Miller and Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) - [2025] ARTA 1870

Miller and Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 1870 (22 September 2025)
Applicant:Dylan Miller
Respondent: Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency
Tribunal Number: 2024/7511

Tribunal:General Member A Colvin
Place:Brisbane
Date:22 September 2025

Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits this matter to the Respondent with directions that:
1.A new statement of participant supports (SOPS) be approved for the Applicant, which specifies:
1.1the following reasonable and necessary supports:
Core Supports
1.1.1the current 26 hours per year of 1:1 employment support at the weekday daytime rate of $70.23 be replaced by 57 hours of 1:1 support worker assistance at the standard Saturday daytime rate (currently $98.83); and
1.1.2the current 24 hours per year of 1:1 support worker assistance at the weekday daytime rate of $70.23 be replaced with 40 hours per year of 1:1 support worker assistance at the standard weekday daytime rate (currently $70.23).

2.The 14 hours of occupational therapy in the Applicant’s capacity building in his NDIS Plan dated 31 July 2025 (current plan) are to be removed.
3.The 12 hours of skills development and training found in the Applicant’s capacity building funding in the current plan can be administered by a suitably qualified NDIS registered support worker.
4.All other reasonable and necessary supports in the current plan are to be replicated pro-rata for 12 months, except the supports listed at paragraphs [‎1.1.1] and [‎1.1.2] above, which are intended to be replaced by this decision.
5.All plan management arrangements are to be the same as those in the current plan.
6.The reassessment date be 12 months after the supports listed at paragraphs [‎1.1.1] and [‎1.1.2] above are included in a SOPS.

..............[SGD].................
General Member A Colvin
Catchwords
NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME – National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) – consideration of section 34 – reasonable and necessary supports – support worker assistance
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth)
Cases
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 60
National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF [2020] FCAFC 79
Mills and National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 1410
Secondary Materials
NDIS – Operational Guidelines Reasonable and necessary supports
Statement of Reasons
BACKGROUND

