Rules paragraph 3.1(d)(ii).
The respondent has approved funding for the applicant to have a SDA. As soon as that funding is included in the applicant’s SOPS, he can commence the process of finding a suitable SDA. The applicant is concerned that this process will take a long time. There is no evidence in relation to this, and neither the Tribunal nor the respondent has any control over that process. However, even if the process were to take 6-12 months, the Tribunal finds that purchasing and installing an electric garage door now at his existing rental property would not represent value for money. As soon as the applicant moves into an SDA, any benefit to him resulting from the electric garage door will be lost and it will not be required at the SDA. In summary, the purchase and installation of an electric garage door at the applicant’s current rented accommodation does not represent value for money as required by section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act and therefore cannot be funded by the respondent.
Dishwasher
The applicant’s current rented accommodation does not have a dishwasher. The applicant’s evidence is that he is unable to wash his own dishes, he would like to be independent and not have to rely on his support worker to wash dishes for him. He seeks a 2-drawer dishwasher.[25] In a report prepared by Ms Parker dated 12 February 2024, she says:
Access to a dishwasher would reduce his need for support staff to assist him and would also reduce risk of pain in his hands developing when he attempts to wash his dishes in his own sink.[26]
[25] JTB 424.
[26] JTB 366.
In that report Ms Parker states that the total cost of a suitable drawer system dishwasher that can fit into the applicant’s existing kitchen of his rental property without the need for significant kitchen modification is $2,541.20 plus plumbing costs.[27]
[27] JTB 367.
The respondent submits that the dishwasher falls within item (1)(i) of Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules because it is a standard household item and appliance. A dishwasher is not a modified or adapted to address any functional impairment of the applicant.[28] The Tribunal agrees that a dishwasher is a standard household item or appliance and therefore it is not a NDIS support that can be funded by the respondent. Even if a dishwasher were a NDIS support, it would not satisfy section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act, because it does not represent value for money. The respondent does very little food preparation or cooking at home and he has a support worker available to him who currently assists him in washing up his dishes and can continue to do so until he moves into an SDA. The SDA is likely to have a dishwasher and therefore the costs of purchasing and installing a dishwasher in his current rented accommodation would be wasted.
Prescription reading glasses and sunglasses; audible and other applications for reading and listening to books; dry mouth oral Biotine or oral 7 items; prescription medications; tablet and phone mounts
[28] Section 4, Transitional Rules.
All of the above requested supports can be dealt with together. Before any determination can be made as to whether a support is reasonable and necessary, the Tribunal must ascertain if the requested support is an ‘NDIS support’ as defined. This enquiry is focussed on the support requested and not the participant. The first step of this enquiry is for the Tribunal to determine if the requested support is of a character that falls within the scope of a category of support specified in column 1 of the Table to Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules by reference to the description of supports that fall within the scope of that category contained in column 2 of the Table. If the answer to that question is “yes,” then stage 1 is complete. The requested support is not an NDIS Support and cannot be approved for inclusion in a SOPS because of s 34(1)(f), subject to a replacement support determination being made.[29] The Tribunal has no power to make a replacement support determination in a review of a decision to approve a SOPS.[30]
[29] FSWN at [43].
[30] FSWN at [55].
In this case, the Amendment Act and the Transitional Rules operate so as to deprive the applicant of entitlement to funding for any of the following supports because they are clearly stated not to be NDIS supports:
·Prescription reading glasses and prescription sunglasses, Transitional Rules, Schedule 2, item 12(h) prescription spectacles.
·Audible and other applications for reading and listening to books, Transitional Rules, Schedule 2, item 4(f) subscription for a streaming service.
·Dry mouth oral Biotine or oral 7 items, Transitional Rules, Schedule 2, item 4(s) non-prescription medicine or vitamins.
·Prescription Medications, Transitional Rules, Schedule 2, item 12(d) pharmaceuticals (prescription and non-prescription).
·Tablet and phone mounts, Transitional Rules, Schedule 2, item 4(d) and/or (f) internet devices, tablets or standard computer accessories.
The Tribunal finds that these items fall squarely into stated supports that are listed in the Transitional Rules, Schedule 2 (referred to above) as “Supports that are generally not NDIS supports”. In the case of YCTK and Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency,[31] the Tribunal found that the phrase “Supports that are generally are not NDIS supports” does not operate to confer a discretion on the Tribunal to treat the requirements of Schedules 1 and 2 in the Transitional Rules as only general rules for guidance. Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rule, when read with subsections 10(6) and (7) of the NDIS Act, makes it clear that the qualification that supports will “generally” not be a NDIS support refers to the possibility of a replacement support determination in respect of a particular participant. A replacement support determination has not been made in this case. Therefore, because the Tribunal has found that each of the requested supports of prescription reading glasses and sunglasses; audible and other applications for reading and listening to books; dry mouth oral Biotine or oral 7 items; prescription medications; tablet and phone mounts fall within the scope of a category of support specified in column 1 of the Table to Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules by reference to the description of supports that fall within the scope of that category contained in column 2 of the Table, then the Tribunal’s task is complete. The requested supports are not NDIS supports and cannot be approved for inclusion in the applicant’s SOPS by virtue of the operation of section 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act. The Tribunal is not required to conduct a ‘participant focused enquiry’ and make findings in relation to the criteria specified section 34(1)(aa) to (e) of the NDIS Act.[32] As a result of the requested supports falling within the scope of Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules, the Tribunal is not required to consider the applicant’s submissions that all of these requests for supports are reasonable and necessary as a result of his disability. As stated, the Tribunal does not need to make any further determination in relation to these requested supports.
