Kak and National Disability Insurance Agency

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a dispute between the Applicant and the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) concerning the provision of a Rugged Terrain Vehicle (RTV) for the Applicant's use on her family's rural property. The Applicant sought funding for the RTV to enable her to access various parts of the property, which is approximately an hour's drive from her home and features rocky, uneven terrain with slopes. The NDIA opposed the funding, arguing it did not meet the criteria for reasonable and necessary supports under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth).

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the provision of an RTV for transporting the Applicant around the rural property, used one to two days per week, satisfied the requirements of section 34(1) of the Act. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the support represented value for money (s 34(1)(c)), would be effective and beneficial (s 34(1)(d)), and took into account what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, and informal networks to provide (s 34(1)(e)). The NDIA contended that these criteria were not met, while the Applicant argued that the RTV would enhance her social participation and was a more cost-effective option than additional carer support.

The Tribunal reasoned that the family's decision to purchase a rural property with challenging terrain constituted a lifestyle choice. Consequently, the need for an all-terrain vehicle to navigate this property was considered a cost that the family could reasonably be expected to bear as part of their informal support network, aligning with the principles of section 34(1)(e). While acknowledging the potential benefits of the RTV in increasing the Applicant's enjoyment and variety of activities at the farm, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to conclude it would be substantially more effective or beneficial than alternative supports, particularly given the Applicant's mobility and balance limitations. The Tribunal also noted that the RTV would not improve the Applicant's independence, as another person would be required to operate it.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the requested support of an RTV did not meet the requirements of sections 34(1)(c), (d), and (e) of the Act. The Tribunal affirmed the NDIA's decision, finding that additional carer support, which was conditionally agreed upon by the parties, was more likely to meet the Applicant's needs.