RPJJ and Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS)
[2025] ARTA 2291
•28 October 2025
RPJJ and Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 2291 (28 October 2025)
Applicant/s: RPJJ
Respondent: Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency
Tribunal Number: 2023/1059
Tribunal:General Member S Smith
Place:Brisbane
Date:28 October 2025
Decision:Pursuant to subsection 105(a) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) the decision under review is affirmed
................[SGD]................
General Member S Smith
Catchwords
NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME – reasonable and necessary supports - support worker hours – transport – short term accommodation – occupational therapy - psychology - physiotherapy – training and skill development – funding for activities – funding for art or craft therapy – assistive technology – consideration of section 34 National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) – Specialist Disability Accommodation - decision affirmed
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975(Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act) (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) (‘NDIS Act’)
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No 1) Act 2024
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth)
NDIS (Becoming a Participant) Rules – 2016, (‘Access Rules’)
NDIS Amendment (Management of Funding and Plan Management Rules 2025) (‘Plan Management Rules’)
NDIS (Supports for Participants) Rules - 1 July 2013, (‘Supports Rules’)
NDIS (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth)NDIS (Specialist Disability Accommodation) Rules 2020 (Cth)
Cases
Beezley v Repatriation Commission (2015) FCAFC 165
Burrows and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 607
BMCX and CEO of the National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 199
Dudgeon and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2024] ARTA 154
FSWN and National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 114
McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency [2017] FCA 308
Mazy and National Disability Insurance Agency [2018] AATA 3099 (9 August 2018)
MDCT and National Disability Insurance Agency [2020] AATA 6036
Morley and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 1905
Mulligan v National Disability Insurance Agency [2015] FCA 544; (2015) 233 FCR 201.
NDIA v KKTB, by her litigation representative CVY22 [2022] FCAFC 181
National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF (2020) 276 FCR 415
Re Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 60
SCHW and National Disability Insurance Agency [2021] AATA 591WVGM and CEO of the National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 47
Secondary Materials
NDIS–Operational guideline-Creating your plan, 28 February 2025.
NDIS-Operational guideline-Home modifications, 4 June 2025
NDIS–Operational guideline-Principles we follow to create your plan, 22 September 2024
NDIS–Operational guideline-Reasonable and necessary supports, 22 September 2024.
NDIS-Operational guideline-Short Term Accommodation or respite, 11 November 2022.
NDIS Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits, 2024/25NDIS Transport Funding
Statement of Reasons
INTRODUCTION
The applicant, RPJJ, is a 69-year-old woman who lives with her 18-year-old daughter, (‘Ms C’) and her 15-year-old son (‘Mr C)[1] in metropolitan south-east Queensland. The family moved from (‘Suburb A’), a regional area of Queensland, to (‘Suburb E’) in January 2025.
[1] Mr C is represented by RPJJ in a separate proceeding before the Tribunal.
RPJJ is a participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (‘the scheme’). The scheme is administered by the National Disability Insurance Agency (‘the Agency’) pursuant to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) (‘the NDIS Act’).
RPJJ was granted access to the scheme for psychosocial impairments attributable to diagnoses of a major depressive disorder (‘MDD’) and a generalised anxiety disorder (‘GAD’)[2], pursuant to section 24 of the NDIS Act (‘the disability requirements’).
[2] T5, Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 12, lines 30-31.
BACKGROUND TO DECISION UNDER REVIEW
On 5 December 2022, a delegate of the Agency approved a Statement of Participant Supports (‘SOPS’) for RPJJ.[3] RPJJ requested a review of the original decision.[4]
[3] Pursuant to section 33(2) of the NDIS Act. EB-1, p. 260.
[4] Pursuant to s100 of the NDIS Act. H8/T4.
On 25 January 2023, a different delegate of the Agency confirmed the original decision under section 100 of the NDIS Act[5] (‘the internal review decision’).
[5] T1A and T2.
On 21 February 2023, RPJJ applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘AAT’) for review of the internal review decision under section 103 of the NDIS Act.[6]
[6] T1.
On 17 November 2023 RPJJ’s 12-month interim plan was issued pursuant to a remittal under section 42D of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (‘the AAT Act’)[7]. RPJJ’s 12-month interim plan with her SOPS was auto-extended.[8] The Tribunal continued to retain jurisdiction over the decision to approve the SOPS as varied.
[7] 19 October 2023 and 20 October 2023.
[8] EB-5, pp. 1-2.
On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (‘the Transitional Act’), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal pursuant to section 12 of the f the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2004 (Cth) (‘the ART Act’), in conjunction with section 103 of the NDIS Act.
CASE MANAGEMENT PRIOR TO THE TRIBUNAL HEARING
The Tribunal conducted six telephone direction hearings (‘TDH’) after constitution and prior to the hearing of this matter.[9]
[9] TDH #1 - 8 October 2024; TDH #2 - 8 January 2025; TDH #3 - 25 February 2025; TDH #4 - 4 April 2025; TDH #5 - 17 April 2025; TDH #6 - 9 June 2025.
At the first TDH on 8 October 2024, the Tribunal timetabled the matter to hearing and directed RPJJ to provide a list of her requested supports. At this TDH RPJJ stated that she did not consent to attending an Independent Medical Examination (IME).
The second TDH on 8 January 2025 was listed by the Tribunal because RPJJ had not provided her list of requested supports. The Tribunal granted RPJJ’s request for additional time until 10 February 2025 to provide a list of her requested supports in dispute because RPJJ explained her family had recently relocated a considerable distance and she needed extra time to do so.
The third TDH on 25 February 2025 was listed by the Tribunal because RPJJ requested additional time[10] to provide a list of her requested supports in dispute. The Tribunal directed that RPJJ’s list be provided on or before 12 March 2025.
[10] EB-1, A29.
On 11 March 2025, RPJJ sent an email only to the Tribunal attaching the documents listed in [14] below. RPJJ’s list of requested supports that the Tribunal directed to be provided on 8 October 2024 was not part of this email.
