McPherson and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application by Mr McPherson to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) challenging a decision by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). Mr McPherson sought funding for a private motor vehicle, modified to enable him to drive independently, to facilitate his access to the community. He argued that his muscular dystrophy and anxiety/depression made public transport and accessible taxis extremely difficult to use, and that a private vehicle was essential for his independence, allowing him to engage in social, educational, and employment activities. The NDIA had refused funding for the vehicle.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether funding a private motor vehicle for Mr McPherson constituted a "reasonable and necessary support" under section 34(1) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth). This involved considering whether the proposed support was consistent with the Supports for Participants Rules and relevant Operational Guidelines, and whether it was appropriate in the context of the NDIS's financial sustainability and the potential for inequity among participants.

The Tribunal found that Mr McPherson's request for funding was speculative. While acknowledging his desire for independence and the difficulties he faced with existing transport options, the Tribunal noted that Mr McPherson did not currently hold a driver's licence. Crucially, there was no expert evidence from medical practitioners, an occupational therapist, or relevant government bodies regarding his potential to obtain a licence given his conditions. Furthermore, the Tribunal lacked clear, objective documentation detailing the specific vehicle modifications required for him to drive independently. The Tribunal also considered submissions regarding the financial sustainability of the NDIS and the risk of inequity if private vehicles were funded for some participants but not others, accepting that funding regular daily living expenses could pose such risks.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that providing funding for a private motor vehicle for Mr McPherson met the criteria of a "reasonable and necessary support." The decision under review, which affirmed the NDIA's refusal to fund the vehicle, was therefore affirmed.