[31] [2025] ARTA 536 at [25].
[32] FSWN at [43].
Tablet stylus and Tablet Head Pointer (Quha Zono X)
David Harraway is an occupational therapist who specialises in Assistive Technology. At the hearing he gave evidence on behalf of the applicant. Mr Harraway had two sessions with the applicant on 28 September 2023 and 4 October 2023. He prepared a report in relation to the applicant dated 5 February 2024.[33] Mr Harraway recommended that the applicant be provided with a portable tablet. The applicant now has a tablet which he is currently using. To assist him with the use of that tablet the applicant requests a tablet stylus that he can use to point on his phone and his tablet when he is unable to use his finger. He also requests a head mouse (Quha Zono X) which enables him to navigate the screen of his tablet by moving his head and without having to use his hands/fingers.
[33] JTB 369-381.
Mr Harraway gave evidence that the applicant needs a tablet stylus so that he can make selections on his tablet for long periods without resulting in pain in his fingers and wrists. He said that they were sold as adapted products and would only be used by a person who needed the assistance it provides. Mr Harraway also gave evidence that as a result of the applicant’s progressive condition, it was becoming more difficult for him to use his hands, and that a head mouse is useful for people who experience difficulties with their hands. According to Mr Harraway, unlike tablet and phone mounts, neither the tablet stylus nor the head mouse were standard or generic items that were generally available for sale; they were both specialised technology for use by people with reduced or limited hand function.
The respondent submits that both the tablet stylus and the head mouse are not NDIS supports because they fall within the Transitional Rules, Schedule 2, items 4(d) and/or (f) internet devices, tablets, or standard computer accessories. Based on the evidence of Mr Harraway, the Tribunal finds that these requested supports do not fall within the scope of items 4(d) and/or (f) in columns 1 and 2 of the Table to Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules. The Tribunal finds that the requested supports are of a character that fall within the scope of the Transitional Rules, columns 1 and 2 of the Table to Schedule 1, items 11(a) and (b), namely products that help a participant to receive, send, produce and/or process information in different forms or products that facilitate a participant communicating by language, signs and symbols, receiving and producing messages, having conversations and using communication devices and techniques. The Tribunal is satisfied that these products will facilitate the applicant’s ability to communicate by written language when he finds it difficult to speak, as well as receive and produce messages. As a result, the Tribunal finds that the requested supports are NDIS supports that are capable of being approved for inclusion in the applicant’s SOPS by operation of section 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act. The Tribunal is now required to conduct a participant focused enquiry that is required to establish the benefit of the support to the participant.[34]
[34] FSWN at [43]
The Tribunal is also satisfied that these items meet the requirements of section 34(1)(aa) to (f) and Support Rules 3.1 to 3.2. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s need for these items arises from an impairment in relation to which he meets the disability requirement. They will assist him to pursue his participant plan goals, objectives and aspirations, they will support him to undertake activities that would facilitate his social and economic participation, they are not particularly expensive items and therefore the costs of the supports are reasonable, they will be effective and beneficial for the applicant and they could not reasonably be expected to be provided by anyone else.
For these reasons, the Tribunal determines that the tablet stylus and the head mouse are NDIS supports, and further, that they are reasonable and necessary for the applicant and should be funded by the respondent.
Dining Chair
The applicant submits that he requires a specific disability related dining chair which will assist him to sit at a dining table.[35] The applicant gave evidence that he currently uses an office chair on wheels to sit at his dining table. The wheels make the chair dangerous for him to use as it creates a falls risk, but he uses it because it is easier for him to pull into and push away from the table.
[35] E3 p 10.
The applicant’s occupational therapist, Ms Parker, took him to many places that sold furniture for people with disabilities, and the chair they identified as being most suitable for him revolves and is height adjustable. It was easy for him to get into and out of, and it provided some relief for his sore back and hips.
Ms Parker said that the chair they identified as being suitable enables the applicant to sit on it sideways, he can then lower it, swivel it to the table and use a lever to move it forward under the table. The applicant told her the chair was a bit firm and therefore it may not be suitable for him. She said she was continuing to look for an appropriate dining chair. She said that the office chair the applicant currently uses is on rollers which is not safe for him. The chair they identified as suitable is not a standard dining chair. The quote she obtained for the relevant chair on 29 February 2024 was for $1,327.49.[36]
[36] JTB 386.
In cross examination, Ms Parker said she was aware that the respondent had agreed to fund an SDA for the applicant as well as a powered wheelchair that the applicant would be able to use inside his SDA, which was not possible in his current accommodation.