On 21 March 2025 the Tribunal sent an email to the parties:
Dear Parties,
1. The Tribunal acknowledges that RPJJ emailed the Tribunal on 11 March 2025, and it appears this email was not also sent to the Respondent.
2. The Tribunal forwards RPJJ’s email to the Respondent (and cc’s RPJJ regarding this) and notes the following two attachments.
a. Attachment one.
i.25 February 2025, Letter by RPJJ, 3 pages of typed material and a fourth blank page.
b. Attachment two.
i.39-page attachment comprising 6 items:
1. 3 February 2025, Assistive Technology Letter of recommendation, Ms I, occupational therapist, J Provider, 31 pages.
2. 31 December 2024, Company M Quote, 1 page.
3. 30 January 2025, Company W quote, 3 pages.
4. 13 September 2024, Dr Nicholas Teo letter, Lipoedema Surgical Solution, 1 page.
5. 12 March 2024, Ms R letter, physiotherapist, S Provider, 2 pages
6. 19 December 2023 unsigned document, Absolute Ultrasound service, 1 page.
3. The Tribunal will consider RPJJ’s requested supports at the substantive hearing.
4. The hearing, at the Brisbane registry, is scheduled for 3 days, on 24, 25, and 26 June 2025 commencing at 9am each day.
The fourth TDH on 4 April 2025 was listed by the Tribunal as the list of requested supports was still not received. The Tribunal granted RPJJ until 10 April 2025 to clarify her list of requested supports as part of her review application.[11]
[11] EB-1, A30.
Section 53 of the ART Act states:
53 Tribunal controls scope of review of decision
In a proceeding for review of a decision, the Tribunal may determine the scope of the review by limiting the questions of fact, the evidence and the issues that it considers.
The fifth TDH on 17 April 2025 was listed by the Tribunal as the list of requested supports was not received. On 17 April 2025, the Tribunal directed:
The Tribunal VARIES the 4 April 2025 directions and DIRECTS:
1. On or before 9AM AEST on 22 April 2025 the Applicant is to provide to the Tribunal and the Respondent an:
a. updated statement of position including a table of supports detailing all remaining supports in dispute including the number of hours sought in regard to each support requested; and
b. any further evidence upon which they wish to rely at the hearing.
2. The Tribunal makes a section 53 ART Act Order to control the scope of review of decision to that which is filed by the Applicant by 9AM on 22 April 2025.
3. On or before 2 June 2025 the Respondent is to file with the Tribunal and provide to the Applicant:
a. An updated Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions (SFIC); and
b. Written submissions regarding the effect, if any, of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) Act 2024 (Cth), and any Rules and Guidelines made there under, on this application for review.
4. On or before 9 June 2025 the Applicant may file with the Tribunal and provide to the Respondent any reply to the Respondent's submissions under direction 2.[12]
5. On or before 16 June 2025 the Parties agree upon and file with the Tribunal a correctly indexed, paginated and searchable Joint Bundle including all submissions that the parties wish to rely on at hearing.
6. On or before 16 June 2025 the Parties agree upon and file with the Tribunal a joint witness schedule.
7. The Parties attend an in-person hearing at the Brisbane Registry on 24, 25 and 26 June 2025, commencing at 9AM AEST.
[12] The Tribunal made a typographical error it should have read ‘under direction 3.’
At the sixth TDH dated 9 June 2025, the Tribunal directed:
The Tribunal VARIES the directions dated 17 April 2025 and DIRECTS:
1.On or before 16 June 2025 the Respondent is to file with the Tribunal and provide to the Applicant:
i) An updated Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions (SFIC); and
ii) Written submissions regarding the effect, if any, of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) Act 2024 (Cth), and any Rules and Guidelines made there under, on this application for review.
2.On or before 23 June 2025 the Applicant may file with the Tribunal and provide to the Respondent any reply to the Respondent’s submissions under direction 1.
3.On or before 16 June 2025 the parties agree upon and file with the Tribunal a correctly indexed, paginated and searchable Joint Bundle including all submissions that the parties wish to rely on at hearing.
4.On or before 16 June 2025 the parties agree upon and file with the Tribunal a joint witness schedule.
5.The parties attend an in person hearing at the Brisbane Registry on 24, 25 and 26 June 2025, commencing at 9AM AEST.
The hearing was held in a hybrid manner in person and over Microsoft Teams on 24, 25 and 26 June 2025 and on 11 August 2025. RPJJ was self-represented, attended in person, and was supported at the hearing by Ms C. The Agency was represented by Mr A Hartnett of Counsel instructed by Moray and Agnew Lawyers.
PRELIMARY ISSUES ON DAY ONE OF THE HEARING
On the afternoon before the first hearing day, the Tribunal received RPJJ’s request for a confidentiality order pursuant to sections 70 and 71 of the ART Act.
The Agency did not contest this application. The Tribunal considered it was an appropriate order to make in light of RPJJ’s circumstances. The Tribunal granted the confidentiality order on 24 June 2025. In summary this order prohibits the identification of RPJJ or any information that might identify her and her children.
For ease of reference to the material, I accept and use most of the anonymisation key as part of the Agency’s closing submissions[13] because it maintains RPJJ’s and her children’s confidentiality.
[13] Agency closing submissions, p. 36, Attachment A.
RPJJ voiced several concerns on day one of the hearing that will be dealt with under the heading of RPJJ’s adjournment request on day three of the hearing. In summary, RPJJ expressed dissatisfaction because:
·RPJJ wanted additional information admitted despite the section 53 ART Act Order limiting RPJJ from filing additional material. RPJJ stated ‘we haven’t actually got podiatry in there. We have a report from a podiatrist … I need to have one monthly visits’.[14]
·RPJJ wanted to call her two children as witnesses. However, RPJJ also wanted her daughter as her support person throughout the whole hearing.
·RPJJ wanted to call the Agency’s solicitor and Agency’s case manager as witnesses before the Tribunal.
[14] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 52, lines 35-37.