Mr Miller is a young adult who is a participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). He resides with his parents and younger siblings. He has completed tertiary studies and currently works part-time.
Mr Miller was granted access to the NDIS based on impairments arising from autism spectrum disorder (level 2) (ASD). As an NDIS participant, he has a plan that includes a statement of participant supports (SOPS). This review is about whether additional funding for support workers should be included in the SOPS in that plan.
On 3 June 2024, a delegate of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the National Disability Insurance Agency (Agency) approved a SOPS in a plan for Mr Miller (the 2024 plan). That decision was made pursuant to section 33 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act (NDIS Act). The decision was affirmed on internal review on 3 September 2024.
Mr Miller applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) on 27 September 2024. From 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (Tribunal). Applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT.[1]
[1] Transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024
The hearing took place by videoconference on 2 and 4 September 2025.
Documents available to the Tribunal included a joint hearing bundle (HB), lodged by the Agency (Exhibit 1), the Agency’s ‘Updated Attachment A – Summary of Current Plan’ (Exhibit 2) and the Agency’s further ‘Updated Attachment A – Summary of Current Plan’ (Exhibit 3). The Agency provided a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFIC) and a proposed order.
THE DECISION UNDER REVIEW
Following the decision made on 3 September 2024 (affirming the decision made on 3 June 2024) the CEO of the Agency made the following further decisions:
(a)A decision dated 26 March 2025 (approving the SOPS in a six-month plan commencing on that date); and
(b)A decision dated 31 July 2025 (approving the SOPS in a 12-month plan commencing on that date and ending on 30 July 2026 (the current plan)).[2]
[2] HB 5.3
The present application for review is therefore also taken to be an application for review of the decisions dated 26 March 2025 and 31 July 2025.[3]
[3] Subsection 103(2) of the NDIS Act.
ISSUES
At issue in the present matter is the amount of funding that should be included in the SOPS in Mr Miller’s current plan, as a reasonable and necessary support, for funding for support worker assistance.
Mr Miller’s Current Plan
The SOPS in Mr Miller’s 2024 plan included total funding for three years of $20,799.36. It included no funding for core support. All the funding was for capacity building supports. This funding, on a yearly basis, amounted to $6,933.12.[4]
[4] HB 5.2 (T9)
By the time of the hearing Mr Miller’s current plan included total funding for one year of $13,127.86. The Agency advised that funding in the SOPS in the current plan had been calculated as follows:[5]
[5] Exhibit 2
(a)$3,511.50 of flexible core funding representing 50 hours of 1:1 support worker assistance at $70.23/hr representing:
(i)26 hours/year for employment assistance;
(ii)24 hours/year for support worker assistance; and
(b)$9,616.36 of stated supports for improved daily living skills comprised of:
(i)14 hours/year of occupational therapy at $193.99/hr;
(ii)26 hours of psychology at $232.99/hr; and
(iii)12 hours of skill development at $70.23/hr.
The Supports Mr Miller Seeks
Mr Miller asked that the Tribunal include sufficient funding in the SOPS in his current plan to fund support worker assistance so that he could have 1:1 support worker assistance during the week for four hours/week. It was not clear whether Mr Miller sought this support for 52 weeks/year but the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that he did. This amounts to 208 hours/year at $70.23/hr ($14,607.94).
Mr Miller also asked that the SOPS in his plan allow for 1:3 support worker assistance for six hours on Saturdays to enable him to attend a social group on Saturdays. His evidence, discussed later, was that he missed approximately one of these social group events every three months. The Tribunal therefore proceeded on the basis that he sought this funding for 48 weeks/year, equivalent to 48 weeks of two hours/week at 1:1 Saturday rates of $98.83/hr ($9,487.68).
When applying to the AAT, Mr Miller had also sought increased funding for psychology. The parties reached agreement on that support before the commencement of the hearing and he indicated that he did not seek funding for psychology above the amount in his current plan.
Mr Miller saw no real benefit in the funding in his current plan for occupational therapy. He preferred that this be allocated toward funding a support worker.
This means that, excluding current funding for psychology, Mr Miller seeks funding in the SOPS in his plan of approximately $24,100, all of which would be used to provide support worker assistance.
The Agency’s Position
At the outset of the hearing, the Agency contended that the supports in the current plan reflected the Agency’s view regarding reasonable and necessary supports and that there should be no change to this. Ultimately, however, it submitted that the SOPS in Mr Miller’s current plan should be varied and that the funding should total $13,894.57/year.[6]
[6] Exhibit 3
Regarding capacity building supports, the Agency submitted that these should be reduced and instead total $6,900.50/year, based on the following:
(a)retaining current funding for psychology;
(b)retaining current funding of 12 hours/year for skills development and training at $70.23/hr, noting that this was the same rate as weekday 1:1 support worker rate and could be used for a support worker; and
(c)removing funding for occupational therapy (and reallocating it to core supports, equating to approximately 39 hours of support worker assistance).
The Agency submitted that core supports funding in Mr Miller’s plan should total $6,994.07/year calculated as follows:
(a)26 hours/year of 1:1 support worker assistance, now at the higher Saturday rate of $98.83/hr; and
(b)63 hours/year of 1:1 support worker assistance at the weekday rate of $70.23/hr (representing the existing 24 hours plus 39 hours from reallocating occupational therapy funding).
The Agency explained that Mr Miller’s core funding could be used flexibly. For example, it could all be used to fund a 1:1 support worker at weekday daytime rates or used to fund a different combination of support worker assistance, including some 1:1 weekday support and some support on weekends at another ratio. The core supports could also be combined with the 12 hours/year for skills development and training at $70.23/hr in the SOPS in the current plan.
This means that in total, excluding current funding for psychology, the Agency contended that Mr Miller’s plan should include funding of approximately $7,837, all of which could be used to provide support worker assistance.
THE LAW
The legislative framework
The statutory provisions relevant to this application for review are found within the NDIS law, including:[7]
·the NDIS Act;
·the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Cth) (Supports Rules);
·the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth) (Miscellaneous Provisions Rules); and
