QGYX and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) - [2025] ARTA 1542

QGYX and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 1542 (11 August 2025)
Applicant:QGYX
Respondent: National Disability Insurance Agency
Tribunal Number: 2023/9365

Tribunal:General Member A. Williams
Place:Hobart
Date:11 August 2025

Decision:The Tribunal varies the decision under review pursuant to section 105(b) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth).

..................[SGD].................
General Member A. Williams
1.NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME – review of statement of participant supports –– request for funding of Applied Behaviour Therapy (8 hours per week) - funding for additional speech therapy (160 hours per annum) – funding for additional occupational therapy (82 hours per annum – funding for daily support worker assistance (28 hours per week) – funding for overnight support worker assistance (8 hours per fortnight) – request for extended plan (2 + years) – decision under review varied.

Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Act 2024 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024
Cases
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
G v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 79 [18]
McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency [2017] FCA 308
Madelaine and National Disability Insurance Agency [2019] AATA 4025
National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF (2020) FCR 415
Secondary Materials
National Disability Insurance Scheme Operational Guideline
Statement of Reasons

This application is about whether the Applicant, QGYX, can have her request for funding of additional supports by the National Disability Insurance Agency (the Agency) approved as part of her funded supports. QGYX seeks review of a decision made on 4 December 2023 by a “reviewer” under subsection 100(6) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) (‘NDIS Act’) (‘Decision Under Review’).[1] This decision confirmed an earlier decision by the Agency on 20 October 2023 not to approve such funding as part of her funded supports.
[1] Documents lodged under s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (‘TD’).
In this decision, I will refer to QGYX as either QGYX or the Applicant and her father as Mr QGYX or QGYX’s father.
I will refer to the Agency as either the Respondent or the Agency.
The Administrative Review Tribunal’s (‘Tribunal’) jurisdiction arises under s 12 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2004 (Cth) (‘ART Act’), operating in conjunction with
s 103 of the NDIS Act.
For the reasons set out below, the Decision under Review is varied as the Tribunal is satisfied that QGYX has established the requested support meets the reasonable and necessary criteria under s 34(1) of the NDIS Act.
For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal is satisfied that the additional supports:
·4 hours per week of ABA therapy;
·65 hours per annum of speech therapy (including 20 hours for travel and 5 hours for collaboration and report writing);
·65 hours per annum of occupational therapy (including 20 hours for travel and 5 hours for collaboration and report writing);
·16 hours of weekday support worker assistance; and
·16 hours per month of weekend support worker assistance
meet the reasonable and necessary criteria under subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act.
Background
QGYX is a 6-year-old child who lives with her family in a suburb of Adelaide.
QGYX has the following diagnosed psychosocial conditions:
·Autism (level 3).
QGYX has previously been approved as a participant in the Scheme. The plan which is the subject of this review is a 1-year plan commencing on 20 October 2023 which ended on 19 October 2024 (the original decision). It was not clear from the current material before the Tribunal if the current funding has been extended or a new plan has been put in place.
In passing, I note that the plan for the previous year provided for funding for capacity building supports of $100,486.82.
The NDIS supports in her most recent plan are as follows:
Core Supports: $13,136.14
·Including purchase of Basic (Level 1) and Standard (Level 2) assistive technology, and minor repairs, support continence products and sustaining QGYX’s family and assisting with her personal care based on 200 hours of flexible funding.
Capacity Building Supports: $41,625.88
·Improved Daily Living: for allied health professionals, such as an occupational therapist, speech pathologist, physiotherapist, psychologist, social worker, early childhood teacher and development educator.
On 20 October 2023, QGYX’s father lodged an application on her behalf for an internal review by the Agency. QGYX’s father requested the following additional supports be included in her plan:
Core funding
·    15 hours per week support worker assistance; and
·    Funding for fortnightly respite care.
Capacity Building: Improved Daily Living
·    2 hours per week of speech pathology;
·    1 hour per week of occupational therapy; and
·    15 hours/week one-on-one Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) therapy.
The Agency considered the request for the additional supports and on 4 December 2023, advised of its decision (the review decision) which confirmed that the original plan decision was correct and refused the requested supports.
In relation to the requested hours for speech therapy the Agency advised that it considered that QGYX did not meet the following reasonable and necessary criteria:
to be value for money (s34(1)(c));will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial (s34(1)(d)); and what is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal supports, and the community to provide (s34(1)(e)).
In relation to the requested additional occupational therapy hours, the Agency advised that it considered that QGYX did not meet the following reasonable and necessary criteria:
(i)to be value for money (s34(1)(c));
(ii)will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial (s34(1)(d)); and
(iii)what is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal supports, and the community to provide (s34(1)(e)); and
(iv)it duplicates existing supports (Rule 5.1(c) of the NDIS Support for Participants Rules).
In relation to the requested 15 hours per week of one-on-one ABA therapy, the Agency advised that it considered that they did not meet the following reasonable and necessary criteria.
(i)to be value for money (s34(1)(c));
(ii)will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial (s34(1)(d));
In relation to the requested fortnightly respite care, the Agency advised that it considered that QGYX did not meet the following reasonable and necessary criteria:
(i)to be value for money (s34(1)(c));
(ii)will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial (s34(1)(d));
(iii)what is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal supports, and the community to provide (s34(1)(e)); and
(iv)responsibility of NDIS to fund (s34(1)(f)).
On 12 December, QGYX’s father applied to the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘AAT’) for the AAT to conduct an independent review of the reviewable decision.
In the application to the Tribunal, QGYX’s father stated:
I am writing to formally request a review and reconsideration of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) support provided to our daughter, QGYX, who is a 5-year-old autistic girl with level 3 severity.
She has made significant progress with the assistance of a dedicated team of therapists, carefully selected by her parents to address the specific areas where she requires support. The therapies implemented thus far have proven to be effective in enhancing her developmental skills. However, it is our concern that despite this progress, she still
faces challenges in keeping pace with age-appropriate activities and achieving the level of independence we aspire for her future.
Regrettably, the NDIS has recently reduced QGYX's capacity-building support by 60%, a decision that we believe is hindering her overall progress. We understand the importance of providing QGYX with the recommended therapy hours to maximize her potential and independence. We kindly request a thorough reassessment of her support needs to
ensure that the allocated funding accurately reflects the level of care and therapy she requires.
Additionally, we had requested for fortnightly respite care to support QGYZ’s parents, providing them with the opportunity to recharge and refresh. This request, accompanied by supporting documentation from QGYXs therapists and her parents' psychologist, was unfortunately rejected by the NDIS. We believe that access to respite care is essential in maintaining the well-being of both her and her caregivers, thereby enabling us to continue providing the best possible care.
As her parents, my wife, and I work tirelessly to provide for our family, which includes our younger daughter, (name removed). We are immensely proud of QGYXs progress, but the demands of caring for a child with Autism at level 3 severity have taken a toll on our physical and emotional well-being. This burnout not only affects our personal lives
but also extends to our social connections, work responsibilities, and financial situation.
Compounding these challenges is the absence of local family and friend support, leaving us without the respite and assistance needed to effectively manage our roles as caregivers while maintaining a healthy work-life balance. QGYX's sleep issues, in particular, have placed additional strain on our family's overall well-being, resulting in exhaustion and emotional stress.
We firmly believe that NDIS support, both in terms of funding for therapies and respite care, as well as the provision of a support worker, is integral to ensuring her continued progress and the overall well-being of our family.
We are dedicated to our beautiful daughter and will stop at nothing to help her reach her full potential. If we can secure the necessary funds from the NDIS, we are confident that we can address the challenges we currently face and provide QGYX with the best possible care.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We appreciate your consideration of our request for a review and reconsideration of QGYX's NDIS support.
Evidence and Submissions
As part of the review process, the Tribunal was provided by the Respondent with those documents previously submitted as part of the original application process (‘the T Documents’). Of potential relevance to this decision are the following reports:
·VB-MAPP Reassessment Report dated 20 March 2024 from Audrey Yak (Behaviour Support Specialist);
·NDIS Progress Report from Katrina Vasilikiotis (Occupational Therapist) dated 20 June 2023;
·Vineland 3 Assessment Report from Audrey Yak dated 22 August 2023;
·Early Childhood Behaviour Intervention Progress Report from Ms Yak dated 23 August 2023;
·Schedule of Supports, Nikki Janssen dated 23 August 2023;
·Speech Pathology NDIS Progress Report from Ms Louisa Neate and Rebecca Farrelly (Speech Pathologists) dated 25 August 2023;
·Carer Impact Statement from QGYX’s father dated 27 August 2023; and
·Letter of support from Neha Mahajan (Psychologist) dated 27 August 2023.
The following additional evidence in support of QGYX’s application was submitted to the Tribunal:
·Report dated April 16, 2024, from Audrey Yak (Behaviour Support Specialist);
·QGYX’s father’s response to targeted questions received 19 June 2024;
·Response to targeted questions from Hannah Gregori of the Lizard Centre dated 14 June 2024; and
·Functional Capacity Assessment report prepared by Boris Vujcic and Erika Louisa Bartlett of Your Therapy SA dated 15 February 2025.
Response to targeted questions
In its May 2024 Statement of Issues, the Agency outlined several targeted questions it wished QGYX’s father and behaviour support specialist to respond to and these were provided on 19 June 2024.