The respondent submits that the requested dining chair falls within item 1(j) of Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules because it is standard furniture. In closing submissions, the respondent accepted that the office chair the applicant was currently using as a dining chair was not safe for him because it was on wheels. The respondent submitted that unlike the dishwasher, the chair did have special adaptations that made it usable by a disabled person. However, because the applicant found the requested dining chair to be too firm, he may not ultimately like it, and therefore, it would not represent value for money. The respondent further submitted that when the applicant moves into an SDA, he will be able to use his electric powered wheelchair inside, and he will be able to use that as a dining chair.
The Tribunal finds that the requested dining chair does not fall within item 1(j) of Schedule 2 as it is not standard furniture. The Tribunal also finds that it does fall within item 9(f) of Schedule 1 as it is furniture adapted or specifically made to be placed in or added to ‘a participant’s home… to help with movement, positioning and other safety needs…’.
However, the Tribunal does not find that the requested dining chair represents value for money as required by section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act. The evidence is that the applicant found it to be too firm, and therefore there is a real chance that the applicant will not ultimately use it. More significantly, the applicant will move into an SDA in the foreseeable future, and he will be able to use his electric powered wheelchair in that SDA which can safely be used by him as a dining chair and will limit the number of transfers he has to perform within the SDA.
For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the requested dining chair is not a reasonable and necessary support for the applicant.
Eight Sleep Cooling Pod
The applicant submits that his condition of multiple sclerosis causes his body to overheat (Uhthoff’s phenomenon) which causes him difficulty with sleeping.[37] In the applicant’s statement of lived experience, he says:
My disabilities cause me to experience constant pain throughout my body. The pain impacts my quality of sleep, causing me to wake, therefore, I am often sleep deprived and in pain. I attended a sleep assessment at St Vincent’s Hospital and they assessed me as only reaching REM sleep for a short period of time before waking as a result of pain or body temperature change. I sleep in two or three hour blocks therefore I am constantly tired.
…
I notice that my skin gets very hot when it is against the mattress for a period of time, this, I believe is related to my MS. MS causes me to feel hot all of the time. The air-conditioner cools my room but is ineffective at cooling my skin against the mattress. On some occasions I sleep in a chair in the lounge room as my mattress is often intolerable against my body and uncomfortable. As my disabilities have progressed I have noticed that my skin has become very sensitive to touch and temperature.[38]
[37] E3 p 9.
[38] JTB 595.
The applicant’s inability to regulate his internal body temperature is not limited to when he is sleeping. It occurs at various times throughout the day requiring him to have a shower to cool down his body. Even having his air-conditioner on 16 degrees at all times is not sufficient to cool his body adequately.[39]
[39] JTB 597-598
Ms Parker, an occupational therapist, prepared a report in April 2024 setting out a request for a bed and mattress as well as the Eight Sleep Cooling Pod (the cooling pod). The respondent has already agreed to pay for the applicant’s Plega Hi Low bed ensemble with latex (QS), plus mattress overlay, quoted at a cost of $8,220.[40] According to Ms Parker’s report when the applicant trialled this bed, he was able to achieve comfort. According to the report:
the natural latex material of the mattress reportedly has natural cooling properties an important factor for [the applicant]. He found many other beds and mattresses caused him to instantly heat, after lying on them for a period of time. He did not report the same issues with the Plega bed trialled and was able to rest in it for an hour. The sales consultant… confirmed the bed and mattresses were designed to not cause overheating like many other beds and mattresses on the market.[41]
[40] JTB 391
[41] JTB 392
In addition to this Plega bed, the applicant also seeks the cooling pod at a quoted cost of $3,745.[42] In her report, Ms Parker states:
… we would like to trial the Eight Sleep Cooling pod available for delivery to Australia. This is a refundable option but to trial it, we require payment upfront and seek NDIS to fund this so that it can be trialled for [the applicant]. We feel this technology available, would address his direct issues with contact of his skin against the bed and overheating difficulty he experiences. There is nothing else that I know of, commercially available for delivery in Australia that will offer the same cooling qualities.
[42] JTB 391.
The applicant gave evidence that his sheets make him hot, but he has not trialled moisture wicking or thermo regulating sheets to see if that assists with his temperature regulation whilst sleeping.
Ms Parker gave evidence that because the applicant has very sensitive skin it is not known whether he will be able to tolerate the feeling of water under his sheet which is a feature of the cooling pod. She accepted that this may be a problem for the applicant, and she was not sure whether the cooling pod would work for him.
The respondent submits that the cooling pod falls within item 1(i) of Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules, because it is a standard household item. In closing, the respondent submitted that the cooling pod is not used exclusively for people with disabilities, and it is used by athletes to enhance performance. Further, even if it was not a standard household item that falls within item 1(i) of Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules, it does not fall within any of the items listed in Schedule 1 of the Transitional Rules. Accordingly, it is not a NDIS support.

In the report prepared by Mr Baldock, occupational therapist, dated 1 April 2025, he says that the applicant “reported that he does not sleep well due to his whole-body pains”.[43] There is no mention in Mr Baldock’s report that the applicant does not sleep well due to his inability to regulate his temperature. Mr Baldock gave evidence at the hearing that he had no knowledge or experience of the cooling pod.