RPJJ’S ADJOURNMENT REQUEST ON DAY THREE OF THE HEARING
On day three of the hearing RPJJ asked for an adjournment so her application could go to the Guidance and Appeals Panel (‘the GAP’) at the ART.[15] RPJJ stated
I have read that it’s appropriate in some circumstances to request that the matter be referred ….[16]as a matter that’s significant to the administrative decision-making and in the interests of justice.’[17]
[15] Transcript, 26 June 2025, pp. 52-54. Transcript, 26 June 2025, from p. 62, line 29 -
[16] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 53, lines 5-6.
[17] Transcript 26 June 2025, p. 62, lines 29 – 40.
The Tribunal sought to assist RPJJ in the following ways:
·Directed RPJJ to the Tribunal website for information about the GAP.
·Welcomed the suggestion from counsel for the Agency to provide ‘legal submissions’[18] regarding the powers of the Tribunal (as currently constituted) concerning RPJJ’s request for an adjournment to apply to the GAP.
·The Tribunal granted a recess before hearing further submissions from parties around RPJJ’s request regarding the GAP.
[18] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 58, lines 35-37.
The Agency submitted that RPJJ’s application for adjournment to the GAP entailed consideration of the following:[19]
The mechanism by which matters are referred to the GAP are by written application of the President and not to the Tribunal as currently constituted. There are two types of referrals. The first instance referral, and one of those has not been made here and the review has begun.
And the second is a second instance referral which would require the member to give her decision. And what happens next is, of course, a matter for anyone dissatisfied with that decision, if that comes to be the case, that if there is an application made to the Tribunal as currently constituted for referral to the GAP, it is not a matter that the member could decide. The President would have to decide a written application for such a referral.
[19] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 59, lines 29 - 41.
RPJJ’s contentions
RPJJ provided her oral submissions around why she thought that the Tribunal process was unfair to her. RPJJ contended that:
·The Tribunal should not have limited the scope of the review pursuant to section 53 of the ART Act dated 17 April 2025 because: ‘I think Dudgeon[20] overrides section 53 of the ART Act[21]…because ‘our circumstances have changed’;
[20] The Tribunal understands that RPJJ is referring to Dudgeon and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2024] ARTA 154 (20 December 2024). (‘Dudgeon’).
[21] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 62, lines 43 – 44. P. 63, lines 1-6.
·RPJJ stated ‘I don’t believe the model litigant obligations…have been adhered to at all in the preparation to this hearing and in relation to the actual hearing itself.’[22] ‘The other party has been extremely adversarial in their approach’;[23] and ‘not acted in good faith.’[24]
[22] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 63, lines 9 -11.
[23] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 63, lines 23 -24.
[24] RPJJ’s closing submission with the date of 11 August 2025 on 6 pages. The Tribunal received this email on 10 August 2025.
·RPJJ contended that her compilation of emails ‘must be considered’ because they are relevant;[25]
[25] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 63, lines 16 -20.
·‘The whole matter has been slowed in order to bring up the side of 14 October, you know. So 4 October when the changes were made. It has been deliberately halted as a strategy – strategically, in order to place it under the new supports.’[26]
[26] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 63, lines 38 -43.
·‘This could have been resolved, the Agency has not attempted to make any genuine resolution of these matters is not just a detriment to me but it’s a detriment to the public taxpayer. And it’s a detriment to the other participants who are reliant on NDIS funding.’[27]
·‘The waste of NDIS funding – not saying there’s not a legitimate process here, but we’re not going through the legitimate path. We’re going through this other weird door where people are not up front. They’re not transparent. They’re not honest and they’re not respectful. They do not respond to somebody who is not legally represented.’[28]
·The Tribunal was wrong because ‘I have not been able to call my…two witnesses.’[29]
·RPJJ contended that she has been
discriminated against in terms of the fact that there’s no – if I was a solicitor, I have been discriminated as a self-advocate, right. Because if had have been a solicitor, I would have expected and demanded and (indistinct) a response to each one of those emails. They were appropriately written. They were in relevant issues, you know. The Tribunal is required to make a decision on the current state of affairs, not what happened two and a half years ago.[30]
·‘Me and also my daughter as the significantly disadvantaged by having to carry an extraordinary carer burden at the same time as us having funds and not being able to use them because of it being Agency-managed without proper grounds or investigation or rights to response. So I think that we should be entitled to compensation for what those funds would have been by way of compensation other than potentially back pain. And I think this should be – you know, the fact that there is a huge saving to the NDIS funds by actually delaying by two years.’[31] RPJJ stated ‘I would be asking for some sort of compensation, and I would be also asking for some…sanction…on the parties who have been party to this.’[32]
·RPJJ contended there was ‘questioning which was probably terribly inappropriate with regards to my conversations with my psychologist under the guise of it being relevant to a request for a support.’[33] RPJJ contended ‘there was some very deceptive, non-transparent attempts to elicit some sort of information around ‘how did you find the STA people…’[34]
·‘[The Tribunal is where]… we as unpresented people can be dealt with fairly. I think there has been a lot of hard work done by the other side to make sure that didn’t happen – to exclude evidence. And I consider that very unfortunate and detrimental…I believe that the GAP is interested in this specifically and the incredible massive waste of very sacred NDIS funds.’[35]
·RPJJ stated she relied on the decision of Mazy 2018 AATA 3099 (‘Mazy’).[36] RPJJ contended that ‘it should not fall to the participant to fully explore alternative supports which may be less expensive.’ [37] RPJJ may then have quoted:
If the Agency claims that there are alternative supports which are preferable to those sought by the applicant, it is incumbent on the Agency to assist the Tribunal by providing evidence to support this argument.
[27] Transcript, 26 June 2025, pp. 63-64, lines 46-47, lines 1-2.
[28] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 64, lines 4 -8.
[29] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 64, lines 8 -21.
[30] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 18, lines 34-39.
[31] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 64, lines 27 -36.
[32] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 65, lines 1 -11.
[33] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 65, lines 12 -15.
[34] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 65, lines 17 -20.
[35] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 65, lines 26 -32.
[36] Mazy 2018 AATA at [59].
[37] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 19, lines 25-30.