Behaviour Therapist’s response
Responding to the Agency’s question as to the clinical justification for the increase in ABA therapy hours, Ms Hannah Gregori advised that:
·The reductions made to QGYX’s therapy hours below that clinically recommended was not advisable as she is still performing below her age range and has reduced functional capacity in her communication and social skills as compared to those of the same age.
·Although the required 15 hours per week may seem high this is based on her current needs and skill deficits.
·The frequency and duration of that support will be reduced as she shows improvements in her behaviour and age-appropriate skills.
·Not having the therapy or it being provided less intensively may result in her falling behind and potentially leaving her dependent on intensive, costly services across her lifetime.
Reasons indicating why the developmental gains as previously described by the Lizard Centre would not be achieved through less capacity-building hours, using a key worker multi-disciplinary approach and the learning opportunities provided in the school setting:
·The key worker model could be a viable model of intervention for QGYX given her complexity, the number of different disciplines who are currently engaged in providing therapeutic supports to her, and the current time demands on the Applicant’s parents; and
·If the Behaviour Support Specialist is identified by her parents as the key worker, then they will continue to collaborate with her therapy providers, coordinating and communication with other professionals who are engaged with her, integrate the recommendations of all professionals into a single plan with clear goals that meet her needs. The keyworker will also manage the implementation of the plan, only drawing on experts where specialised support is needed.
Reasons indicating why the developmental gains as previously described by the Lizard Centre would not be achieved through less capacity building hours, using a key worker multi-disciplinary approach and the learning opportunities provided in the school setting:
·As noted in a previous response this support will be tapered as QGYX demonstrates improvements in behaviour, develops replacement behaviours, more age-appropriate skills, her school, family and community demonstrate the ability to support her development without the need for specialist behaviour supports.
- The focus of the intervention should transition from high intensity to low intensity supports over time. The required disciplines that make up her support network may vary across time as her skill set improves and needs change
The goals and expected outcomes for the applicant over the next year, including how these will be measured:
·Developing her language and communication skills with clear benchmarks and using her Proloquo2go to achieve high rates of accurate communication.
·Developing her social skills with clear benchmarks in a range of individual and social settings.
·Developing her self-care skills with clear benchmarks in a range of individual and social settings.
·Developing her emotional regulation skills.
·Developing her cognitive skills.
·Developing her fine and gross motor skills.
Under each of these headings, there were several individual skills identified as being the focus of the work with QGYX and identifying individual goals in each case.
Information as to whether QGYX has sought assistance from the healthcare system (e.g. General Practitioner) in relation to the management of her sleep and toileting routines:
·Her parents have consulted numerous health professionals, including a GP, sleep consultant, and paediatrician, regarding QGYX’s sleep issues and toileting routines;
·She has shown improvement in toilet training and current supports will remain in place; and
·No medical cause of her sleep issues has been identified. However, disturbed sleep patterns are common in those with autism especially when young. QGYZ will be transitioned to her own bed.
Details of the specific support provided by the Behaviour Therapist whilst providing support to the Applicant at school on Tuesday and Thursday morning:
·1:1 support is given to the QGYX to assist her in engaging in the class activities. The Applicant is never removed from the class nor engaged in any activity that competes with the class activities.
What routines/lessons are being undertaken by the Applicant's peers during provision of supports to the Applicant?
·The class engages in group activities, individual activities and/or transitions depending on the lesson. The Applicant is supported to engage fully with the same activities as her peers.
What does the classroom teacher provide to peers during these times?
·As mentioned above, support is given to the Applicant to assist her in engaging in the class activities. The Applicant is never removed from the class or engaged in any activity that competes with the class activities. Therefore, the Applicant is provided with the same instruction from the teacher as her peers.
What other school staff/support staff (if any) are present at these times?
·The class teacher and any Student Support Officer assigned to the class are present during these sessions. They continue to provide instructions to the class and other students throughout the session.
What support do they provide to the applicant during these sessions?
·The Behaviour Therapist's goal is to support the Applicant to engage with the class's activities as her peers do. This includes following instruction from the teacher and/or Student Support Officer. The Behaviour Therapist will also train the teacher and/or Student Support Officer on strategies to support the Applicant.
Father’s response
QGYX’s father provided a written response to a series of specific questions from the Agency as listed below.
What types of support does the Support Worker currently provide?
·The support worker helps QGYX with her daily routines, including getting ready for school, following after-school tasks, and managing her toileting program. On weekends, she takes QGYX out for social activities, providing opportunities for interaction and development while allowing a parent to complete necessary household chores. She also implements therapeutic strategies recommended by QGYX’s therapists, aiding in her language and independence skills.
What routines they currently assist with, including length and frequency of routines etc?
·The support worker generally assists QGYX with either her after-school routine or morning routine once a week for 2 hours. During this time, she implements language modelling and other techniques to help QGYX with her routine. She also supports QGYX with her toileting routine, implementing her toileting program. Additionally, the support worker is periodically used on weekends to take QGYX out with one parent to participate in social activities, while the other parent undertakes necessary noisy domestic activities that cannot be done while QGYX is present.
What activities are being undertaken by caregivers during these times?
·As previously mentioned, during the weekend shift, two adults are present when taking QGYX and her sister out to participate in social activities, while the other parent stays home to undertake noisy domestic activities. For the before-school shift, the responsible parent is present at home making Aria ready for school, while the support worker helps QGYX with her morning routine and toileting routines. The responsible parent provides additional support for toileting if complications arise, and extra assistance is needed.
How (if at all) does the Support Worker currently work collaboratively with capacity building therapists?
·Joint sessions have been arranged between Alessandra, QGYX’s support worker, and QGYX’s allied health professional team to enhance Alessandra’s understanding of the recommended techniques and procedures. Alessandra implements the toilet training program, language modelling, and supports QGYX in her daily activities by following the recommended strategies and procedures provided by QGYX’s allied health professionals.
How are therapy strategies (if any) currently being implemented by the Support Worker to promote the applicant’s independence?
·The support worker promotes QGYX’s language development by:
(i)Verbal referencing: Describing what QGYX is doing and how it is interpreted, helping to show QGYX the language that matches her intent; and
(ii)Supporting AAC usage: During modelling, the support worker describes the process to support QGYX’s operational competency with the device and provides informative feedback about her interaction with the device. This feedback helps QGYX understand why a communication attempt was successful or not.
·The support worker also supports QGYX’s toilet training by implementing the toileting program, taking her to the toilet every 30 minutes if she hasn’t had a successful attempt previously. Additionally, the support worker engages QGYX in play-based activities that improve her fine motor skills, which will eventually help QGYX write properly.
Reasons why the Applicant’s disability needs cannot be met with fewer hours as per the step-down approach offered by the Agency:
·As discussed in the second conference session, the implementation of a step-down approach needs to be tailored to QGYX’s needs and progress. Annual reviews and evaluations are necessary to assess QGYX’s progress and determine if the step-down approach is appropriate, ensuring that the reduction in support does not negatively impact QGYX’s quality of life and goal achievement. This approach should be reviewed at the plan anniversary, not during the course of the plan.
·Recently, we moved to a new place, and despite our preparation plan for QGYX, she is severely struggling with the change, becoming unsettled and confused. She has also lost some of her toileting skills, causing accidents around the house. Due to communication barriers, we cannot clearly identify the cause of her distress. This situation exemplifies how little changes can adversely impact QGYX’s progress. QGYX needs the requested support worker hours to develop necessary independence skills.
How the additional hours will be effective and beneficial for the Applicant:
·The additional hours will be used to engage a support worker to assist QGYX mainly with her pre-school/after-school routine and two weekend sessions. During these sessions, the support worker will help QGYX improve her independence skills while implementing language modelling and other recommended strategies by QGYX’’s health professionals.
·For example, in the pre-school/after-school session, the support worker will assist QGYX in following her routine, ensuring she adheres to the process and providing help when needed. The support worker will provide language modelling and verbally describe all these steps to create a language-rich environment for QGYX. On weekends, the support worker and one parent will take the children to local activities, such as the library, grocery shopping, or the playground. This allows QGYX to participate in social activities while providing the other parent an opportunity to complete noisy domestic tasks that cannot be done while QGYX is present, such as vacuuming, cleaning, and gardening. As QGYX grows and acquires new skills, the need for this level of support will naturally diminish, which can be evaluated at QGYX’s plan anniversary
·The worker will help QGYX improve her independence skills while implementing language modelling and other recommended strategies by QGYX’s health professionals.
·For example, in the pre-school/after-school session, the support worker will assist QGYX in following her routine, ensuring she adheres to the process and providing help when needed. The support worker will provide language modelling and verbally describe all these steps to create a language-rich environment for QGYX. On weekends, the support worker and one parent will take the children to local activities, such as the library, grocery shopping, or the playground. This allows QGYX to participate in social activities while providing the other parent an opportunity to complete noisy domestic tasks that cannot be done while QGYX is present, such as vacuuming, cleaning, and gardening. As QGYX grows and acquires new skills, the need for this level of support will naturally diminish, which can be evaluated at QGYX’s plan anniversary.
What (if any) OSHC services have been explored/trialled, including any outcomes for same:
·The OSHC services at Trinity Gardens were explored and considered for QGYX. She attended for a couple of days during the term 1 school holiday from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm. However, the OSHC building is not purpose-built to cater to all children’s needs. All children of varying ages participate in activities in the same space, which can be noisy and overstimulating for QGYX, who needs to use noise-cancelling headphones when it gets too loud. The staff-to-child ratio is higher, and staff are not specifically trained for QGYX’s needs.