[43] JTB 666.
The Tribunal finds that the cooling pod is not modified or adapted to address the functional impairments of the participant.[44] However, even if it does not fall within the definition of a standard household item in item 1(i) of Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules, it does not fall within any of the items in Schedule 1 of the Transitional Rules. Unlike the dining chair it does not fall within item 9(f) because it is not furniture and other products that are adapted or specifically made to be placed in or added to a participant’s home… to help with movement, positioning and other safety needs… Nor does it fall within item 16 as it is not a disability related health support (column 1) as described in column 2 relating to that item. Accordingly, it is not a NDIS support and therefore cannot be included in the applicant’s SOPS.
[44] Section 4, Transitional Rules.
Further, if it does fall within an item listed in Schedule 1, the Tribunal is not satisfied that it represents value for money as it is unlikely to improve the applicant’s sleep. There is evidence that the primary cause of his difficulty with sleeping is not due to inability to control his temperature; it is due to his whole body pains. Further, if air-conditioning set at 16 degrees and the Plega bed and mattress which are designed to not cause overheating do not cool the applicant sufficiently, the Tribunal finds that it is unlikely that the cooling pod will.
The Tribunal finds that the cooling pod is not a NDIS support, and if it is, it is not reasonable and necessary and cannot be included in the applicant’s SOPS.
Meal Preparation and Delivery
Elizabeth Wooldridge is a speech pathologist from St Vincent’s Hospital in Melbourne. She assessed the applicant on 14 February 2022 and prepared a report dated 23 February 2022.[45] In that report she states that the applicant:
… is at moderate risk of aspiration and requires modified diet and fluid consistencies in aim to reduce aspiration occurrence, maintain nutrition and chest health longer term. Given degenerative neurological disabilities (Multiple Sclerosis and Myotonic Dystrophy Type 2) and skeletal injuries, he is unable to heat and cut food into digestible size to prevent risk of choking. He is unable to self-thicken drinks to the recommended consistencies with standard issue powdered thickener, which longer term could have a detrimental impact on his overall health. [The applicant] can no longer cook or use kitchen utensils. He has used and trialled several modified kitchen items, however his disability degeneration and decline in strength and muscle atrophy means he can no longer use blenders or cutlery and is unable to wash his dishes. He has reported dropping eggs on the floor and not being able to successfully clean up. Without 1:1 assistance, the applicant is at increased risk, inclusive of slip hazards and burning.[46]
…
In a six month period comparing Videofluoroscopy findings, [the applicant’s] swallow status has deteriorated resulting in further modifications to his diet recommendation. He is at moderate risk of aspiration with the optimum recommendations being Mildly Thick Fluids (Level 2) and Minced Moisture (Texture B/level 5) Diet.[47]
[45] JTB 310-330.
[46] JTB 316.
[47] JTB 322.
The recommended options for the applicant are:
· Precise Liquid Thickener - which is required to thicken drinks to optimum consistency to reduce aspiration risk.[48]
· TLC Meal delivery- the applicant is unable to prepare his own food and therefore requires meal delivery to meet his needs, this includes 1:1 assistance for meal preparation, heating, cutting and serving, in addition to washing up dishes post meals.[49]
[48] JTB 320.
[49] JTB 321,322.
The applicant’s evidence is that the respondent currently funds meal preparation and delivery in his plan in the sum of $350 per week. He wants this increased to $400 per week to take into account the increased cost of food. He said that in his current plan he pays 30% for the food component and the respondent pays 70%, which represents the costs associated with meal preparation and delivery. No evidence was provided in relation to the applicant’s current costs associated with meal preparation and delivery, and the oral evidence he gave was very vague in relation to this.
The applicant stated that he had tried TLC meal delivery service and more than five other places that make and deliver food. He found that these places did not cut the food into bite size pieces or provide enough sauce which created a choking hazard for him. He said he had found other places that made and delivered appropriate food for him. He said that his local “Charcoal Chicken” prepares and delivers to him chicken and salad meals that he can eat. He said he likes to eat soup, and he can buy this and other suitable meals from other takeaway places when he is out and about with his support worker.
In the applicant’s statement of lived experience he says:
I cannot undertake the physical task of food preparation and cooking given my disabilities. There have been incidents in the past where I have somehow knocked the gas on and not realised until sometime later when I was alerted to the smell. I have tried to use paid carers to prepare and cook meals. This was very unsuccessful as I found the carers were unhygienic, had poor cooking skills and were unqualified to meet my dysphagia needs. I then trialled several meal delivery services. These were also unsuccessful as they did not chop the food small enough, did not add adequate gravy or sauces, to aid swallowing, as recommended for my dysphagia (as I choke on most things). When I would call the food delivery services in an attempt to problem solve the issues, I was advised that they could not cater to individual requests, despite advertising as NDIS approved providers. I trialled frozen meal delivery and in addition to issues listed, the food often had freezer burn, did not reheat well and was often inedible. I have found a solution that meets my needs. I do not want support workers coming into my house to prepare meals, as I have tried this and I am not willing to try this again.[50]
[50] JTB 599.