Agency contentions
The Agency contended that RPJJ’s application for adjournment to apply to the GAP should not be granted because:
·RPJJ’s application is a first instance review, and the ART President is given discretion regarding whether matters raised meet the threshold for a GAP referral;[38]
·The Tribunal should uphold its section 9 ART Act obligations to act expediently and minimise cost and afford procedural fairness to the parties;
·Pursuant to section 37 of the AAT Act and now section 25 of the ART Act, the obligation to determine relevance of documents for T documents – this is separate to the joint hearing bundle – is by law imposed upon the respondent. The respondent is required to make that determination and lodge the documents with the Tribunal;[39]
·It would be inappropriate to adjourn the current proceedings. A decision can be made. After the Tribunal decision then RPJJ could elect to make a second instance referral to the GAP;
·The rules of evidence are a useful yardstick for the Tribunal to adopt to allow the most probative evidence before it. Nothing prevents parties from lodging additional material in the Tribunal that they wish for the decision-maker to take into account, subject to being provided procedural fairness about those additional documents;[40]
·RPJJ could elect to pursue an application in the Federal Court if she was minded to take the matter further;
·The 17 April 2025 section 53 order was made to limit the scope of the review. The material from the podiatrist was received after 9am on 22 April 2025 so it could not be added to the material as it would be procedurally unfair.[41]
[38] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 66, lines 1 – 12.
[39] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 66, lines 37 –1.
[40] Transcript, 26 June 2025, pp. 66-67, lines 45-47, line 1.
[41] Transcript, 24 June 2025, pp. 52-53, lines 46-47, lines 1-2.
Tribunal decision regarding RPJJ’s adjournment request
The Tribunal accepted the Agency submissions, particularly that it was preferable to progress RPJJ’s matter in line with the Tribunal’s section 9 objectives.
The Tribunal did not accept RPJJ’s submissions that the Tribunal process was unfair to her for the following reasons.
Firstly, I find that RPJJ was afforded procedural fairness for the following reasons:
·There were six telephone direction hearings since the matter was constituted. The Tribunal recognised that RPJJ was not legally represented and provided multiple extensions of time to RPJJ so that she could particularise her application in order for it to progress to hearing.
·At the TDH on 22 April 2025, the Tribunal explained the section 53 order to RPJJ and that she had until 9AM on 22 April 2025 to file her list of requested supports so that the Agency could then respond and prepare the documents required for the hearing. The Tribunal explained to RPJJ that was important so that the parties and the Tribunal would understand the issues to be considered at the hearing. There was no objection made by either party to the making of the section 53 Order at the 22 April 2025 TDH.[42]
·I was not persuaded by RPJJ’s reference to the decisions of Dudgeon nor Mazy. RPJJ did not provide submissions as to how these decisions were relevant to her circumstances.
·The Tribunal acknowledges RPJJ’s concerns. RPJJ believed that every email she sent to the Tribunal was part of the tender bundle. That was not the case. Only the podiatry letter was not included in the bundle after 22 April 2025 due to the section 53 order being made. In addition, RPJJ is currently funded for podiatry as a support.[43] The Tribunal notes that it is open to RPJJ to seek through the plan reassessment process funding for any particular supports that she may require going forward.
·I acknowledge RPJJ’s submission that the Tribunal is entitled to have any information before it that was not before the primary decision-maker. However, the Tribunal made a section 53 order to control and confine the scope of the decision under review in order to progress the application for review.
[42] BMCX v CEO of the National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 199 (‘BMCX’) at [8].
[43] EB-5, p. 1.
Secondly, the Tribunal formed the view that the Agency had acted fairly and in accordance with its model litigant responsibilities. I do not accept RPJJ’s contentions that the Agency ‘slowed’ down her application. Examples were that:
·The Agency offered RPJJ the opportunity to attend an IME with an independent occupational therapist. RPJJ elected not to do so. Subsequently the OT provided an ‘on the papers’ assessment of RPJJ.
·The Agency compiled the ‘additional material’ between day three and four of the hearing that RPJJ stated was essential.
·I find that counsel’s questions were polite, open-ended, and sensitive to RPJJ’s circumstances as a person living with a disability.[44] Moreover, counsel’s questions provided RPJJ with an opportunity to provide responses.
·It was appropriate for RPJJ to be asked questions about the disability related health supports she requested in the form of psychology sessions related to RPJJ’s disability related needs as opposed to the ‘ordinary incidents of stress that occur in a parental role.’
·It was appropriate for RPJJ to be asked questions about Short Term Accommodation (STA) as RPJJ added it as one of her requested supports.
[44] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 67, lines 17-27.
Thirdly, regarding the calling of witnesses I do not accept RPJJ’s allegations that she was ‘discriminated against’ or treated unfairly because she was self-represented and that she ‘tried to call two witnesses and was refused’.[45] I find that:
·RPJJ elected not to call independent witnesses in support of her application. The directions from October 2024 until June 2025 all put RPJJ on notice that a ‘witness schedule’ was required.
·The two witnesses were her two children. RPJJ stated that Mr C had a medical appointment to attend on the first day of the hearing and after hearing RPJJ’s submissions I was not persuaded that Mr C would be able to provide relevant evidence in his position as RPJJ’s son regarding his mother’s application for her requested supports.
·RPJJ elected to have her daughter sit with her as a support person throughout the entire hearing.[46] This meant that Ms C was present for all of RPJJ’s evidence. The Tribunal did not wish to for Ms C’s evidence to be tainted and decided it would read Ms C’s written statements about her experiences as an informal carer for her mother. The Tribunal acknowledges and is grateful for Ms C’s assistance. Ms C provided answers and assisted RPJJ throughout the hearing in a professional and calm manner that belied her 18 years. Ms C’s written statements were considered by the Tribunal.[47] I do not accept RPJJ’s contentions that the Tribunal unfairly refused to allow her to call witnesses.
·It was not appropriate for the Agency’s instructing solicitor to be called as a witness. The Tribunal accepted the Agency’s submissions that the work done in the course of acting for the Agency is covered by legal professional privilege and the Agency’s solicitor would be entitled not to answer those questions. The Tribunal reasoned that its role is to consider the legislative framework and especially section 34 of the NDIS Act. The Tribunal’s role was not considering a claim under another Act for contravention of a disability discrimination law.[48]
·It was not appropriate for the Agency’s case manager working for the Agency to be called as a witness. The role of the Tribunal is to make an administrative law decision, and there was no relevant evidence that an Agency case manager could provide in assisting the Tribunal with its task.[49]
[45] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 64, lines 9 -21.