·Funding applications have been put on hold by the government, so the OSHC cannot guarantee services for the coming school holiday. Additionally, this is QGYX’s first year attending a full-time educational environment, and maintaining her regulation during school hours has been a primary focus. QGYX becomes very tired and irritable during the last hour of school, making OSHC before or after school not a viable option at this moment. We hope to utilize OSHC services once QGYX can tolerate longer hours at school and OSHC, benefiting both QGYX and her parents by allowing them to undertake their work without interruptions.
What are the identified barriers (if any) to the applicant accessing OSHC services:
·Currently, QGYX cannot tolerate anything beyond school hours. Her ability to use OSHC services depends on receiving funding from the Department of Education. While her family is eager to use OSHC services for before and after school hours, QGYX needs to be able to tolerate these extended hours first.
Fortnightly respite care:
·The Agency’s response to our fortnightly respite care request was: “Upon receipt of capacity building for caregivers and implementation of strategies for same (i.e., implementation of toileting program and building overall capacity), it is likely to provide natural respite.”
·However, it is unclear how progress in toilet training and capacity building in other areas will improve QGYX’s sleep at night. Sleep problems in neurodiverse children are well-known and tend to improve along with other skills as they grow and become more independent.
·My wife and I are at our breaking point due to the challenges of raising a child on the spectrum. Sleep deprivation is taking a toll on us, leading to burnout and hindering our ability to fulfill our parental responsibilities. We urgently request the allocation of 12 hours of support worker assistance per fortnight at weekend rates. This would provide us with the vital respite needed for proper, uninterrupted sleep, significantly improving our mental health and enabling us to better care for QGYX.
Party’s Statements of Position

During the conduct of the Tribunal’s pre-hearing procedure, both parties filed with the Tribunal Statements of Issues and Statements of Facts, Issues and Contentions (‘SFICs’).
The most recent or relevant of these documents will be referred to throughout this decision.
QGYX’s Father’s Statement
I note that QGYX’s father on 15 January 2025 in response to a request from the Agency and a Direction made by the Tribunal, clarified in writing the additional supports he was seeking on behalf of his daughter. These were the following:
a)2 hours of speech pathology per week;
b)1 hour of occupational therapy per week;
c)15 hours of behavioural therapy (ABA) per week;
d)Additional Support worker hours: (Option A): 10 hours per week at weekday rates plus 5 hours per week at weekend rates;
e)Additional Support worker hours: (Option B): 10 hours per week at weekday rates plus funding for weekly cleaning and fortnightly gardening; and
f)12 hours of overnight support worker hours (8:00 pm – 8:00 am) per fortnight.
QGYX’s father has not provided a written summary of why the requested supports meet the requirements outlined in section 34(1) or the relevant rules, however for the purposes of this decision, I am confident that his submission to the Tribunal would be that the requested supports comply with the NDIS Act.
The Agency’s SFIC
The Agency provided its final SFIC on 18 June 2025. The SFIC itemised the various supports QGYX was seeking and the basis the Agency said for why it did not comply with s 34(1) of the Act or any relevant rules.
In relation to QGYX’s request for 45 minutes per week of gardening, 45 minutes per week of home maintenance and 5.5 hours of cleaning as recommended in the functional capacity statement, the Agency stated:
·The requested support is aimed at assisting QGYX’s parents and reducing career stress and burnout. As a 6-year-old child, it would not be expected that she would be undertaking house or yard maintenance. The Respondent submits that, based on the evidence before the Tribunal, the request for assistance with regular house or yard maintenance of the family home does not satisfy the criteria in s 34 of the Act. Specifically:
(i)House or yard maintenance is not a disability related support in that it does not address the specific disability needs of the Applicant (s 34(1)(aa));
(ii)House or yard maintenance will not assist the Applicant to pursue her goals and aspirations as set out in her NDIS plan (s 34(1)(a));
(iii)House or yard maintenance will not assist the Applicant to undertake activities, so as to facilitate her social and economic participation (s 34(1)(b));
(iv)House or yard maintenance does not represent value for money (s 34(1)(c));
(v)House or yard maintenance is not likely to be effective and beneficial for the Applicant, having regard to current good practice (s 34(1)(d)); and
(vi)The funding of house or yard maintenance does not take into account what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide (s 34(1)(e)).
In relation to QGYX’s request for Assistance with Daily Living – 49 hours per week and Assistance with Community Participation – 24 hours per weekend (6 hours on Saturday and Sunday at a 2:1 ratio), the Agency stated:
·It has proposed to the Applicant’s parents that the funding for Specialised Home- Based Assistance for a Child in the Applicant’s current SOPS be replaced to include the following:
a.10 hours per week (being for 2 hours each weekday morning) of Assistance with Self-Care Activities - Standard - Weekday Daytime; and.
b.4 hours per month of Assistance with Self-Care Activities - Standard – Saturday.
·The Respondent acknowledged that QGYX remains dependent on her parents for tasks of self-care, such as assistance with toileting, bathing, grooming and dressing. Further, she has limited communication which restricts her ability to engage meaningfully in co-operative activities. However, the Respondent considers that the proposed supports listed above are reasonable and necessary pursuant to s 34(1) of the Act.
·In his report, Dr Dunlop stated that a support worker does not have a significant role in assisting in the implementation of therapy recommendations in real-life settings, noting this should predominately occur in the Applicant’s supported school environment. Dr Dunlop did not agree that support worker access should be supported in order to achieve therapy goals. He suggested that this should be directed at carers and educators, in order to provide cost effective and time efficient intervention.
·Dr Dunlop supports the provision of 4 hours per week on a compassionate basis to relieve some of the burden on QGYX’s parents during the school week, noting that both parents are available to provide support over the weekend days.
·It submits that its proposed level of support, is reasonable and necessary to support QGYX and sustain her informal supports by providing respite. The Respondent contends that the requested amount of support worker assistance of 7 hours per day, with an additional 2 support workers for 6 hours per day on Saturday and Sunday, does not satisfy the criteria in s 34 of the Act. In particular:
(i)It does not represent value for money (s 34(1)(c));
(ii)It is not likely to be effective and beneficial for the Applicant, having regard to current good practice (s 34(1)(d)); and
(iii)It does not take into account what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide (s 34(1)(e)).
It is important to note that in referring to QGYX’s father’s request for additional hours of speech therapy, occupational therapy and ABA, the Agency in its SFIC advised it was prepared to increase funding in this domain as follows:
·Overall funding of capacity building supports includes a total of 463 hours per annum comprising:
(i)     212 hours for an early childhood professional.
(ii)    15 hours for Early Childhood professional (Psychologist);
(iii)   6 hours for a continence assessment;
(iv)   182 hours for therapy assistant (Level 2); and
(v)    48 hours of support coordination.
In relation to QGYX’s request for 2 hours per week for speech pathology, the Agency stated:
·Both Dr Dunlop and Mr Vujcic, Occupational Therapist recommend weekly speech pathology sessions.
·The overall evidence does not support the notion that more therapy is better where QGYX appears to have made very slow progress despite access to substantial therapy over a lengthy period of time. Further, her therapy needs to be balanced with the importance of schooling and other everyday life activities as important determinants of quality of life, for both the child and their family.
·The Agency further submitted that the proposed supports are sufficient for QGYX to engage in early childhood early intervention (‘ECEI’) across therapies. The Agency contended that the requested frequency for additional speech therapy supports does not satisfy the criteria in s 34 of the Act. Specifically:
It does not represent value for money (s 34(1)(c)).
It does not represent value for money (s 34(1)(d).
It is not likely to be effective and beneficial for the participant, having regard to current good practice (s 34(1)(e)).
It does not take into account what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide (s 34(1)(e))..
In relation to QGYX’s request for funding for 1 hour per week of occupational therapy, the Agency stated:
·The Agency accepts that the evidence indicates that QGYX requires ongoing occupational therapy and contends that the proposed capacity building supports are sufficient for her to engage in therapies to work to meet her goals at a frequency where the support will, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for her and, value for money.
·Mr Vujcic, Occupational Therapist recommends 82 hours of OT for 52 hours for weekly sessions, 26 hours of travel and 4 hours of reporting.
·Dr Dunlop noted that Occupational Therapists are experts in managing functional and sensory deficits often seen in children with autism. He recommended weekly sessions in line with the school terms, equating to 40 weeks of weekly therapy sessions. Dr Dunlop advised that literature disputes the notion that more intensive therapy predicts better developmental outcomes.
·The Agency submitted that the proposed supports (at [14]) provide sufficient funding for the Applicant to engage in the requested frequency for occupational therapy and, the inclusion of an additional 82 hours for this support does not meet the criteria in s 34 of the Act in that:
a.It does not represent value for money (s 34(1)(c));
b.It is not likely to be effective and beneficial for the Applicant, having regard to current good practice (s 34(1)(d); and
c.It does not take into account what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide (s 34(1)(e)).
In relation to QGYX’s request for 15 hours per week of behavioural therapy, the Agency stated:
·It noted that the Applicant’s father has requested 925 hours of Behavioural support funding (15 hours per week for 50 weeks (totalling 750 hours), plus 150 hours travel and 25 hours report writing) to engage in ABA therapy;
·The Agency for its part has proposed the following:
a)212 hours for Early Childhood professional;
b)15 hours for Early Childhood professional – Psychologist;
c)6 hours for a continence assessment;
d)182 hours Therapy Assistant – Level 2; and
e)48 hours of support coordination.