·the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth) (NDIS Supports Transitional Rules).
[7] The statement of the law that follows largely adopts the summary in Mills and National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 1410
The Agency also issues Operational Guidelines. The Tribunal is not bound to follow Operational Guidelines issued by the Agency but, in the absence of any statutory indication to the contrary, any lawful executive policy enacted to guide the exercise of a statutory power is a relevant factor for the Tribunal to take into account in performing its review task.[8] Operational Guidelines considered in the present matter are published by the Agency on its website and include guidelines on Reasonable and Necessary Supports.[9]
[8] Re Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs(No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
[9] Webpage: ourguidelines.ndis.gov.au
Approving the SOPS in participants’ plans
Section 3 of the NDIS Act sets out the objects of the NDIS Act. Sections 4 and 5 of the NDIS Act set out general principles guiding actions under the NDIS Act, and sections 17A and 31 of the NDIS Act set out principles that relate to participation in the NDIS and plans.
If a person becomes a participant, under section 32 of the NDIS Act the CEO must facilitate the preparation of a plan for the participant. Mr Miller’s plan is an ‘old framework plan’. For those plans, section 33 of the NDIS Act sets out the matters that must be included in a participant’s plan. A plan must include a statement of the participant’s goals and aspirations. It must also include a SOPS, prepared with the participant and approved by the CEO. The SOPS in a participant’s plan must specify, among other things, ‘the reasonable and necessary supports (if any) that will be funded’ under the NDIS.[10]
[10] Paragraph 33(2)(b) of the NDIS Act
When approving a SOPS in a participant’s plan, the CEO must comply with the mandatory requirements contained in subsection 33(5) of the NDIS Act. One of the requirements in subsection 33(5) is that the CEO ‘be satisfied as mentioned in section 34 in relation to the reasonable and necessary supports that will be funded’: paragraph 33(5)(c) of the NDIS Act.
Subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act deals with ‘reasonable and necessary supports’:[11]
[11] After Mr Miller applied to the AAT, the NDIS Act was amended by the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No 1) Act 2024 (Cth) (the Amending Act). This is subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act as amended. The effect of item 129 in Part 3, Schedule 1 to the Amending Act is that the Tribunal can only vary the SOPS in Mr Miller’s plan if section 34 of the NDIS Act, as amended by the Amending Act, is met.
34 Reasonable and necessary supports
(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 requirements 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 matters set out above in subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act are more than mandatory considerations. They are more in the nature of criteria that the decision‑maker must be positively satisfied about on the material.[12]
[12] National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF [2020] FCAFC 79 at 201
When approving a SOPS in a participant’s plan the Supports Rules are relevant. Among other provisions in those rules, rule 5.1 provides that a support will not be provided or funded under the NDIS if it is ‘not related to the participant’s disability’.
The Miscellaneous Provisions Rules are also relevant. Rule 7 imposes an additional requirement, that the support is most appropriately funded through the NDIS and not through other systems or bodies as part of universal service obligations or in accordance with reasonable adjustments required under laws dealing with discrimination.
THE EVIDENCE
In addition to having the documents set out earlier, the Tribunal heard oral evidence from Mr Miller, Mr Browne, and Mr Miller’s psychologist, Dr Beehag.
At the time of the hearing, Mr Miller resided with family. He worked part-time two days/week in an office role. He drove a car and assisted at home by dropping and collecting his siblings from school on days that he was not at work. He was not regularly engaged with an occupational therapist. He was seeing Dr Beehag approximately monthly and was in regular contact with Mr Browne, whom he had known for about one year. Mr Browne co-owned a small private company that convened a social group on Saturdays and provided individual support workers. It was not an NDIS registered organisation.
Mr Miller’s goals, set out in his current plan, included goals around employment, interacting with others, and moving out of home. In the hearing, he said that he wanted to update those goals. He said his goals included earning sufficient income to move out of home to live independently, preferably with friends.
Mr Miller was granted access to the NDIS based on impairments from ASD. Dr Beehag had been treating Mr Miller over many years and provided a report dated 28 August 2024. His oral evidence, which I accept, was that Miller’s impairments from ASD included having a rigid mind and black and white thinking, as well as missing social cues.
In his oral evidence, Dr Beehag outlined Mr Miller’s past and current mental state. He noted that Mr Miller had been able to maintain employment and that this had provided more structure and routine. However, he did not consider that Mr Miller’s mental state had changed significantly, noting that the same psychological stressors remained and that Mr Miller continued to misinterpret and catastrophise situations.
Dr Beehag recommended in his report that Mr Miller be provided funding for four hours/week of 1:1 assistance from a support worker together with 10 hours on weekends of 1:5 support worker assistance to enable Mr Miller to attend the social group facilitated by Mr Browne. Dr Beehag wrote his report a year ago, before Mr Miller had secured and maintained his current employment. However, in his oral evidence, Dr Beehag said it was still his view that Mr Miller would benefit from four hours/week of 1:1 support worker assistance. He considered that this could be used by having a support worker for two hours at the start and end of the week. He said it would assist Mr Miller with functioning such as attending a gym or eating healthily. Dr Beehag described this support as providing ‘scaffolding’ and later he said it would motivate Mr Miller to make changes. He explained that, while he could talk to Mr Miller about change, change occurred after a person experienced things.
Dr Beehag said that the social group facilitated by Mr Browne had been excellent for Mr Miller and recommended that funding be provided to enable Mr Miller to attend that group. He said that Mr Miller struggled to build connection with others and had limited contact with others beyond family and formal supports.
Dr Beehag considered that support from an occupational therapist would be very helpful for Mr Miller but also considered that there was an overlap between this and the assistance that a sufficiently skilled support worker could provide to Mr Miller. He considered that, for Mr Miller, Mr Browne was such a person.