In the carer’s statement prepared by the applicant’s support worker, Ms Evans, she confirms this evidence.[51]
[51] JTB 578-579.
Ms Parker gave evidence that the applicant needs to access food that is safe for him to swallow without choking. He has limited hand function, and it is hard for him to prepare his own meals. The applicant does not want a support worker coming in to prepare food for him and she believed it was more cost effective to have food prepared and delivered to him than having a support worker prepare appropriate food. Ms Parker did not provide any evidence to support her opinion in relation to this.
The respondent’s position is that the requested support of $400 a week for Assistance with Meal Preparation and Delivery falls within Item 3(a) and (b) of Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules, being groceries and food delivery platforms. Further, the applicant is currently funded for 33 hours per week for assistance with daily activities. This can be used flexibly for support within the home, which may include food preparation and delivery.
The applicant also receives funding from the Transport Accident Commission for 1 hour per week for attendant care.[52]
[52] JTB 397.
The applicant has stated that he does not use and does not want to use a meal delivery service, and he does not want support workers coming into his home to prepare meals. The evidence is that when he is out with his support worker, they do purchase suitable meals such as soups from takeaway places which he takes home and eats. He also orders takeaway chicken and salad prepared by a local ‘Charcoal Chicken’ business that will prepare food to meet his requirements and deliver it to him.
Item 3(b) in Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules specifically states that fast food services, takeaway food and food delivery platforms are not NDIS supports. That item does state that:
Meal delivery platforms where the food and ingredient component can be separately identified from the meal preparation and delivery components are not included in paragraph (b).
The applicant does not have or want a meal delivery platform, referred to above. He currently has food delivered from a takeaway store, namely ‘Charcoal Chicken’ or his support worker helps him buy suitable takeaway meals, such as soup, when they are out in the community. If the applicant was unable to go out with his support worker, she could do this by herself and deliver it and if necessary, heat and serve it to the applicant in his own home.
The applicant gave evidence that the respondent funds 70% of his meal purchases. The applicant’s plan replenishment was prepared by the respondent on 10 September 2024, which was prior to the operation of the Amending Act and the Transitional Rules that commenced on 3 October 2024. Pursuant to the Transitional Rules, item 3(b) in Schedule 2, fast food services, takeaway food and food delivery platforms are not NDIS supports and cannot be included in the applicant’s SOPS.
Section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act states that the respondent must be satisfied that the support represents value for money in that the costs of the support are reasonable, relative to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternative support. Further, Rule 5.1(c) of the Support Rules states that a support will not be provided or funded under the NDIS if it duplicates other supports delivered under alternative funding through the NDIS.
The applicant is currently funded for support workers for 33 hours per week who can assist him with shopping for and purchasing appropriate meals. This would not necessarily involve the support worker actually preparing a meal at his home, but they could purchase, collect, or heat up and serve the takeaway food that the applicant likes. They could also assist him to use the liquid thickener he uses to thicken his drinks to the correct consistency.
The Tribunal finds that it would not take long for the applicant’s support worker to assist him with the purchase, heating and serving of takeaway meals. The evidence is that apart from the takeaway food that the applicant has delivered to his home from Charcoal Chicken, this is currently what his support worker does.
With respect to takeaway food, this is specifically excluded as a NDIS support by virtue of item 3(b) of Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the takeaway food that the applicant purchases and sometimes has delivered to his home is not an NDIS support that can be included in the applicant’s SOPS.
In addition, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s request for $400 per week for meal preparation and delivery would duplicate the applicant’s already funded support worker assistance. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 5.1(c) of the Support rules it cannot be funded by the respondent.
Additional 10 hours of speech pathology
The applicant’s current Capacity Building Daily Activity is for 109 hours, $21,144.91 calculated as follows:
·Occupational Therapy $193.99 x 60 hours per year = $11,639.40
·Speech Pathology $193.99 x 24 hours per year = $4,655.76
·Podiatrist $193.99 x 5 hours per year = $969.95
·Physiotherapist $193.99 x 20 hours per year = $3,879.80.
This funding can be used flexibly by the applicant.
According to the report dated 5 October 2023 prepared by Ms Parker, occupational therapist:
[The applicant] experiences significant levels of fatigue, and as a consequence, his capacity to express himself verbally is impaired. He often loses his ability to speak, if speaking continuously, with his voice cracking, and sometimes, he can be difficult to understand. He often asks his support worker… to speak for him each time this occurs, until he can rest his voice. He also reports that sometimes, he can’t think of the word and requires his support worker to assist him get his message across. He is keen to explore alternative communication options and technological options that could assist him.
His swallowing is impacted by his DM2, and he requires modifications to his drink and food as a result to help prevent aspiration and choking which [the applicant] reports he is at risk of. Ongoing speech therapy is an essential service to ensure ongoing monitoring and safety around his swallowing, given the progressive neurological conditions he experiences.[53]
[53] JTB 336.
In his statement of lived experience the applicant says:
St Vincent’s Hospital speech therapists assessed that I suffer from Dysphagia [difficulty swallowing] and Dysphonia [abnormal voice/hoarseness] …They have made recommendations that disability specific prepared food, snacks and drinks are required to avoid aspiration and choking. I struggle with any food that is not prepared in a way to meet my swallowing needs.[54]
[54] JTB 599.