·The 925 hours for behavioural support that is recommended by Mr Vujcic, Occupational Therapist and Audrey Yak, Behavioural Support Specialist at the Lizard Centre (who currently provides this therapy).
·Dr Dunlop does not support the recommendation for behaviour support and opines that “there is no reliable evidence that behavioural interventions, such as ABA therapy, are able to provide any additional benefit over those more traditional therapeutic interventions” and “there is no evidence that ABA provides any reliable benefit in and of itself let alone superior benefit to allied health interventions.”
·Having considered relevant literature outlining wide-ranging analysis of studies and research conducted into the issue of best practice interventions and approaches for children with autism, Dr Dunlop concluded that the most appropriate interventions for QGYX’s ongoing developmental progress would be through regular speech pathology, occupational therapy and child psychology input.
·The Agency submitted that the supports it has proposed are sufficient for the Applicant to flexibly engage in ECEI across therapies. Accordingly, the Respondent contends the request for funding for 15 hours of ABA therapy per week is not reasonable and necessary. Specifically:
a)The evidence does not establish that ABA therapy will assist the Applicant to pursue her goals and aspirations as set out in her NDIS plan (s 34(1)(a));
b)The requested ABA therapy does not represent value for money (s 34(1)(c)); and
c)ABA therapy is not likely to be effective and beneficial for the Applicant, having regard to current good practice (s 34(1)(d))(d)).
·The funding of ABA therapy does not take into account what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide (s 34(1)(e)).
In relation to QGYX’s request for fortnightly respite as STA/12 hours of support worker assistance 12 hours per fortnight, the Agency stated:
·The Applicant has requested fortnightly care as recommended in the Functional Capacity Assessment Report, being 2:1 support for 28 days per year. The recommendation refers to providing respite for the Applicant’s family, and it is noted by the Applicant’s parents that the demands of caring for the Applicant, particularly sleeping arrangements, have impacted their mental health and put pressure on them;
·In the Carers Impact Statement written by the Applicant’s father, 12 hours of support worker assistance was requested per fortnight at weekend rates. The Applicant’s father explained that the support would provide the Applicant’s parents with the ‘vital respite needed for proper, uninterrupted sleep’;
·The recommendation for the ratio of support (2:1 support) and the number of days of STA by Mr Vujcic in the Capacity Assessment is not clearly explained and is without clinical justification. There is insufficient evidence as to how the requested respite will assist in supporting the Applicant’s disability related needs and the development of her independence and functional capacity;
·There is insufficient evidence to show that the use of STA/support worker assistance would improve the functional capacity of the Applicant or assist her to develop the ability to manage daily living skills more independently.
·The Agency contends that the additional supports it has proposed, alongside QGYX’s full-time attendance at school, can provide her parents with sufficient respite. Dr Dunlop supports a ‘small amount of respite’ from time to time for the Applicant’s parents. He however notes that parents have an inherent responsibility to care for their children, and whilst the Applicant’s parents may not have anticipated the level of support needed, they have the capacity and responsibility to provide this support;
·The Agency’s proposed additional supports include both support worker hours and capacity building support which can used to provide respite and to assist the Applicant’s caregivers to implement strategies in managing QGYX’s needs, implement routines and interventions when needed. The supports can be used flexibly to target strategies for improving her independence with sleeping; and
Therefore, the Respondent contended that the requested support is not reasonable and necessary within the meaning of s 34 of the Act. The evidence before the Tribunal does not establish that the requested support:
·Will assist the Applicant to pursue her goals and aspirations as set out in her NDIS plan (s 34(1)(a));
·Will assist the Applicant to undertake activities, so as to facilitate her social and economic participation (s 34(1)(b));
·Represents value for money (s 34(1)(c));
·Is likely to be effective and beneficial for the Applicant, having regard to current good practice (s 34(1)(d)); and
·Takes into account what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide (s 34(1)(e)).
Agency’s evidence
The Agency provided a report prepared by Dr Scott Dunlop (Paediatrician) acting as an Independent Medical Expert dated May 2025.
Dr Dunlop’s report is quite lengthy, so I do not propose to provide a summary here. Much of the findings will be addressed when I record his oral evidence to the Tribunal.
Legislative framework
The NDIS has been in operation for over ten years. It was at the time of its passage into law a landmark social legislation dedicated to the idea that people with disability have the right to realise their potential for physical, social, emotional and intellectual development.[2]
[2] National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) s 4(1).
This is one of a series of general principles and guiding actions set out in s 4 of the Act. Other important principles in s 4 of particular relevance to the present case include:
(2) People with disability should be supported to participate in and contribute to social and economic life to the extent of their ability…
(4) People with disability should be supported to exercise choice, including in relation to taking reasonable risks, in the pursuit of their goals and the planning and delivery of their supports (…)
(5) People with disability should be supported to receive reasonable and necessary supports, including early intervention supports…
(11) Reasonable and necessary supports for people with disability should:
(a)support people with disability to pursue their goals and maximise their independence; and
(b)support people with disability to live independently and to be included in the community as fully participating citizens; and
(c)develop and support the capacity of people with disability to undertake activities that enable them to participate in the community and in employment.
The NDIS is administered by the Agency established under the Act. The Act sets out the matters that must be included in a participant’s plan. Subsection 33(2) provides:
A participant's plan must include a statement (the statement of participant supports), prepared with the participant and approved by the CEO, that specifies:
(a)the general supports (if any) that will be provided to, or in relation to, the participant; and
(b)the reasonable and necessary supports (if any) that will be funded under the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and
(c)the date by which, or the circumstances in which, the Agency must review the plan under Division 4; and
(d)the management of the funding for supports under the plan (see also Division 3); and
(e)the management of other aspects of the plan.
Subsection 33(5) provides:
In deciding whether or not to approve a statement of participant supports under subsection (2), the CEO must:
(a)have regard to the participant’s statement of goals and aspirations; and
(b)have regard to relevant assessments conducted in relation to the participant; and
(c)be satisfied as mentioned in section 34 in relation to the reasonable and necessary supports that will be funded and the general supports that will be provided; and
(d)apply the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules (if any) made for the purposes of section 35; and
(e)have regard to the principle that a participant should manage his or her plan to the extent that he or she wishes to do so; and
(f)have regard to the operation and effectiveness of any previous plans of the participant; and
(g)have regard to whether section 46 (acquittal of NDIS amounts) was complied with in relation to any previous plan for the participant.
Section 34 (as recently amended) provides:
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 an 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.
(2) The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may prescribe methods or criteria to be applied or matters to which the CEO is to have regard, in deciding whether or not he or she is satisfied as mentioned in any of paragraphs (1)(aa) to (f).

The term “support” is not given a meaning in the NDIS Act. A “support” is defined in s 9 of the NDIS Act as including “general supports”, being those defined in subsection 13(2) as the kind of supports provided by the Agency itself. However, the term “support” and the phrase “reasonable and necessary” are not further defined in the NDIS Act. In McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency [2017] FCA 308 at 91 (‘McGarrigle’), Mortimer J observed, with respect to those words:
Whether a support is “reasonable” requires a different assessment to whether a support is “necessary”. Again, it is not necessary in the context of this proceeding to be definitive about the nature and extent of the meaning of the phrase, or its components. It is enough to observe that using the concept of necessity would appear to tie one aspect of the CEO’s assessment to an evaluation of the kinds of factors set out in s 34(1)(a) and (b) and (d). The word “reasonable” would appear to be directed at factors such as those set out in s 34(1)(c) and (f). That is not to say the meaning of each word is exhausted by the factors set out in s 34(1): rather, it is to illustrate the different work that each concept does as an adjective in the phrase “reasonable and necessary supports”.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (“the Rules”) made pursuant to subsection 35(1) of the NDIS Act provides further guidance with respect to the assessment of reasonable and necessary supports that will be funded. Pursuant to section 209 of the NDIS Act, the Rules are a legislative instrument and are therefore binding to the Tribunal. In this case the relevant Rules include:
Value for money
3.1 In deciding whether 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, the CEO is to consider the following matters:
(a) whether there are comparable supports which would achieve the same outcome at a substantially lower cost.
(b) whether there is evidence that the support will substantially improve the life stage outcomes for, and be of long‑term benefit to, the participant.
(c) whether funding or provision of the support is likely to reduce the cost of the funding of supports for the participant in the long term (for example, some early intervention supports may be value for money given their potential to avoid or delay reliance on more costly supports);
(d) for supports that involve the provision of equipment or modifications:
iii.the comparative cost of purchasing or leasing the equipment or modifications; and
iv.whether there are any expected changes in technology or the participant’s circumstances in the short term that would make it inappropriate to fund the equipment or modifications.
(e) whether the cost of the support is comparable to the cost of supports of the same kind that are provided in the area in which the participant resides.
(f) whether the support will increase the participant’s independence and reduce the participant’s need for other kinds of supports (for example, some home modifications may reduce a participant’s need for home care
Part 5 of the Supports Rules sets out the general criteria for supports and supports that will not be funded or provided:
General criteria for supports.