Mr Browne provided a letter dated 10 December 2024, describing the social events that he facilitated on Saturdays. In his oral evidence he explained that those events varied in the number of participants, the location, and the duration. Participants indicated during the week prior to the event whether they wanted to attend and Mr Browne then arranged support workers depending on the number of attendees and their support needs. Mr Browne said that Mr Miller generally could be supported at a 1:5 ratio at these events. However, Mr Browne explained that he did not limit the number of participants. The Tribunal understood his evidence to be that if, for example, six people indicated a desire to attend, all of whom could be supported at a 1:5 ratio, an additional support worker would be required and the cost then increased for each participant.
Mr Browne said that Mr Miller called and texted him frequently each week but that currently he did not charge Mr Miller for that support. Mr Browne described the nature of the support he provided in those calls and texts. If Mr Miller called him, they might speak for 20 minutes or half an hour. Previously, after such a call, he would see Mr Miller in person. Now, almost every time they spoke, Mr Browne did not feel that was necessary and instead thought it was sufficient to end the call by saying that he would see Mr Miller on Saturday, although if Mr Miller called early in the week, Mr Browne might arrange for Mr Miller to drive somewhere to meet him the following day.
Mr Browne considered that Mr Miller would benefit from funding of $12,100 in total for support worker assistance, equating to 127 hours at 1:1 support worker assistance at the Saturday rate. He said that this would enable two hours/week of 1:1 assistance (totalling $7,900) and $4,900 for attendance at the Saturday social events, equating to 26 Saturdays of 1:3 support worker assistance for six hours. He thought that if this funding was flexible then, if Mr Miller’s need for 1:1 assistance reduced, Mr Miller could increase the frequency of attendance at the Saturday events.
In his own evidence, Mr Miller explained that he had obtained work through an employment agency. He emphasised the value he had obtained from attending the Saturday group events and described having unsuccessfully tried other social groups in the past. He also described the benefit for him of weekday support from Mr Browne, and his concern about losing these supports. He acknowledged the gains that he had made, for example, in securing and maintaining employment, but cautioned that he could present as functioning higher than he was in fact functioning.
Ms Cole, an occupational therapist, provided a report dated 26 December 2024 but did not give oral evidence. She recommended that Mr Miller receive funding for 10 hours/week of 1:5 support worker assistance to attend the Saturday group facilitated by Mr Browne and six hours/week of 1:1 support worker assistance to assist in finding work, including researching job sites and working through the interview process. She said that this support would also enable Mr Miller to capacity build in areas of life skills, budgeting, cooking and self‑care.
Ms Cole reported, in terms of self-care, that Mr Miller was independent in personal care, able to independently complete laundry, and able to manage his own health needs. In the time since Ms Cole’s report was written, Mr Miller has obtained work. He also reports much improved budgeting skills and being able to cook simple meals. In those circumstances, I am unable to place reliance on Ms Cole’s recommendation of six hours of 1:1 weekday support.
Mr Stretton, occupational therapist, was engaged by the Agency to undertake an independent medical assessment. He provided a report dated 4 August 2025. Mr Stretton considered that the supports requested by Mr Miller exceeded the supports necessary for Mr Miller to achieve his goal to live independently. He thought the 26 hours allocated to assist Mr Miller to secure employment would be better utilised for support worker assistance to participate in social and community-based activities. He recommended no change to the capacity building supports. He recommended Mr Miller continue attending a weekly social group. Mr Stretton did not give oral evidence, so the Tribunal did not have the benefit of hearing from him on options such as increasing Mr Miller’s support worker assistance but decreasing the occupational therapy support. I have had regard however to Mr Stretton’s general view that Mr Miller did not require support at the level requested at that time but that Mr Miller should continue attending a weekly social group.
CONSIDERATION
From Mr Miller’s own evidence, it was clear that he was a young man who had some insight into challenges that he had experienced. He had identified goals around his work, accommodation and relationships. He was also able to recognise the positive changes that he had made, including his improved skills in financial management, cooking, and work. He could also identify the kind of supports that had been beneficial to him, and why they had worked for him. This included the employment agencies, individuals and social groups that he had found effective. He valued the formal supports he currently had and was keen to progress his goals.