[46] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 68, lines 10 –15.
[47] EB-1, A20, dated 30 October 2024. A26, dated 15 January 2025
[48] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 40, lines 15 – 26.
[49] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 44, lines 1 – 6.
Fourthly, I cannot accept RPJJ’s contentions that the Agency should be ‘sanctioned’[50] as it had strategically slowed things down so the decision was made after 4 October 2024,[51] it had not resolved things earlier, and had wasted ‘sacred NDIA funds.’ There was no evidentiary basis for any of these allegations. In addition, RPJJ did not direct the Tribunal to any legislative criteria whereby the Tribunal is able to ‘sanction’ a party.
[50] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 44, lines 1 – 6.
[51] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 63, lines 38 – 45.
Fifthly, regarding RPJJ’s contention that relevant material was not before the Tribunal. I do not accept RPJJ’s conception of the relevance of evidence. I accept the Agency submissions and find that relevant evidence pertains to that which relates to the Tribunal’s decisional task which is to review a decision to approve a SOPS under section 33 of the NDIS Act which now refers to section 25 of the ART Act.[52] It is a confined relevance test.[53] It is open to parties to lodge documents for the Tribunal to consider however, the sensible and rational considerations of what is probative evidence also apply to these additional documents.[54]
[52] Previously section 37 of the AAT Act.
[53] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 50, lines 33 –40
[54] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 49, lines 16 – 46.
Finally, the Tribunal accepts the Agency’s submissions that:
On 9 June 2025, there was a telephone directions hearing during which it was suggested that RPJJ’s matter might be moved to September by reason of the fact that Ms Houston’s report had come in on 2 June 2025. That there was a statement of facts, issues and contentions for the respondent to prepare very quickly. And that was strongly resisted by RPJJ. She preferred to go ahead with the proceedings between the 24th and the 26th of June. I understand now that there is some complaint about the length of the hearing not being long enough and the fact that RPJJ has not had the opportunity to call witnesses. In my submission, the choice to have this hearing on this date was what was pressed for by RPJJ and I’ll leave the submission there. Because I wanted to put that on the record so that the Tribunal can consider that to have some context around some of those complaints.[55]
[55] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 18, lines 1-16
The Tribunal refused RPJJ’s 26 June 2025 adjournment request and offered next available dates for hearing. RPJJ stated she was unavailable for the June dates because her daughter was away, and RPJJ was not available for an earlier July date as she had an interstate trip planned. The Tribunal settled on 11 August 2025 for the final hearing day.[56]
[56] Transcript, 26 June 2025, pp. 74-75, lines 31 –46, lines 1 – 15.
The Tribunal directed RPJJ to provide any further material regarding the requested supports by no later than 4pm on 28 July 2025. The reason for this was so that the Agency could collate this material on RPJJ’s behalf before the final day of hearing on 11 August 2025.[57]
[57] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 76, lines 41-47.
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
The Tribunal marked evidence received as an Exhibit Bundle (‘EB’) which included:
·EB-1 – Consolidated hearing bundle, filed– 282 pages;[58]
[58] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 12, lines 42-45.
·EB-2 – T-docs – 289 pages;[59]
[59] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 13, lines 43-44. The T docs were lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (‘AAT Act’). This now corresponds to section 23 of the ART Act.
·EB-3 – 26 April 2024 Statement of Participant Supports – 22 pages;
oAnnexure A – Auto extension of plan for 12 months dated 26 April 2025;
·EB-4 –RPJJ sourced information from a ‘medical website’ regarding SFPN[60] - 24 pages, received 24 June 2025;
[60] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 16, lines 1-46.
·EB-5 – Plan breakdown of 22 January 2025 – 2 pages.
·EB-6- RPJJ one page email 16 January 2025 at 11:07am attached is an invoice
oAnnexure A ‘Primer Box Express Pty Ltd’ 15 January 2025
·EB-7 - RPJJ Email on 25 June 2025 at 1826pm
oAnnexure A photos from applicant 37 pages
·EB-8 RPJJ email 20 June 2025 1029 am.
oAnnexure A Applicant witness list 20 June 2025. RPJJ requested Agency solicitor as a witness.[61]
[61] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 16, lines 4-13.
oAnnexure B – Dudgeon.
·EB-9 email correspondence between applicant to NDIA after 21 February 2023. RPJJ filed these emails on 11 August 2025, and they were called Change of Circumstance (COC) email numbered 1 through to 7.[62]
[62] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 2, lines 31-33.
oCOC#1 – removal of daughter as primary carer dated 9 July 2025.
oCOC#2 – son exemption from school attendance.
oCOC#3 – Why RPJJ seeks hydrotherapy documentation.
oCOC#4 – SDA.
oCOC#5 – Support RPJJ requests for her parental role.
oCOC#6 – Updated medical information.
oCOC#7 – Relocation – reimbursement of funds.
·E-B-10 RPJJ leased property photographs after 7 July 2025.[63]
o(Annexure A) Photo file IMG_3015.jpeg. Toilet.
o(Annexure B) Photo IMG-3016.jpeg. Lawn.
·EB-11 – Quote Onyx care for STA for 90 days.
[63] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 16, lines 1-28.
Between the dates of 26 June 2025 and 11 August 2025, RPJJ lodged a large number of additional documents with the Tribunal. The Tribunal acknowledges that the Agency assisted the Tribunal by consolidating these documents into a physical bundle described at [41] so that the parties could navigate these documents on day four of the hearing. The Agency provided both RPJJ and the Tribunal a folder of these documents.