5.1 A support will not be provided or funded under the NDIS if:
(a)it is likely to cause harm to the participant or pose a risk to others; or
(b)it is not related to the participant’s disability; or
(c)it duplicates other supports delivered under alternative funding through the NDIS; or
(d)it relates to day-to-day living costs (for example, rent, groceries and utility fees) that are not attributable to a participant’s disability support needs.
5.2 The day-to-day living costs referred to in paragraph 5.1(d) do not include the following (which may be funded under the NDIS if they relate to reasonable and necessary supports):
(a)additional living costs that are incurred by a participant solely and directly as a result of their disability support needs;
(b)costs that are ancillary to another support that is funded or provided under the participant’s plan, and which the participant would not otherwise incur.
Supports that will not be funded or provided.
5.1 The following supports will not be provided or funded under the NDIS:
(a)a support the provision of which would be contrary to:
(i). a law of the Commonwealth; or
(ii). a law of the State or Territory in which the support would be provided.
(b)a support that consists of income replacement.
Recent amendments to the Act
As of 3 October 2024, the Act was amended under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) Act 2024 (Cth) (‘Amending Act’).
Under the Amending Act, new Rules were also put into effect. Of particular relevance to this matter, is the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth) (‘the Transitional Rules’).
It is important to note that both the Amending Act and the Transitional Rules came into effect immediately and apply as of 3 October 2024.
The Amending Act and the Transitional Rules are designed to provide greater clarity as to what types of requested supports will receive funding approval under the Act and those supports that generally will not be approved.
As a result of the Amending Act, the definition of what constitutes a NDIS support in s 10 has changed with the new section reading as follows:
Definition of NDIS support
(1)Subject to subsections (4) and (9), a support is an NDIS support for a person who is a participant or prospective participant if the support is declared by National Disability Insurance Scheme rules made for the purposes of this subsection to be an NDIS support for:
(a)       participants or prospective participants generally; or
(b)       a class of participants or prospective participants that includes the person.
Note: The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may declare a support for the purposes of this subsection by identifying a class of supports (see subsection 13(3) of the Legislation Act 2003).
(2)Before making National Disability Insurance Scheme rules declaring a support for the purposes of subsection (1), the Minister must be satisfied:
(a)for rules to which paragraph (1)(a) applies—that the support is appropriately funded or provided through the National Disability Insurance Scheme for participants or prospective participants generally; or
(b)for rules to which paragraph (1)(b) applies—that the support is appropriately funded or provided through the National Disability Insurance Scheme for participants, or prospective participants, in the relevant class.
(3)National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may declare a support for the purposes of subsection (1) only if at least one of the following applies:
(a)       the declaration of the support implements Australia’s obligations under:
(i)the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities done at New York on 13 December 2006; or
(ii)       any other agreement with one or more other countries;
(b)       the declaration of the support enables the provision of sickness benefits.
Supports that are not NDIS supports.
(4)The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may declare that a support is not an NDIS support for:
(a)       participants or prospective participants generally; or
(b)       a class of participants or prospective participants.
Note: The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may declare a support for the purposes of this subsection by identifying a class of supports (see subsection 13(3) of the Legislation Act 2003).
Rule 5 of the Transitional Rules is as follows:
What supports are NDIS supports—general rule.
Supports that are NDIS supports unless otherwise provided:
1For the purposes of subsection 10(1) of the NDIS Act, a support covered by column 2 of an item in the table in clause 1 of Schedule 1 to this instrument is an NDIS support (subject to subsections 10(4) and (9) of the NDIS Act and subsection (2) of this section) for:
(a)participants specified in column 3 of the item who have old framework plans; and
(b)prospective participants specified in column 3 of the item, other than prospective participants who, if they were participants, would be required to be given notice under subsection 32B(2) of the NDIS Act (participants that are to have new framework plans).
Note 1: Subsection 10(4) of the NDIS Act allows supports to be declared to not be NDIS supports for participants or prospective participants. Those supports are declared under subsection (2) of this section.
Note 2: Subsection 10(9) of the NDIS Act provides that a support is not an NDIS support for a participant or prospective participant if the support consists of the provision of:
(a)sexual services; or
(b)alcohol; or
(c)drugs, the possession of which is a contravention of a law of the Commonwealth,
(d)a State or a Territory.
Supports that generally are not NDIS supports:
2For the purposes of subsection 10(4) of the NDIS Act, a support covered by column 2 of an item in the table in clause 1 of Schedule 2 to this instrument is not an NDIS support for any participant (subject to subsection 10(6) of the NDIS Act) or prospective participant.
Note 1: Subsection 10(6) of the NDIS Act allows the CEO, on application by a participant, to determine that a support is taken to not be declared under subsection 10(4) of that Act in relation to the participant if, among other things, the CEO is satisfied that the support would replace one or more other supports that are NDIS supports for the participant.
Note 2: Determinations under subsection 10(6) of the NDIS Act are referred to in this instrument as replacement support determinations. For additional rules about replacement support determinations, see section 7 of this instrument.
This rule gives effect to s 10(4) of the Act which states that the Support Rules may declare that a support is not a NDIS support for a participant or a prospective participant.
Schedule 2 of the Rules contains a categorised list of requested supports that are declared not to be NDIS supports. Once again, the relevant items that may apply to QGYX’s application will be identified when I consider her requests later in this decision.
Schedule 2—Supports that generally are not NDIS supports:
Note: See subsection 5(2)
1 Supports that generally are not NDIS supports.
The following table sets out supports that are not NDIS supports for:
(a) a participant (unless a replacement support determination covering the support is in force for the participant); or
(b) a prospective participant.
Supports that generally are not NDIS supports.
Column 1 Column 2
Item Category Supports
Also, of importance to an assessment of this matter are both s 10(6) of the Act and Rule 7 of the Transitional Rules.
Section 10(6) is as follows:
The CEO may determine, in writing, that a support is taken to not be declared under
subsection (4) in relation to a participant if:
(a)the support is prescribed by the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules for the purposes of this paragraph; and
(b) the support would, apart from subsection (4), be an NDIS support for the participant; and
(c)the participant applies to the CEO in accordance with subsection (7) for the determination; and
(d)the CEO is satisfied that:
(e)the support would replace one or more other supports that are NDIS supports for the participant; and
(f)the cost of the support is the same or lower than the total of the costs of the supports it would replace; and
(g)the support would provide the same or a better outcome for the participant than the supports it would replace; and
(h)any other conditions specified in the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules for the purposes of this subparagraph are met in relation to the support, the participant, or bot
Rule 7 of the Transitional Rules is as follows:
Replacement support determinations
Supports for which determinations may be made:
1For the purposes of paragraph 10(6)(a) of the NDIS Act, the CEO may make a replacement support determination in relation to a support covered by column 1 of an item in the table in subsection (3) of this section.
2For the purposes of subparagraph 10(6)(d)(iv) of the NDIS Act, the CEO must be satisfied that the conditions set out in column 2 of an item in the table in subsection (3) are met before making a replacement support determination in relation to a support covered by column 1 of the item.
3The table is as follows:
Replacement support determinations
Column 1 Column 2
Item Supports Conditions
1Standard commercially available household items
The support must:
(a)The funding or provision of the support takes account of what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and community to be necessary to address needs of the participant arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements; and
(b)increase whole task independence; and
(c)reduce or eliminate the need for a support worker or disability specific assistive technology.
What these two provisions specify is that a participant may apply to have a support that would otherwise be considered not to be an NDIS support considered as a replacement support determination, subject to it meeting the requirements specified in Rule 7(3).
I may return to the relevance of the Transitional Rules to this case when I consider whether the requested additional support can be found to be reasonable and necessary under the Act.
The NDIS Act and its Rules are supplemented by operational guidelines. The operational guidelines represent government policy and, to the extent that they are consistent with the relevant legislation, should be applied by the Tribunal unless here is a sound reason not to do so.[3]
[3] Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634; Madelaine and National Disability Insurance Agency [2019] AATA 4025.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme Operational Guidelines – Planning provides:
This Operational Guideline provides an overview of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), including the legal and policy framework it operates within and the variety of different ways it provides support and assistance to people with disability.
In addition, this Operational Guideline outlines the objects and general principles of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 and provides a summary of the information which is available in the remainder of the NDIS' Operational Guidelines.[4]
[4] National Disability Insurance Agency, ‘Operational Guidelines: Overview of the NDIS Operational Guideline’ <>
There is no power conferred by the NDIS Act to make Operational Guidelines, and they are issued in an exercise of executive power.[5] The Tribunal is therefore not bound by any policy set out in the Agency’s Operational Guidelines; however, in Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2)[6], the Federal Court held that a Tribunal should take into account relevant government policy which is not inconsistent with the provisions or objects of the legislation, however they should not be bound by it. Further guidance for the proposition that the Tribunal is not bound by policy is found in G v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection,[7] where Mortimer J (as her Honour then was) held:
‘Justice or injustice is not found within a policy. It is found by looking at the overall circumstances of an individual’s case with the principal focus being on the purpose and context of the statutory power, not the executive policy framed to guide it…’
[5] G v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 79 [18].
[6] [1979] 24 ALR 577 [590].
[7] [2018] FCA 1229.
Therefore, unless the Access Guidelines are inconsistent with the provisions or objects of the legislation, they should be considered in any determination of whether QGYX meets the reasonable and necessary criteria.