In the report prepared by Ms Wooldridge, speech pathologist, dated 23 February 2022, she focuses on the applicant’s dysphagia which results in an increased risk of aspiration for the applicant. She says:
Aspiration risk can have a profound impact on health status, chest status and nutritional intake requiring close monitoring. If [the applicant] is unable to prepare diet and fluids to the recommended consistencies, his health and independence is likely to suffer.[55]
[55] JTB 317.
Ms Wooldridge recommends 1:1 assistance on a daily basis with particular focus on food preparation and thickening drinks to meet his recommended requirements for safe swallowing and enabling the applicant to live more independently at home.[56]
[56] JTB 316.
At the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that he was currently funded for 24 hours of speech therapy per year. He said he has received a lot of ‘face to face’ speech therapy at the Royal Alfred Hospital, and because it is a public hospital, the costs are not funded by NDIS. He said he was transitioning away from ‘face to face’ speech therapy and was moving towards using Assistive Technology to assist him with voice recognition and communication. He said he wanted 10 more hours of funding to assist him to learn to use voice-to-text Assistive Technology. He also said that his condition was deteriorating and needed to see a speech therapist to assist him with his dysphagia.
Mr Harraway, occupational therapist, is an Assistive Technology consultant and has worked with the applicant in relation to his Assistive Technology needs, including communication and adaptive speech technology. In his report relating to sessions he had with the applicant on 28 September and 4 October 2023, he notes that he discussed with the applicant Dragon Naturally Speaking v16 and Speech Assistant AAC. The applicant indicated that he had problems using an older version of Dragon but was open to the idea of looking at it again. Mr Harraway loaded Speech Assistant Android (free version) onto the applicant’s phone to enable him to try it out.[57]
[57] JTB 100-101.
At the conclusion of his report Mr Harraway states:
AT to be trialled/considered further/Support with setup and implementation
Mounting options for phone and tablet
T handle or Ball Stylus
Head mouses for hands free access
Dragon Naturally Speaking trial
Reminders/Alerting/Calendaring/Notetaking/Journalling applications
20 hours of ComTEC OT, 10 hours of ComTEC SP support
The respondent’s position is that the applicant’s current Capacity Building funding of 109 hours is sufficient to include all of the applicant’s speech pathology needs noting that it can be used flexibly. The respondent submits that the additional funding requested for speech therapy does not represent value for money as required by section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act and would duplicate other supports already provided to the applicant (Rule 5.1 of the Support Rules).
The evidence is that:
·     The applicant is transitioning away from face-to-face speech therapy and is moving towards Assistive Technology to assist him with voice recognition and communication.
·     The applicant has been working with Mr Harraway, occupational therapist, in relation to Assistive Technology to assist him with speech and communication when he is unable to use his voice. Mr Harraway has recommended 10 hours in total of ComTEC SP [speech pathology] support.
·     In her report, Ms Wooldridge, speech therapist, makes no mention of the need for increased speech therapy in relation to his dysphagia or dysphonia. Her report focuses on the applicant requiring assistance with food preparation and thickening of drinks to meet his requirements for safe swallowing. Her recommendations have been implemented.
The applicant already receives funding for 24 hours of speech therapy per annum. He has a total of 109 hours funded for Capacity Building Daily Activity which he can use flexibly. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that an additional amount of funding for an extra 10 hours of speech therapy is required to meet the applicant’s needs. If the applicant requires 10 hours of ComTEC speech pathology support, he still has 14 hours of funding for any speech therapy he requires with respect to his dysphagia or dysphonia. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that that the existing funding for speech therapy for the applicant is sufficient and that the additional funding of 10 hours for speech therapy requested would duplicate existing supports and is not value for money, therefore it is not a reasonable and necessary support.[58]
[58] Rule 5.1 of the Support Rules and Subsection 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act.
Additional 20-25 hours to assist the applicant with AT integration.
Two occupational therapists are currently working with the applicant. Ms Parker has been working with the applicant since September 2023. Her focus has been on identifying physical supports to help the applicant achieve his goals which she states in her first report dated 5 October 2023 to be as follows:
·to maintain and improve his mobility and motor skills.
·live more independently in his own home and complete daily tasks.
·increase his participation in the community and recreational activities.
·have assistive technology and his home set up to support him to continue to live independently in his home and keep him safe and functioning at his best.[59]
Mr Harraway’s involvement has been to assist the applicant in relation to his following goals:
·explore options for devices which are lightweight/portable, robust, secure and able to be independently set up and used by the applicant for a range of necessary functions e.g. communication when his voice goes, notetaking, reminders/alerting/calendaring.
·introduce the applicant to and assist him understand the range of access methods that could be suitable for him at different times of the day as his voice, movements and fatigue levels change.[60]
[59] JTB 331.
[60] JTB 93.