On 11 August 2025, RPJJ gave evidence[64] that she wanted more documents admitted into evidence. These documents are titled Bundle of Applicant’s Further Materials (‘the BAFM’). The Agency did not object to any of these further documents being admitted into evidence. I accept RPJJ’s evidence on the transcript where RPJJ confirmed the Agency’s table that indicated the documents that RPJJ requested to be considered in her application.[65]
·EB-12 Current Plan – RPJJ 26 April 2024 – 26 April 2026.[66]
·EB-13 Claim Line Items with 7 rows of line items.[67]
·The BAFM[68] - Agency identified documents for RPJJ.[69]
[64] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 35, line 15 through to p. 37, line 24.
[65] Agency closing submissions, Attachment B, pp. 37-41.
[66] Agency closing submissions at [15].
[67] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 86, lines 4 – 25.
[68] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 35, begins line 15 and concludes at p. 37, line 24.
[69] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 36, lines 10-36. The EB-9 documents were included in the BAFM.
ISSUES IN CONTENTION AT THE HEARING
RPJJ maintained three domains of issues at the hearing.
·The first is that RPJJ seeks to have ‘other conditions’ recognised under the scheme. RPJJ stated she has submitted five changes of circumstances with the Agency regarding her diagnoses of these ‘other conditions’:[70]
oSmall Fibre Peripheral Neuropathy (‘SFPN’),
oLymphoedema,
oLipoedema.
·The second is that RPJJ seeks additional funding for 16 requested supports which are detailed under headings at [43] below.
·The third is that RPJJ requests self-management of the funding for her supports. RPJJ does not want her funded supports to be plan managed.[71]
[70] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 40, line 20.
[71] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 100, lines 23 - 47.
RPJJ seeks additional funding for 16 supports (the ‘requested supports’):[72]
[72] Transcript, 11 August 2025, pp. 4-5, lines 27-45. Lines 1 ff. Also see EB-1, A28 and A33.
(i)Support worker assistance-personal care/personal domestic duties – 8 hours per day, Monday - Friday, 40 hours each week - Core support;[73]
[73] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 22, lines 17-22.
(ii)Support worker assistance – 8 hours per week at the Saturday rate - Core support [74]
[74] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 22, lines 35-38.
(iii)Support worker assistance - 8 hours per month at the Sunday rate to be used flexibly across the month - Core support.[75]
[75] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 22, lines 40 – 46.
(iv)Occupational therapy supports of ‘89 hours per year to produce a report for the home modifications or to assist us with the design of the Specialist Disability accommodation.’ - Capacity Building (‘CB’) support [76]
[76] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 23, lines 34-36.
(v)Psychology of 57 hours per year - CB support; comprised of:
o48 hours of telehealth appointments
o6 hours of support worker coordination; and
o3 hours of report writing[77]
[77] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 24, line 2.
(vi)Physiotherapy - CB support -– in the alternative comprised of:
oThree lots of one-hour sessions across the week, which equates to three hours per week for 48 weeks each year.[78] 48 multiplied by 3 totals 144 hours each year. This is if requested support number 13 (hydrotherapy pool) is not funded.
[78] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 24, lines 14-20.
oOne hour of physiotherapy each week for 48 weeks per year, which totals 48 hours each year.[79] This is if requested support number 13 is funded.
[79] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 24, lines 39-42.
(vii)Support Coordination hours - CB support - comprised of both:[80]
[80] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 25, lines 38-42. Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 3, lines 36-38.
oTwo hours per week for 50 weeks at the Level 1 rate
oFour hours per week for 50 weeks at the level 3 rate.
(viii)NDIS Self Education expenses - CB support.
oRPJJ stated ‘there’s multiple courses that you can do online that actually help you with different courses in different areas. So ongoingly I would like to be able to do those courses. So basically, four at about $650 is more or less what they go for and what I would be seeing’[81]…[and] I can refer you to the website, but I just have to locate that.’[82]
[81] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 26, lines 1-4.
[82] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 26, lines 36-37. Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 5, lines 34-45.
(ix)Transport funding at the level 2 rate, - CB support.[83]
[83] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 27, lines 9-16. Originally requested at level 3. EB-1, A28. Also at 22 April 2025 EB-1, A33.
oRPJJ does not currently receive transport funding
(x)Specialist interest activities of 48 hours of funding for support worker assistance for capacity building to improve daily living skills - CB support [84]
[84] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 27, lines 39-45.
(xi)Art or craft therapy of an unspecified amount – CB support[85]
[85] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 6, lines 18-25.
(xii)Assistive technology (‘AT’) supports, capital support -, comprised of:[86]
[86] EB-1, pages 188 – 189. Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 29, lines 33 – 47.
o‘Computer AT’ including a ‘head tracking mouse’, an adaptive ‘stylus’, ‘dictation software such as Dragon Naturally Speaking’ plus ‘noise cancelling microphone’[87]- totalling $1,500[88]
[87] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 70, lines 14 – 34. EB-1, pp. 34-35. Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 30, line 38.
[88] EB-1, A33, was originally a ‘To Be Advised’ amount.
oThermomix at a cost of $2,579[89]
[89] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 30, lines 24-27.
oVela Tango 700 Chair – estimated quote $9,500[90]
[90] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 30, lines 18-21. EB-1, A28.
oUltramatic adjustable electric bed, plus freight - $6,600[91]
[91] EB-1, page 125. Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 31, lines 22-23.
oElectric recliner chair, plus freight- $3,500[92]
[92] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 31, lines 31-34.
oPneumatic compression pump $3,500[93]
(xiii)Hydrotherapy pool - Capital support[94]
(xiv)Short Term Accommodation - request for 28 days per year, core support comprised of:[95]
oMonday to Friday 20 days at $2,098
oSaturday for four days at $2,682
oSundays for four days at $3,396
(xv)‘Reimbursement towards relocation expenses’[96] - CB support.
o$1,500 – removalist cost[97]
o$1,000 – three nights’ accommodation and fuel during travel to Suburb E.[98]
(xvi)Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) - capital support.
[93] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 31, lines 41-44.
[94] EB-1, A28. Original quote $66,918.60.
[95] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 36, lines 26-30. EB-1, p. 188. Note STA was not requested at 25 February 2025. EB-1, A28. Nor at EB-1, A33, at 22 April 2025.
[96] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 39, lines 31-32.