The Agency contended that the support sought by Mr Miller did not meet the requirements in paragraphs 34(1)(aa), (c) and (d) of the NDIS Act.
Having regard to the evidence of Dr Beehag and Mr Browne, and Mr Stretton’s report, as well as Mr Miller’s own evidence, it is clear that attendance at a weekly facilitated social event, to socialise with others in the presence of support workers, has been of real benefit to Mr Miller and has been necessary in addressing needs of Mr Miller arising from impairments related to ASD. It will likely continue to be so over the next year. In determining the amount of support worker assistance that is necessary to address needs of Mr Miller arising from impairments related to ASD, and that is value for money (meeting the requirements in paragraphs 34(1)(aa) and (c) of the NDIS Act), some guidance can be obtained from assessing the support required if Mr Miller participated throughout the year in the Saturday events facilitated by Mr Browne.
Mr Miller has been a keen participant in those events and said that he only had to miss about one every three months (equating to about 48 attendances/year). Mr Browne thought it was possibly once every six weeks. I consider weekly attendance to be necessary for Mr Miller having regard to Mr Streeton’s report and the evidence of Dr Beehag. Allowing for illness and other commitments, 47 weeks/year reflects a realistic rate of attendance.
The evidence was that the events lasted from between five hours and 10 hours, although there was no evidence of an average duration. The longer trips were those that involved significant travel. Mr Miller sought funding for six hours. Based on the evidence, I consider a social activity averaging six hours to be necessary to address Mr Miller’s needs arising from impairments related to ASD.
The evidence was, and I accept, that Mr Miller does not require support worker assistance at the Saturday events at more than 1:5 ratio. Mr Browne chose to operate the Saturday group events in a way that participants essentially paid an attendance fee, rather than a fee that reflected the cost of that participant’s support needs. There may be valid and worthwhile reasons for this, including that it avoids disappointing some potential attendees. However, in determining the funding for reasonable and necessary supports in the SOPS in a participant’s plan, paragraph 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act requires that the support is necessary to address needs of the participant arising from an impairment. This means that the Tribunal must have regard to the support necessary to address Mr Miller’s needs arising from impairments related to ASD, not Mr Browne’s business model.
Based on the evidence, I consider that funding at the ratio of 1:5 for 47 attendances/year for six hours at a weekend supported group event is necessary to address Mr Miller’s needs arising from ASD, and represents value for money. This equates to 282 hours/year of 1:5 support worker assistance on Saturdays, or 57 hours of 1:1 support worker assistance.
Regarding weekday support worker assistance, Mr Browne and Dr Beehag appeared to recommend this support for two reasons. First, weekday support worker assistance was recommended to provide a form of psychological or emotional support to Mr Miller. Secondly, Mr Browne and Dr Beehag recommended weekday support worker assistance to provide motivation to Mr Miller around a range of tasks.
Mr Miller has derived benefit from attending a psychologist and will benefit further from this increasing to fortnightly attendance. It has been particularly helpful in assisting Mr Miller to maintain employment and navigate social interactions. That was clear from the evidence of Dr Beehag and Mr Miller. However, Mr Miller also relied on Mr Browne for emotional support on weekdays (for example, reassuring Mr Miller or challenging his thinking).
Regarding assistance during the week with other tasks, I am mindful of Mr Miller’s own comments that he can present as more functional than he is, and of Dr Beehag’s cautious comments about Mr Miller’s progress. However, Mr Miller was able to drive, sustain part-time work, cook simple food, manage his medications, manage his NDIS package and savings, attend a facilitated social group, and assume some responsibility for his siblings.
Dr Beehag has a longitudinal view of Mr Miller’s challenges and functioning and I therefore place weight on his opinion. I have also had regard to Miller’s evidence regarding the benefit he derives from contact with Mr Browne during the week. I accept that Mr Miller would benefit from weekday support worker assistance, particularly around employment and social stressors, even with his increased attendance at a psychologist.