Since September 2023, Ms Parker has worked extensively with the applicant, helping him to identify supports that may help him achieve the goals referred to above. In that time, she has prepared at least 18 reports and letters of support in relation to the applicant. She has extensively investigated and conducted many trials of various supports with the applicant and has made a number of recommendations of supports for the applicant, many of which have been accepted and funded by the respondent, and many of which are now redundant as a result of the respondent agreeing to fund a SDA for the applicant and as a result of the finalisation of this application for review before the Tribunal.

In her evidence, Ms Parker said that 60 hours of funding is sufficient for the support that she will need to provide the applicant over the next 12 months. Any additional funding for Mr Haraway will need to be on top of that. In her report dated 30 May 2024[61] Ms Parker says:
[61] JTB 475.
The role of OT in the next 12-month period will be to provide supports for the following key tasks:
·Ongoing assessment of need for assistive technology. This may include trials, arranging interim rental of equipment (as a trial), completing written reports for the following:
·Purchase of appropriate dining seating in home (5 hours)
·Purchase of a folding manual wheelchair for support staff to easily use in their vehicles. This was after a full exploration of portable power options, all found to be too heavy for support staff to lift (5 hours).
·Arranging rental equipment (as and if required) (allow 2 hours).
·Home modifications - including review of NDIS decision, follow up provision of information (as required), liaison with builders and reviewing works carried out to ensure [the applicant’s] needs are met and plans are followed. Respond to any concerns or issues and provide guidance, training and follow up recommendations as required (10 hours).
·Reviewing new power wheelchair, once funded, including training for [the applicant] and support staff as required. This includes provision of written material or training videos as required. Review all funded items and provide training as required regarding their safe use (5-8 hours).
·Exploration and implementation of memory and cognitive strategies to enhance independence and functioning and reduce dependency on support workers (5 hours).
·Strategies for completing tasks safely and independently, including maintaining attention, slowing down, and ensuring tasks are completed when not fatigued to ensure success (5 hours).
·Fatigue management techniques, including further assessment of sleep routine and comfort (2 hours).
·Liaison and training support workers to enhance [the applicant’s] safety, functioning and independence (5 hours).
·Exploration of community access and increased social and community participation opportunities (5 hours).
·Liaison with other therapists/team and support workers (as required) (8 hours)
·Report writing, including completing AT applications and home modification updates and follow up as required (allow 8 hours)
Total hours required for OT services to achieve the above key tasks; 60 hours.[62]
[62] JTB 475.
The bulk of the work that the applicant requires from Ms Parker has already been done. He will move into an SDA, he has been or will be provided with reasonable and necessary supports and she will not need to prepare extensive written reports moving forward. As a result of this decision and the funding of supports already agreed to by the respondent, some of the items listed above are no longer required, including:
·Purchase of appropriate dining seating in home (5 hours);
·Arranging rental equipment (as and if required) (2 hours);
·Home modifications - including review of NDIS decision, follow up provision of information (as required), liaison with builders and reviewing works carried out to ensure Stephen's needs are met and plans are followed. Respond to any concerns or issues and provide guidance, training and follow up recommendations as required (10 hours);
·Liaison with other therapists/team and support workers (as required) (8 hours). This is a duplication of part of a previous item: Liaison and training support workers to enhance [the applicant’s] safety, functioning and independence (5 hours);
·Report writing, including completing AT applications and home modification updates and follow up as required (allow 8 hours).
Taking into account the items no longer required, Ms Parker’s estimate of the role of occupational therapists in the next 12-month period is reduced by at least 20 hours. Further in her estimate, Ms Parker has included the item: Exploration and implementation of memory and cognitive strategies to enhance independence and functioning and reduce dependency on support workers (5 hours). This is support that will be primarily provided by Mr Harraway. In his report he has recommended 20 hours of ComTEC occupational therapy which will be provided by him.[63]
[63] JTB 101.
It can be seen from the above analysis that the 60 hours of occupational therapy that is already funded by the respondent, which can be used flexibly, is sufficient to support the applicant’s occupational therapy needs, and that the additional funding for 20 to 25 hours of occupational therapy is a duplication of other supports already provided to the applicant and does not represent value for money.[64]
[64] Rule 5.1 of the Support Rules and Subsection 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act.
Supported Independent Living (SIL) funding
Ms Parker states in her report of 18 July 2024 that Supported Independent Living (SIL) funding may be appropriate for the applicant depending on the set up of his SDA. She says:
[The applicant] prefers to have choice and control over who works with him and provides support. His SIL requirements will likely involve 8 hours of 1:1 funding per day (including some community participation) and either shared or flexible funding for additional supports outside of this time. At this stage, inactive overnight support but his SIL and community participation hours will need to be reviewed again once he is ready to move into SDA and support needs are likely to change.[65]
[65] JTB 491.
Under cross-examination, Ms Parker said the applicant requires 5 hours of support per day to complete daily activities and 3 hours of support per day for participation in the community. She accepted that he did not currently require overnight support.
Mr Baldock noted in his report dated 1 April 2025 that the applicant’s supports currently include:
· A support worker 5 hours daily;
· A cleaner 5.5 hours weekly.
Based on Mr Baldock’s evidence the applicant receives somewhere between 5-6 hours per day on average for support. Mr Baldock gave evidence at the hearing that he was of the view that the applicant’s current supports were adequate, particularly if he is to be provided with an SDA. He said that the applicant is currently capable of managing by himself overnight and does not have overnight support.