[97] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 42, lines 22-24. Prime removalists. Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 43, line 1.
[98] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 43, lines 35-36.
It was uncontested that RPJJ was granted access to the scheme pursuant to section 24 of the NDIS Act on the basis of psychosocial impairments attributable to MDD and GAD.[99]
[99] EB-2, T5, p. 24.
The Agency contends that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the evidence that the impairments attributable to RPJJ’s ‘other conditions’ at [42] satisfy the statutory criteria in section 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act.
The Agency contends that RPJJ’s ‘requested supports’ for funding of supports at [43] are not reasonable and necessary pursuant to section 34(1) of the NDIS Act.
The Agency contends that the funding for RPJJ’s supports should remain plan-managed as currently listed in RPJJ’s SOPS.
The Tribunal must determine whether RPJJ’s contentions and the requested supports are:
·Reasonable and necessary supports under section 34 of the NDIS Act to justify the spending of public funds; and
·Capable of being funded by the scheme in order to be included in RPJJ’s SOPS in compliance with the relevant scheme criteria and rules.
·Appropriately plan-managed in accordance with the NDIS Act.
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)
I have had regard to the NDIS Act objectives stated in section 3 and the general principles and guiding actions taken under the NDIS Act in section 4. I acknowledge that ‘people with disability have the right to realise their potential for physical, social, emotional and intellectual development.’[100]
[100] Section 4(1) of the NDIS Act.
Section 34 of the NDIS Act sets out what is a ‘reasonable and necessary support’ under the Scheme.
When RPJJ applied to the Tribunal, section 34 of the NDIS Act stated:
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:
(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 most appropriately funded or provided through the NationalDisability Insurance Scheme, and is not more appropriately funded or provided through other general systems of service delivery or support services offered by a person, agency or body, or systems of service delivery or support services offered:
(i) as part of a universal service obligation; or
(ii) in accordance with reasonable adjustments required under a law dealing with discrimination on the basis of disability.
(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)(a) to (f).
However, on 3 October 2024, and also prior to this review the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No 1) Act 2024 (‘Amending Act’) commenced and made ‘amendments’ to the NDIS Act which will apply to RPJJ’s review.[101]
[101] Section 129 Amending Act. NDIS Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No 1) Act 2024.
The amended section 34 of the NDIS Act provides as follows:
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 participantmeets 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 (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 participantmeets 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).
(Tribunal added underlining to emphasise relevant amendments.)The section 34(1) criteria of the NDIS Act are cumulative; therefore, all the criteria must be satisfied. Moreover, the Tribunal must be positively satisfied about each criterion and the Applicant has a ‘common sense onus to adduce sufficient evidence to satisfy the Tribunal that the criteria are met.’[102]
[102] See Beezley v Repatriation Commission (2015) FCAFC 165 at {68}. Per North, Tracey and Mortimer JJ. See also National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF (2020) 276 FCR 415 at [201].
Section 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act imposes an additional criteria requirement. This involves a consideration of whether the support that RPJJ seeks is necessary to address her needs which arise from the impairment/s for which she met the disability requirements under section 24 or the early intervention requirements under section 25 of the NDIS Act.
The ‘previous’ section 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act has been replaced with ‘new’ section 34(1)(f) which requires that the support be a ‘NDIS support.’
Section 10(1) of the NDIS Act provides a definition of what is a ‘NDIS Support’ pursuant to section 34(1)(f) of the amended NDIS Act if the support is declared by the scheme rules to be an ‘NDIS support’. Section 10(4) of the NDIS Act states that the scheme rules may also declare that a support is not an ‘NDIS Support.’ The scheme rules that are relevant to section 10 of the NDIS Act are the Transitional Rules.
In Schedule 1 to the Transitional Rules the NDIS supports are identified, unless otherwise provided pursuant to section 10(1) of the NDIS Act.
In Schedule 2 to the Transitional Rules the supports that are generally not NDIS Supports pursuant to section 10(4) of the NDIS Act are identified.
In considering whether a support is a NDIS support, the requirements have been set out. The Tribunal’s first task is to consider whether the support is not a NDIS support due to operation of Schedule 2 to the Transitional Rules. If the support does not fit within Schedule 2 to the Transitional Rules only then is it necessary for the Tribunal to determine whether the support falls within the scope of Schedule 1 to the Transitional Rules.[103]
[103] FSWN v NDIA [2025] ARTA 114 at [43]. See also Mills v NDIA [2025] 1410 at [48].
There is also the consideration of section 34(2) of the NDIS Act which outlines that the NDIS rules may prescribe methods or criteria to be applied, or matters the CEO must consider, in deciding whether a requested support satisfies the criteria under section 34(1) of the NDIS Act.
Part 2 of the NDIS Act deals with a participants’ plan. Division 2 of Part 2 concerns the preparation of participants’ plans. Section 32(1) imposes a mandatory obligation on the CEO to facilitate the preparation of the participant’s plan. Section 33 of the NDIS Act specifies the matters that must be included in a participant’s plan: the participant’s statement of goals and aspirations; the SOPS; and it may include any additional matters prescribed by NDIS rules.[104] Section 33(2)(d) of the NDIS Act provides that a participant’s SOPS must include a statement regarding the ‘management of the funding for supports under the plan’.
[104] Section 33(1), 33(2) and 33(7) of the NDIS Act.
Section 35 of the NDIS Act allows for rules to be made with respect to the prescription of ‘reasonable and necessary supports’ or ‘general supports’ that will be funded or provided under the scheme.
For RPJJ’s review the relevant rules include the:
·National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (‘Supports Rules’);
·the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016 (‘Access Rules’);
·National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (‘Transitional Rules’);
·Specialist Disability Accommodation Rules; and
·NDIS Amendment (Management of Funding and Plan Management Rules 2025) (‘Plan Management Rules’).
Part 3 of the Supports Rules set out criteria that the Tribunal must consider. Part 5 contains general criteria regarding supports and the supports that will not be funded.
Relevantly in this case, Rules 3 and 5 of the Supports Rules state as follows:
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:
(i) the comparative cost of purchasing or leasing the equipment or modifications; and
(ii) 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).
