Kelly and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for a review of a decision made by the National Disability Insurance Agency (the Agency). The applicant, who has Down’s syndrome and a heart condition, sought funding for a water filtration system for her home, which relies on untreated tank water. The Agency had refused to approve the water filtration system as a reasonable and necessary support under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the installation of a water filtration system constituted a "reasonable and necessary support" for the applicant, as defined by the NDIS Act 2013 (Cth). This required the Tribunal to consider whether the proposed support met the criteria outlined in section 34(1) of the Act, specifically whether it was effective and beneficial, and represented value for money. The applicant contended that the untreated tank water posed a heightened risk of waterborne pathogens due to her Down’s syndrome and associated health issues, making the filtration system a necessary preventative measure.

The Tribunal found that the evidence presented did not sufficiently demonstrate that the applicant had a compromised immune system or a heightened susceptibility to waterborne infections as a result of her Down’s syndrome. While acknowledging her complex health needs, the Tribunal noted a lack of scientific research or factual accounts of past infections to support the claim of increased risk. Furthermore, no credible evidence was provided regarding the actual quality of the tank water or any elevated risk to the applicant. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the water filtration system was not a support directly related to the applicant's disability and therefore could not be considered reasonable and necessary. The Tribunal also noted that the option of a single water tap filter had not been adequately considered.

The Tribunal affirmed the Agency's decision, finding that the criteria under section 34(1) of the NDIS Act, particularly subsections (c) and (d), had not been met.