The Supported Independent Living - Operational Guideline states that SIL[66]:
[66] Dated 7 April 2025.
·     is for people with higher support needs, who needed some level of help at home all the time.
·     is best suited to people with disability who have higher support needs. This means you need a significant amount of help throughout the day, 7 days a week. This includes overnight support.
·     is only one of the many NDIS support options. There might be other home and living supports that suit you better.
·     may be suitable for you if you need both:
• active disability support for more than 8 hours per day to complete daily activities
• some level of support for the other hours – that is, you need support for 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, including overnight support.
When we say active disability support, we mean support in your home to help you do daily activities. For example, you may need help with personal care, getting ready, cooking, eating and drinking, cleaning and doing chores.
In relation to the level of active disability support required by the applicant, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr Baldock on the basis that it accurately reflects the active disability support that the applicant currently receives, and that the Tribunal has found meets his needs. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s current NDIS supports meet his needs. He does not require significant help throughout the day, seven days a week, including overnight support. The Tribunal notes that the respondent has agreed to fund an SDA for the applicant with onsite overnight assistance (OOA) which he can use in addition to his existing supports if that becomes necessary. In the respondent’s further statement of facts issues and contentions, the respondent states OOA is not a person-to-person support; it is included in the capital cost of the SDA. The applicant is not obliged to use the OOA even if it is funded.[67]
[67] E4 p 2.
The Tribunal determines that the applicant does not require SIL as it is a duplication of other supports that are already provided to the applicant, and his current supports adequately meet his support needs. The Tribunal determines that SIL is not ‘reasonable and necessary’ and does not represent value for money on the facts of this case.[68]
[68] Rule 5.1 of the Support Rules and Subsection 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act.
Decision
For the stated reasons, the decision of the Tribunal is as follows:
a. The reviewable decision is set aside and remitted for reconsideration with a direction that the SOPS specifies that the reasonable and necessary supports include:
i.   $5,000.00 a year for AT trial and rental small aids, various accessories;
ii. Level 2 transport funding from 11 October 2023;
iii. Funding for the previously approved AT composite power bed;
iv.   A power recliner with appropriate cushions;
v.   A permobil M3 Power Wheelchair and seating components;
vi.   A low-cost Manual Wheelchair and appropriate cushions;
vii.   A tablet stylus and tablet head pointer (Quha Zono X); and
viii. An SDA; design category-fully accessible, building type-   villa/duplex/townhouse or apartment, 1 bedroom, 1 resident, onsite overnight assistance and fire sprinklers, location-Eastern Suburbs Melbourne.
b. All other supports in the applicant’s existing SOPs are to be replicated pro-rata from the date on which the supports in the paragraph above are included in the Applicant’s SOPs until the reassessment date.

Dates of hearing: 28, 29 and 30 April 2025

Solicitors for the Applicant: Self-represented

Solicitors for the Respondent: Matthew Daly - Mills Oakley

Current Approved Support Details	10/9/2024 – 10/9/2024	Funded
CORE	$177,524.36
Consumables	Low-cost AT - personal care and safety $1,500 per year Disability-related health consumables - low-cost $1,500 per year	$3000
Daily activities	Assistance with self-care activities standard weekday daytime $65.47 x 20 hours per week = $68,088.80 Assistance with self-care activities standard Saturday $92.12 x 4 hours per week = $19,160.96 Assistance with self-care activities standard Sunday $118.78 x 4 hours per week = $24,706.24 Assistance with personal domestic activities $55.03 x 5 hours per week = $14,307.80 Housecleaning and other household activities $54.07 x two hours per week = $5623.28 Daily activities budget of $131,887.08 has been allocated for flexible support within the home, which may include, but is not limited to: assistance with personal care, respite, house/yard maintenance; and assistance with other activities of daily living, food preparation and delivery.	$131,887.08
Social community and civic participation	Access community social and rec activities weekday daytime $65.47 x 12 hours per week	$40,853.28
Transport	Includes general and specialised transport for accessing your day service and community	$1,784
CAPACITY BUILDING	$37,426.59
CB daily activity	Occupational therapist $193.99 x 60 hours per year = $11,639.40 Speech pathology $193.99 x 24 hours per year = $4,655.76 Podiatrist $193.99 x 5 hours per year = $969.95 Physiotherapist $193.99 x 20 hours per year = $3879.80	$21,144.91
CB health and well-being	Funding of $1080 for your gym membership and $14,000 for a gym assistant	$15,080
Support coordination	Support coordination level 2 $110.14 x 12 hours per year	$1201.68
CAPITAL	$4500
Home modifications	Design consultation with builder per year $4500 builder support has been added to fund the consultation with builder and get quotes for: 1. Bathroom and shower, including installation of a bidet; 2. Ramp access at rear; 3. Dishwasher; and 4. Garage door replacement - needs electricity and remote operation	$4500
Total	$219,450.95

Dates of hearing:	28, 29 and 30 April 2025
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Self-represented
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Matthew Daly - Mills Oakley