Perosh and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter came before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal concerning Mr Peter Perosh, a participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), and the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA). The dispute centred on whether the costs associated with Mr Perosh's transport to TAFE, gym, and social outings constituted reasonable and necessary supports under the NDIS. Mr Perosh, who has cerebral palsy, sought funding for these transport expenses, which were primarily incurred through taxi fares, even after utilising a NSW taxi discount scheme.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the transport costs for Mr Perosh's attendance at TAFE, his physical therapy sessions at the gym, and his participation in weekly outings with his carer were reasonable and necessary supports. In making this determination, the Tribunal had to consider the criteria set out in section 34(1) of the NDIS Act, specifically paragraphs (c), (e), and (f), which relate to value for money, the reasonable expectations of families and the community, and whether the support is most appropriately funded by the NDIS. The Tribunal also had to consider the NDIA's position that such costs might relate to day-to-day living expenses not attributable to disability support needs.

The Tribunal's reasoning was significantly guided by the Federal Court's decision in *McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency* [2017] FCA 308. Following *McGarrigle*, the Tribunal adopted the principle that once a support is determined to be reasonable and necessary, it should be fully funded by the NDIS. The Tribunal found that Mr Perosh's transport needs met the criteria outlined in paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) of section 34(1) of the NDIS Act, as confirmed by the NDIA. Applying the *McGarrigle* precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the transport costs to TAFE and the gym were reasonable and necessary supports. The Tribunal also found that the proposed outings, while not yet undertaken, were reasonable aspirations for Mr Perosh.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that the decision under review be varied. The NDIA was required to fund the full costs of Mr Perosh's transport to TAFE and the gym, and to include funding for transport to enable him to participate in weekly outings with his carer. This outcome reflects the Tribunal's adherence to the principle of full funding for supports deemed reasonable and necessary under the NDIS.