Kennedy and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application by the applicant for funding for a two-bedroom apartment under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The applicant, who suffers from functional quadriplegia, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression, sought funding for a two-bedroom apartment to accommodate his children when they stayed overnight, for storage of equipment, space for a workstation, and for carers or other supports to stay overnight. The dispute before the Tribunal was whether the provision of a two-bedroom apartment constituted a "reasonable and necessary" support under the NDIS.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant's request for a two-bedroom apartment, specifically for the purpose of accommodating his children overnight, facilitating the storage of essential equipment, providing a dedicated workspace, and allowing for overnight stays by carers or support personnel, aligned with the objects and principles of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth). This involved considering whether such accommodation was "reasonable and necessary" in light of the applicant's severe and lifelong disabilities, and whether it would support his goals of independence, social and economic participation, and personal development, while also giving effect to Australia's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The Tribunal reasoned that the provision of a two-bedroom apartment was a reasonable and necessary support that would significantly enhance the applicant's participation in community life and his overall quality of life. It applied the objects of the NDIS Act, including supporting independence and social and economic participation, enabling choice and control, and promoting positive personal and social development. The Tribunal also considered the general principles guiding actions under the Act, which acknowledge the role of families and carers and promote the development of individuals with disabilities. Crucially, the Tribunal found that a two-bedroom apartment would enable the applicant to adequately parent his twins, thereby supporting the family unit and promoting his positive personal and social development. The applicant's preference for this living arrangement was given significant weight, consistent with the Act's emphasis on choice and control and Australia's obligations under Article 19 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which mandates the opportunity for persons with disabilities to choose their place of residence.

The Tribunal set aside the previous decision and substituted it with an order that the applicant should receive Special Disability Accommodation (SDA) funding for a two-bedroom, one-resident apartment.