Summary of the Changes to the Legislation
I appreciate that much of what is recorded above is highly complex and difficult to comprehend. To summarise the effect of these changes I note the following points.
The new legislation applies to both existing participants in the Scheme and prospective applicants.
The new law came into effect on 3 October 2024 and applies to all existing requests for support including those such as QGYX, that are currently before the Tribunal.
Section 10(1) of the Act now allows the NDIS to classify a support in the NDIS rules as a NDIS support which can be approved if it meets the other reasonable and necessary criteria in s 34(1).
Conversely, s 10(4) now allows the NDIS to classify a support as ‘not a NDIS support’ in the rules.
Rule 5(2) gives effect to s 10(4) by stating that if a requested support is listed in schedule 2 of those rules, then it is ‘not a NDIS support.’
Section 34(1)(f) now requires that for a requested support to be considered to be reasonable and necessary that support must be ‘a NDIS support as well as meet the other reasonable and necessary criteria specified in subsection 34(1) (aa) to (e).
If a decision maker, such as myself, finds that a requested support falls within any of the 24 categories itemised in schedule 2 of the rules, then it cannot be found to be reasonable and necessary even if I were to find that all the other criteria have been met.
I note that in many cases, items that are listed in schedule 2 of the rules as ‘not NDIS supports’ are identified under quite broad categories rather than as an itemised list of specific items.
In some cases my task would be to determine if a participant’s request for additional supports meets the reasonable and necessary criteria generally and whether it falls within one or more of those broad ‘not NDIS’ categories.
However, I note that the Respondent has not argued that any of the supports requested by QGYX’s father are not NDIS supports so I will instead focus on those s 34(1) criteria that are disputed.
To find that QGYX’s requested support is reasonable and necessary, I will need to find that her various requested supports meet all (emphasis added) of those 7 criteria, as well as those specified in Rules 3 to 5.
Evidence at hearing
The hearing of QGYX’s application took place over two days on 7 and 8 July 2025.
QGYX was represented by her Father and the Agency was represented by Ms Kristina Grinberg of Counsel and instructed by Ms Tereena Martin of Moray and Agnew Lawyers.
The Joint Tender Bundle of agreed documentary evidence was received by the Tribunal on 7 July 2025 and entered as evidence.
QGYX’s father gave evidence on the first day of the hearing as did Ms Hannah Gregori and Mr Bruce Gamble (both from the Lizard Centre). Dr Scott Dunlop gave his evidence on 8 July 2025.
QGYX’s father’s evidence
Before QGYX’s father gave his evidence, I confirmed what supports he wanted to have considered by the Tribunal. QGYX agreed that all the supports he had requested should be considered by the Tribunal.
After providing an affirmation as to the veracity of his evidence, Mr QGYX provided the following information:
·His daughter continues to attend school 5 days per week from 8:30 to 3pm. There are around 8 children in her classroom with a teacher and support staff. If students need to go to the toilet they will be assisted by two support staff.
·The Applicant’s school has requested that the behaviour therapist from the Lizard Centre not attend the school with QGYX for longer than one hour. Due to this, Mr QGYX has arranged for the therapist to attend the family home twice a week from 3:30 to 5:30pm
·The family all sleep in the same bedroom with one parent in the Applicant’s bed, and one parent on a mattress on the floor next to their younger daughter’s bed.
·The parents have been following the steps suggested by the OT to have QGYX become less reliant on them for sleep, by gradually reducing their presence. The Applicant is now able to fall asleep using a pillow, rather than needing to be on the parent’s arms.
·QGYX continues to wake during the night, often two times during the night, which interrupts the sleep of the parents as they need to settle her.
·QGYZ’s father wants to try using her support worker (who has been engaged over the past 2 years) to stay overnight so both parents can sleep in their own room.
·Her paediatrician has said they can prescribe a tablet that will help the Applicant to get to sleep but will not help with her waking during the night.
·Mr QGYX’s parents are a 30-minute drive away. His parents don’t drive.
·QGYX attends mainstream dance classes every weekend but one of the parents or a support worker needs to go with her.
·She attends water safety lessons once a week at the Oaks Centre which provide private lessons when no one else is present at the pool.
·QGYX currently can’t go to after school care because she requires a 1:1 support assistant and the school does not currently have funding for this; however, they are trying to get funding. There is some funding for a 1:1 support worker during holiday care and she will be allowed to attend, although this will be divided between other families whose child also needs a support worker.
·He said that the amount of support he was seeking for his daughter was probably more that she needs and agreed that the 48 hours per week of support worker assistance recommended in the Functional Capacity Assessment Report (A5) is more than she currently needs and that 4 hours each day of the week or 28 hours would be sufficient.
Ms Hannah Gregori’s evidence

Ms Gregori provided the following information:
·Ms Gregori said that she had been QGYX’s therapy supervisor from June 2024 to January 2025. Over this time the therapy was being provided at her school. Ms Gregori was ‘supervising the supervisor’ who was supervising the person providing therapy. Ms Gregori has not been to the Applicant’s school and did not know the set-up of the school;
·Ms Gregori acknowledged that her report dated 14 June 2024) was largely a repetition of various paragraphs from the previous report written by Audrey Yak from the Lizard Centre on 16 April 2024;
·Ms Gregori accepted that the ‘goals and expected outcomes for the Applicant over the next year’ for QGYX that were in her June 2024 report (at pages 36 – 39 of A4) were the same goals that had previously been specified for her by Ms Yak in her August 2023 report (T1D);
·Ms Gregori said that one of the goals for QGYX was to enable her to be integrated into the mainstream school setting and, over time, to have her performing at the same level as her peers;
·Ms Gregori noted that the Vineland 2023 test result indicates that QGYX’s written and gross motor skills were above peer level. She agreed that any comparison between QGYX as her peers of the same age was not really relevant with regard to identifying her potential development and that they could not guarantee the gap would be bridged where there was a diagnosis; and
·Ms Gregori stated that the recommended 15 hours of therapy per week was to ensure consistency, and that the intensity of her practice is important so that the intervention can be delivered across environments such as her home, school, and the wider community. She agreed that now that ABA can no longer be provided at her school, that less therapy hours may be required.
Ms Bruce Gamble’s evidence
Mr Gamble provided the following information:
·He has been QGYX’s therapy supervisor for 6 months.
·He sees her approximately once per fortnight by supervising the therapy worker who works directly with the Applicant. They are currently working on her daily living skills, toileting and social living skills.
·QGYX is currently not allowed to attend after school care, and he and the therapy worker are working on building her skills so that she will be able to go to after school care.
·He has spoken with QGYX’s speech pathologist on one occasion but has not communicated with her occupational therapist.
·He agreed with the previous recommendations of the Lizard Centre that she needs 15 hours per week of ABA therapy. He said that these hours were required for her to have consistency in acquiring those skills and then apply them to other settings.
Dr Scott Dunlop’s evidence
Dr Dunlop’s evidence was as follows:
·Having reviewed available literature and research, the evidence does not support the notion that intensive ABA therapy leads to better outcomes for autistic children;
·His strong view is that having a child spend substantial time in therapy comes at the cost of time not spent in other social pursuits and natural sources of social and communication exposure. A child should have access to early intervention therapies which do not overwhelm their schedule;
·Speech Pathologists and Occupational Therapists have the appropriate expertise to provide therapy to QGYX and to provide training to her parents and caregivers. Therapy provided by these professionals is based in evidence and can be adapted to the Applicant without taking over her life;
·A child psychologist can assist the parents with strategies to manage behavioural issues and can also provide strategies for the Applicant’s teachers;
·QGYX is now into her second year of school, she has had significant amounts of therapy, and her progress has been limited. Therapy goals need to be realistic and appropriate and follow a realistic trajectory;
·He supported the ongoing provision of 4 hours per week of support worker assistance as appropriate;
·He considered that the Respondent’s suggestion, to provide additional 10 hours per week of weekday support worker assistance and 4 hours of weekend assistance once a month, would provide the family with suitable flexibility and some respite;
·He said that in his opinion, her parents had to take a significant role in providing care for QGYX, including the daily care activities and taking her to activities on the weekend;
·He strongly recommended that QGYX be reassessed by a paediatrician in relation to her medication that could assist with her sleeping and anxiety. He said that there may be several options that may be able to assist with her waking during the night, and her challenging behaviours. Finding the right medication and the appropriate dosage can be a process of trial and error;
·He said that he has concerns about engaging a support worker to sleep in the same room as QGYX and would not assist with her sleeping and could make the situation worse. He thought it was more appropriate and effective if the parents would still be required to settle the children;
·While he agreed that those providing therapy to QGYX were in a good position to determine what might be in the Applicant’s best interests, he stressed that recommendations should be based on evidence and consider what has been achieved to date and that realistic goals should be set. He raised concerns about the independence of ABA therapists in recommending intensity of therapy and that unrealistic goals (such as comparisons to same-aged peers) may unfairly raise parental expectations;
·He stated that there was no evidence that 15 hours per week of ABA therapy would provide more benefits than 4 hours per week;
·He recommended that there should be breaks during the year for all therapy and in this regard 40 weeks per year of therapy would be appropriate; and
·In relation to QGYX’s challenging behaviours and the need for parent respite, he considered that appropriate medication along with the engagement of a child psychologist was appropriate and did not recommend intensive behaviour therapy or positive behaviour support (PBS).