However, I am not satisfied on the totality of the evidence that four hours/week for 52 weeks/year is necessary to address Mr Miller’s needs arising from impairments related to ASD, or that it represents value for money. That is, I am not satisfied that the requirements in paragraphs 34(1)(aa) and (c) of the NDIS Act are met for funding at the level requested by Mr Miller. In reaching that view I have had regard to Mr Miller’s improvements in functioning in the last 12 months (including in budgeting and obtaining and maintaining work), his current level of functioning set out earlier, Mr Browne’s evidence that weekday support of only two hours/week was required, the kind of tasks intended to be undertaken in those support hours, and the increased rate at which Mr Miller will see his psychologist.
Taking these factors into account I consider that an average of two hours/fortnight over 12 months is necessary to address needs of Mr Miller arising from impairments related to ASD and represents value for money. That is an average and it may be that Mr Miller initially utilises this support at a greater rate, and at a decreasing rate as he makes further gains. This equates to 52 hours/year at weekday rates. There is already funding for 12 hours at weekday rates in capacity building supports. This leaves 40 hours/year at weekday rates to be met through core funding.
For these reasons, I am satisfied that paragraphs 34(1)(aa) and (c) of the NDIS Act are met for funding at the level set out above. That is, for funding for one year of:
(a)57 hours of 1:1 support worker assistance at the Saturday rate of $98.83/hr; and
(b)52 hours at weekday rates (including 40 hours in core funding and 12 hours in capacity building supports).
The remaining requirements in subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act are also met. The funding will assist Mr Miller to pursue his goals around employment, independence and social interaction, meeting paragraph 34(1)(a), and assist him to undertake work and social interaction, meeting paragraph 34(1)(b).
I am also satisfied that paragraph 34(1)(d) of the NDIS Act is met for funding at the level set out above, that is, that the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for Mr Miller, having regard to current good practice. Most of that funding is funding to attend a weekly social group and both Dr Stretton and Dr Beehag recommended continued attendance at this. The remaining funding, for weekday supports, takes account of Dr Beehag’s recommendation but also other evidence regarding the need for support at that level.
Funding at the level I have set out takes account of the support that it is reasonable for families to provide, as required by paragraph 34(1)(e) of the NDIS Act. For the purposes of paragraph 34(1)(f) the support is an NDIS support. It is not excluded by Schedule 2 to the NDIS Supports Transitional Rules and falls within item 15 of Schedule 1.
As each of the requirements of subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act is met, the funding for support workers at the level I have determined is a reasonable and necessary support pursuant to subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act.
Regarding occupational therapy, based on Mr Miller’s evidence I am satisfied he is unlikely to utilise that support effectively. Dr Beehag also gave evidence on the benefits for Mr Miller of a skilled support worker compared to occupational therapy. I am not satisfied on that evidence that the requirements in paragraph 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act are met for funding for occupational therapy in addition to the above supports.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits this matter to the Respondent with directions that:
1.A new statement of participant supports (SOPS) be approved for the Applicant, which specifies:
1.1the following reasonable and necessary supports:
Core Supports
1.1.1the current 26 hours per year of 1:1 employment support at the weekday daytime rate of $70.23 be replaced by 57 hours of 1:1 support worker assistance at the standard Saturday daytime rate (currently $98.83); and
1.1.2the current 24 hours per year of 1:1 support worker assistance at the weekday daytime rate of $70.23 be replaced with 40 hours per year of 1:1 support worker assistance at the standard weekday daytime rate (currently $70.23).
2.The 14 hours of occupational therapy in the Applicant’s capacity building in his NDIS Plan dated 31 July 2025 (current plan) are to be removed.
3.The 12 hours of skills development and training found in the Applicant’s capacity building funding in the current plan can be administered by a suitably qualified NDIS registered support worker.
4.All other reasonable and necessary supports in the current plan are to be replicated pro-rata for 12 months, except the supports listed at paragraphs [‎1.1.1] and [‎1.1.2] above, which are intended to be replaced by this decision.
5.All plan management arrangements are to be the same as those in the current plan.
6.The reassessment date be 12 months after the supports listed at paragraphs [‎1.1.1] and [‎1.1.2] above are included in a SOPS.

1. I certify that the preceding sixty-five (65) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member A Colvin.

...............[SGD]...................................
Associate

Dates of hearing: 2 and 4 September 2025

Solicitor for the Applicant: Self-represented

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Wood, Maddocks

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms M Campbell