QLYQ and National Disability Insurance Agency

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by QLYQ (the applicant) seeking funding for Applied Behavioural Analysis (ABA) therapy for their child, who has Autism. The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) had refused to fund 20 hours of ABA therapy per week for two years, a decision the applicant sought to have reviewed. The Tribunal heard evidence over six days, including extensive documentation from both parties, reports, studies, and submissions.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the requested ABA therapy constituted "reasonable and necessary supports" under section 34 of the *National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013* (Cth). This required the Tribunal to assess if the proposed support would assist the participant to pursue their goals and aspirations, facilitate social and economic participation, represent value for money, be effective and beneficial according to current good practice, take into account the provision of informal supports, and be most appropriately funded by the NDIS rather than other service systems.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the criteria for reasonable and necessary supports. While acknowledging the potential benefits of ABA therapy, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the specific request for 20 hours per week for two years met the threshold of being "effective and beneficial for the participant, having regard to current good practice." The Tribunal considered various literature and studies on ABA therapy but ultimately concluded that the evidence did not support the necessity of such an intensive level of funding for the requested duration.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the NDIA's decision to refuse funding for the additional ABA therapy. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not discharged the onus of demonstrating that the requested support met all the criteria for reasonable and necessary supports under the NDIS Act.