The Agency’s Final Submissions
The Agency provided its final submissions on 20 July 2025.
In its submission, the Agency maintained the position, on page 4 of its SFIC, as to the reasonable and necessary supports that should be provided to the Applicant. It submitted that this is a balanced approach, taking into account each of the reasonable and necessary criteria, what it is reasonable to expect parents to provide for a 6-year-old child, and the need to ensure the financial sustainability of the NDIS.
The additional supports it has proposed provides for additional supports over and above what has been recommended by Dr Dunlop, in particular an increase from 4 hours of support worker assistance per week to 10 hours of support worker assistance each weekday and 4 hours of support worker assistance on a Saturday each month, and the provision of 182 hours per years for a Therapy Assistant (Level 2) to engage in Applied Behavioural Analysis.
The suggested funding for additional support worker hours could be used flexibly by the Applicant’s parents. For example, while the support worker hours are suggested to be used each weekday morning for 2 hours, they could equally be used after school each afternoon, or on days when an ABA therapist is not providing therapy in her home.
The proposed additional capacity building support can also be used flexibly for the Applicant’s engagement in early childhood supports under a key worker model and for ABA therapy which, can be used at times and locations determined by his parents in conjunction with therapy providers.
The Agency noted that during the hearing, QGYX’s father had indicated he was open to reducing the supports being sought on behalf of his daughter.
In this regard QGYX’s father is now seeking 4 hours of support worker assistance each day (28 hours per week) in addition to 8 hours of ABA therapy per week.
The Agency submitted that this requested amount of funding was what it considered was reasonable and necessary based on the evidence.
In this regard the Agency noted that:
·QGYX attends school from 8am to 3pm, 5 days per week. It is unclear how this, in addition to the requested therapies and in particular ABA therapy would fit into her life and not eat into family time and parental involvement in skill building and implementing therapeutic recommendations.
·It is reasonable to expect that parents of two young children would spend a substantial amount of their time caring for their children.
·It is not the role of the NDIS to provide childcare or after school care. Although both parents are currently working full time, it is reasonable to expect that parents of two young children would need to fit their work hours around caring for their children.
·Both parents are at home on the weekend. It is reasonable to expect that they will provide care to their children and take them to weekend and family activities.
Regarding the requested 12 hours overnight per fortnight of support worker assistance to provide respite, the evidence does not indicate this would be reasonable and necessary. There is no evidence from any of the Applicant’s treating professionals that it is recommended, or likely to be beneficial.
Dr Dunlop had expressed significant reservations about the requested overnight support and expressed his concern that QGYX would be unlikely to accept that her parents would not be with her during the night, and this could make it more difficult for the parents and make the situation worse.
The Applicant’s father in his evidence said that their occupational therapist had suggested a gradual reduction in the presence of the parents in the bedroom, and that they continue to implement this approach, and this has had some success.
Dr Dunlop instead recommended that the family conduct a trial of medication to support her sleep.
The Agency therefore maintains that there is no evidence that having a support worker sleep overnight in QGYX and her sister’s bedroom satisfies the criteria in the Act.
With regard to the request for funding for gardening, cleaning and maintenance services, the Agency maintains its position that these are not reasonable and necessary. QGYX’s father said in evidence that they cannot vacuum or mow the lawn when the Applicant is at home due to the noise and the affect it has on her.
Dr Dunlop in his evidence said that QGYX could use noise cancelling headphones that could be used when such work is being done. Also, the vacuuming and lawnmowing could be done at times when there is support worker assistance available or therapy assistance available.
Concerning the requested 8 hours per week of ABA Therapy, the evidence has not established that this is reasonable and necessary. Dr Dunlop said that he doesn’t recommend ABA therapy and expressed his concern with the intensity of therapy where it was not properly based on evidence.
There is no evidence that 15 hours of intervention would be effective and beneficial for QGYX over a 4-hour block and, where she is attending school would prove to be tiring and exhausting.
The Agency considers that 4 hours of therapy per week over 40 weeks would be effective.
The reports provided by Hannah Gregori and Bruce Gamble; Therapy Supervisors does not demonstrate a sound basis for their recommendation of 15 hours per week of ABA therapy.
Also, some of those clinician’s stated goals, in particular those relating to QGYZ’s attaining functioning at the same level of her peers, are unrealistic.
QGYX is now at school and continues to receive the specialised support of her occupational therapist and speech pathologist and continued intensive levels of ABA therapy are not evidence-based or appropriately justified.
With regard to QGYX’s father’s request for a longer plan, the Agency stated that a 12-month plan is an appropriate length having regard to the intensity of supports proposed by the Respondent and being considered by the Tribunal, the young age of the Applicant and the need to continue to monitor her progress towards her NDIS and therapeutic goals and reassess the required NDIS supports as she grows.
The Agency provided a summary in its final submissions of the evidence provided by Mr QGYX, Mr Gamble, Ms Gregori and Dr Dunlop. As this has already been recorded earlier in this decision, I shall not repeat that evidence here.
QGYX’s closing submissions
QGYX’s father’s submissions were received by the Tribunal on 1 August 2025.
For completeness’ sake I have recorded below the text of that submission in full:
There is a clear gap in the agency’s understanding of QGYXQGYX’s situation and the corresponding therapies and supports she requires. Dr. Dunlop explained that there is no fixed therapy "recipe" for children with ASD; rather, it varies according to each child’s unique individual needs.
In response to a question from QGYX’s father, Dr. Dunlop confirmed that QGYX’s current allied health professionals, who have been working with her on a weekly basis for many years, are well-placed to formulate an appropriate therapy plan. However, he disagreed with the number of therapy hours recommended by those same therapists.
Dr. Dunlop also stated that he may have had a different opinion regarding QGYX’s required support if he had been given the opportunity to clinically assess her in person, rather than basing his view solely on the documentation provided.
It’s worth noting that the agency had initially scheduled a functional capacity assessment for QGYX to take place at our home, which was agreed to by QGYX’s father. However, the agency later reversed this decision. The lack of a direct clinical observation has hindered the Agency’s ability to fully understand QGYX’s condition and the level of support she requires.
The support worker hours recommended by Mr. Vujcic have provided a more accurate picture of QGYX’s current condition and the necessary level of support required—not only to meet her needs but also to sustain the overall functioning of the family.
QGYX’s parents understand and embrace their parental responsibilities. They are doing everything they can to support her development and help her reach her full potential. However, the demands of raising a child with special needs place them at real risk of burnout. If they are unable to continue fulfilling their responsibilities due to exhaustion, QGYX could miss vital developmental opportunities—potentially leading to a greater reliance on agency support in the future.
Due to financial constraints, both parents must work full-time. After school, the parent responsible for QGYX on that day must continue working for an additional two hours in a separate room, attending meetings, taking calls, and giving presentations. As Dr. Dunlop noted, QGYX cannot be left unsupervised during this time. Therefore, in addition to the current two hours of morning support, an additional two hours of support worker assistance is required each afternoon to help QGYX with self-care tasks until the parent’s workday ends.
As discussed during the hearing, the plan is to implement ABA therapy across various settings—including educational, community, and home environments—subject to available funding. This approach allows QGYX to generalise skills beyond the home.
Given that ASD is a lifelong condition and is unlikely to show significant improvement in the near future (as reflected in Dr. Dunlop’s report, page 155 of the joint bundle), I kindly request that QGYX’s plan be extended beyond 12 months.
Home and yard maintenance were included in QGYX’s current plan (2024–2025), and I request that this support continue in her next plan. This provision has worked well for our family. It’s important to note that due to QGYX’s toilet training status and other aspects of her autism, the cleaning demands in our household are significantly greater than those of a typical family. Having cleaning and gardening services during school hours reduces sensory impact on QGYX and provides much-needed respite for her parents. I also request continued flexibility in using QGYX’s core budget, as was allowed in her previous plan, to ensure we can allocate resources effectively in the areas that benefit QGYX most.
As recommended by Mr. Vujcic’s (FCA), I request that adequate support worker hours be allocated for Saturdays and Sundays to enable QGYX to participate in social, community, and sports activities.
Consideration
The various supports I am required to consider and then make findings as to whether they are reasonable and necessary are:
·8 hours per week of Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) therapy;
·160 hours per annum of speech therapy comprising 2 hours per week of therapy, 52 hours for travel and 4 hours for report writing;
·82 hours per annum of occupational therapy comprising 52 hours for therapy sessions, 26 hours for travel and 4 hours for report writing;
·28 hours per week of support worker assistance being 4 hours per day;
·12 hours per fortnight of overnight support worker hours; and
·Funding for an extended plan more than one year.
Before I address these requested supports, I again note that the Agency has advised it is prepared to provide funding for the following supports over and above those currently approved:
·Funding for 10 hours of support worker assistance on weekdays which may be used flexibly;
·Funding for 4 hours of support worker assistance on one Saturday each month;
·Funding for 4 hours per week of ABA therapy;
·40 hours of OT (weekly sessions) in line with the school term; and
·40 hours of Speech Therapy (weekly sessions) in line with the school term.
In making my assessment of the requested supports, I consider it is important to consider all the current and requested supports, QGYX’s school commitments how much time is allocated to each of them and how they may potentially benefit and reinforce each other.
As I understand it from the various reports on the Tribunal file, QGYX currently has the following therapy hours:
·     Weekly 1-hour speech therapy sessions (either at school or at home);
·     Weekly 1-hour occupational therapy sessions (either at school or at home);
·     ABA Therapy sessions 2 x 2-hour sessions now primarily provided at home; and
·     Support worker hours (currently (4-hours weekly).
For reasons I will explain more fully in my assessment, there is a certain amount of overlap between some of these requested supports. For example, Mr QGYX is requesting 4 hours of support worker assistance each day which appears to be intended to be divided each day as 2-hours in the morning and 2-hours in the afternoon after school.
At the same time, he is requesting 8 hours of ABA therapy hours per week, which again will need to be primarily provided at home after school. Each session of ABA is for two-hours, in other words 4 days per week. Mr QGYX’s evidence was that his daughter’s school has requested that ABA therapy provided at school be limited to one hour per week. Therefore, almost all this therapy will need to take place in the family home.
This apparent overlap may prove relevant to any decision I make regarding both these requested supports.
8 hours per week of ABA therapy
As I noted earlier, QGYX’s father conceded during the hearing that based upon the reports, he now considered that 8 hours per week of ABA therapy would be sufficient for his daughter as opposed to the 15 hours he had originally requested.
I again note that the Agency is prepared to fund 4 hours per week of such therapy as part of an overall allowance of 415 hours per year of therapy including psychology, speech and occupational therapy.

I have previously noted my concerns about the overall availability of out-of-school hours to meet QGYX’s needs for therapy, after school recreation, support worker assistance and allow for the usual family time appropriate for a six-year-old girl.
I also consider that it is important that there be a high degree of collaboration and cooperation between the various therapists to ensure they are sharing their observations and insights and ensuring their combined interventions are coordinated.
It is also important that any package of supports for a young child with level 3 ASD be tailored to match that specific child’s identified needs. This is because each child with autism will present with their own unique set of needs based upon their own strengths and areas of weakness.
For the reasons outlined above, I consider that the requested 8 hours per week of ABA therapy cannot be approved, however will approve the 4-hours per week of ABA therapy recommended by the Agency.
160 hours of speech therapy per annum
The requested therapy hours are for 2 sessions each week and an annual allowance of 160 hours including travel and report writing. I remain unsure as to whether the sessions will be provided at her school or in her home or a combination of the two locations.
I consider that amount is excessive as it fails to take into proper account the limited availability of time on weekday afternoons, leaving time for important family times such as school holidays, the needs of the therapist providing the sessions and allowing QGYX some time away from therapy.
I agree with Dr Dunlop’s recommendation that speech therapy be provided weekly over 40 weeks per year which to my mind gets that need for balance, right.
For these reasons I cannot approve the requested 160 hours for speech therapy but will approve:
·40 hours of weekly speech therapy;
·A provision for 20 hours travel; and
·A provision for 5 hours for report writing and consultation with other therapists.
I have increased the hours for consultation and report writing as I consider specific provision should be made for the Speech Therapist to consult with the other allied health providers.
82 hours per annum of occupational therapy
I consider that a similar approach to that I have used in assessing appropriate speech therapy hours should also be applied when assessing the request for additional occupational therapy sessions.
QGYX’s father has requested 82 hours per annum of occupational therapy comprising 52 hours for therapy sessions, 26 hours for travel and 4 hours for report writing.
This would necessarily entail QGYX having such therapy each week of the year which I agree is excessive for a young child and that consideration needs to be given for allowing for school holidays and family time away.
I consider the recommendation of 40 hours of therapy sessions per annum by Dr Dunlop and the Agency is an appropriate amount.
As I have recommended in my assessment of speech therapy, additional time will need to be provided for travel, report writing and consultation with other therapists.
For these reasons I cannot approve the requested 82 hours for speech therapy but will approve:
·40 hours of occupational therapy;
·A provision for 20 hours travel; and
·A provision for 5 hours for report writing and consultation with other therapists.
28 hours per week of support worker assistance.
Mr QGYX has requested 4 hours each day (including Saturday and Sunday) of this support.
The Agency has offered to fund 10 hours on weekdays and 4 hours once a month on a weekend.
I have already identified, taking account of QGYX’s current therapy load that at least two days each week after school would be taken up with two hours of her ABA therapy. It is not entirely clear whether any of her speech and occupational therapy is provided at home however it appears that at least some of those sessions are conducted there.
Therefore, I consider that it is unlikely that there is time available each afternoon of a weekday for the support worker to perform their important work with QGYX if she may already be engaged with other therapists.
I note QGYX’s observation that after school, the parent responsible for QGYX on that day must continue working for an additional two hours in a separate room, attending meetings, taking calls, and giving presentations.
I also note that the 10 hours of weekday support worker assistance offered by the Agency can be used flexibly which may include some afternoons if required.
Taking account of the additional speech and OT therapy hours I have approved I consider that 16 hours of weekday support worker support will be sufficient taking account of both QGYX’s school, recreational and therapy commitments and her parent’s work obligations. I again note these hours may be used flexibly.
I have also given appropriate weight to the parent’s need for respite outside of their working schedule and the lack of informal supports they have available to share this load.
For that reason, I consider the proposed 4 hours per month of weekend support worker support be increased to 16 hours per month which may be used flexibly by her parents.
Based upon the above assessment I approve this requested support as follows:
·16 hours of weekday support worker assistance which can be used flexibly.
·16 hours per month of weekend support worker assistance which also can be used flexibly.
12 hours per month of overnight support worker respite care
Mr QGYX has asked for this support to provide he and his wife with much needed respite including two nights per week of relatively uninterrupted sleep.
As a statement of principle, I certainly consider that parents of child with autism do require some degree of respite from the demands of providing care to that child and ensuring they are also meeting the needs of their other child. This is particularly the case where the parents lack strong support informal support networks of their own as is the case here.
In determining what might constitute an appropriate level of support, I need to consider a range of factors including the age and level of health of the parents, their work and other commitments, the age and needs of the participant’s siblings and what family or other informal supports may be available to them.
I share with Dr Dunlop his concerns about the practicality of the proposed arrangement. There is in my opinion insufficient clinical and other evidence of the likelihood of this overnight support from a support worker being effective.
QGYX’s parents have been attempting over recent weeks and months to reduce their daughter’s reliance on having them sleep with her at least until such time as she falls to sleep herself. She will however often wake later in the evening and the parents then need to assist her get back to sleep.
I note that QGYX shares a bedroom with her younger sister. It is not clear from the material before me what her sister’s sleeping patterns are, but her needs will need to also be considered in any assessment of this proposed support.
My principal concerns relate to the likelihood that a support worker could achieve a better outcome than what currently exists. For it to have any chance of success I believe the support worker would have to be a well-known and trusted figure by both QGYX and her sister. It is unlikely such support could be effective if any support worker does not meet these criteria.
Also given the current strategies being used by the parents, any such inclusion of the support worker would need to be gradually introduced over time.
Dr Dunlop’s firm view expressed in his evidence at the hearing is that the proposed support is highly unlikely to work and could potentially make the situation worse.
He made several alternative suggestions including having QGYZ assessed by a Paediatrician with the view to assessing whether prescribing her medication to address her sleep difficulties and anxiety could be trialled.
Given the need for clear evidence which established that this support would prove beneficial and the high degree of uncertainty as to any potential risks either foreseen or otherwise attaching to it, I do not consider it appropriate to approve this support.
This requested support is not approved.
Extended plan duration
QGYX’s father in his final submission submitted that his daughter’s plan be extended beyond 12 months because ASD is a lifelong condition and is unlikely to show significant improvement in the near future.
The Agency submitted that a 12-month plan was the appropriate length having regard to the intensity of supports it was proposing and being considered by the Tribunal, QGYX’s young age and the need to continue to monitor her progress towards her NDIS and therapeutic goals and reassess the required NDIS supports as she grows.
I can fully appreciate the desire of many parents with young children receiving NDIS support have to have extended plans. This to them ensures certainty of funding beyond 12 months and avoid the needs of time-consuming annual reviews and onerous reporting obligations on them and allied health professionals.
Against this I have to consider QGYX’s best interests and what will best support her.
I agree with QGYX’s father that the process of progress with a child with ASD can be slow however with the right combination of supports in place I am optimistic these will bear fruit and he will see noticeable improvement in her overall development.
Taking account of these factors, I consider that at this stage, at least a 12-month plan is appropriate.
The request for an extended plan is not approved.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the correct and preferable decision in this case is to set aside the decision under review and to direct that the following supports meet the requirements of a reasonable and necessary support as defined in the NDIS Act:
1)4 hours per week of ABA therapy;
2)65 hours per annum of speech therapy (including 20 hours for travel and 5 hours for collaboration and report writing);
3)65 hours per annum of occupational therapy (including 20 hours for travel and 5 hours for collaboration and report writing);
4)16 hours of weekday support worker assistance; and
5)16 hours per month of weekend support worker assistance.
Decision
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review pursuant to subsection 105(a) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) as it relates to the supports specified in paragraph 170 of this decision.

I certify that the preceding 170
(one hundred and seventy-seven)
paragraphs are a true copy of the
reasons for the decision herein
of General Member A. Williams

…..................[SGD]........................
Associate
Dated: 11 August 2025
Hearing:  7 & 8 July 2025
Solicitor for the Applicant:             Self-represented
Counsel for the Respondent:         Mr Kristina Grinberg
Solicitor for the Respondent:         Ms Tereena Martin of Maddocks Lawyers