Effective and beneficial and current good practice
3.2 In deciding whether the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for a participant, having regard to current good practice, the CEO is to consider the available evidence of the effectiveness of the support for others in like circumstances. That evidence may include:
(a) published and refereed literature and any consensus of expert opinion;
(b) the lived experience of the participant or their carers; or
(c) anything the Agency has learnt through delivery of the NDIS.
3.3 In deciding whether the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for a participant, having regard to current good practice, the CEO is to take into account, and if necessary seek, expert opinion.
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.
The Access Rules at Part 5 provide considerations for when a person meets the disability requirements.
In regard to supports rules, Mortimer J (as Her Honour then was) observed in McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency (‘McGarrigle’)[105]:
‘The [supports rules] are an important element of the legislative scheme, introducing the ability to modify the operation of ss 33 and 34 by, for example, excluding certain kinds of supports from inclusion in participant plans. It is through the Rules that the executive is able to implement…some policy decision-making about the nature and extent of supports to be provided or funded.’
[105] McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency [2017] FCA 308 (‘McGarrigle’) [43].
There is no definition of ‘reasonable and necessary’ in the NDIS Act. The Full Court in National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF[106] (‘WRMF’) considered the meaning of reasonable and necessary supports, and stated as follows:
The phrase is a composite phrase. ... each limb of the phrase should be given work to do. That task is not difficult, or complicated with these two particular words, which are readily understood as conveying different meanings. However, the Parliament has chosen to use a composite phrase rather than to stipulate two distinct requirements, and therefore, as Gleeson CJ cautioned in XYZ v Commonwealth [2006] HCA25; (2006) 227 CLR532 at [19], '[t]here are many instances where it is misleading to construe a composite phrase simply by combining the dictionary meanings of its component parts'.
…Both adjectives qualify the noun “support”, but they do so as a composite phrase. It is not fruitful to split them off and consider them separately, just as it is neither fruitful nor appropriate to attempt any exhaustive or authoritative judicial definition of them.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the contextual use of the phrase in this Act links it to public funding to be provided to a participant. In that context, the phrase connotes supports which meet a threshold which justifies - by reference to the context, objects and guiding principles of the Act and the facts of the case - the expenditure of public funds for that support, for a particular participant. As we have already explained, the phrase also needs to be understood taking into account what has qualified a person as a participant, and the links between a person's impairment and their full participation in the community, in the same variety of ways as persons without a disability might choose to participate. (Tribunal emphasis)
[106] National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF [2020] FCAFC 79 (‘WRMF’) [149]-[151].
The Tribunal also needs to consider that the requested supports accommodate the participant’s particular impairments in order for them to be a participating member of the Australian community, in light of the values that are set out in the guiding principles and objects of the NDIS Act.[107]
[107] WRMF [141]. Cited with approval in NDIA v KKTB, by her litigation representative CVY22 [2022] FCAFC 181 [129].
Chapter 3, Part 2, Division 3 of the NDIS Act sets out ‘managing the funding for supports under participants’ plans. Section 42(2) of the NDIS Act lists the alternatives available for participant plan management and lists:
(2) For the purposes of the statement of participant supports in a participant's plan, in specifying the management of the funding for supports under the plan as mentioned in paragraph 32D(2)(f) or 33(2)(d), the plan must specify that such funding is to be managed wholly, or to a specified extent, by:
(a) the participant; or
(b) a registered plan management provider; or
(c) the Agency; or
(d) the plan nominee.
RPJJ’s request is within the meaning of section 43(1)(a) of the NDIS Act and section 43(3) of the NDIS Act is also relevant.
43 Choice for the participant in relation to plan management
(1) A participant for whom a plan is in effect or is being prepared may make a request (a plan management request):
(a) that he or she manage the funding for supports under the plan wholly or to the extent specified in the request;
…
(3) If:
(a) a participant makes a plan management request covered by paragraph (1)(a); and
(b) subsection 44(1) applies in relation to the participant;
the statement of participant supports in the plan must provide for the funding for supports under the plan:
(c) if paragraph 44(1)(a) or (aa) applies—to be wholly managed by the Agency; and
(d) if paragraph 44(1)(b) or (c) applies—to be managed by the Agency to the extent covered by that paragraph.
Relevantly to this decision under review, sections 44(1)(b)(i) and (1)(c) and 44(3) of the NDIS Act state as follows:[108]
[108] Section 43(3) of the NDIS Act.
44 Circumstances in which persons must not manage funding
Participant
(1) For the purposes of paragraph 43(3)(b), this subsection applies in relation to a participant if:
(b) the CEO is satisfied that the participant’s management of the funding for supports under the plan to a particular extent would:
(i) present an unreasonable risk to the participant; or
…
(c) the CEO is satisfied that section 46 (acquittal of NDIS amounts) would be unlikely to be complied with if the participant were to manage the funding for supports under the plan to a particular extent.
…
(3) The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may prescribe criteria the CEO is to apply and matters to which the CEO is, or is not, to have regard in considering whether any of the following would present an unreasonable risk to the participant:
(a) a participant managing the funding for supports under the plan;
(aa) a registered plan management provider managing the funding for supports under the plan;
(b) a plan nominee managing the funding for supports under the plan.
I also refer to:
46 Acquittal of NDIS amounts
Requirement to spend money only on NDIS supports and in accordance with plan
(1) A participant who receives an NDIS amount, or a person who receives an NDIS amount on behalf of a participant:
(a) may spend the money only on NDIS supports for the participant; and
(b) must spend the money in accordance with the participant’s plan (subject to paragraph (a)).
Note 1: A failure to comply with this subsection (including due to the operation of subsection (1A) or (1B)) may lead to a variation of the participant’s plan under section 47A:
(a) to change the management of the funding for supports under the plan (see sections 43 and 74); or
(b) for a new framework plan—to specify a proportion of flexible funding that may be spent only on specified NDIS supports for the participant (or to change such a proportion); or
(c) for any plan—to reduce the duration of funding periods for particular funding under the plan and the amount of funding that will be provided during any particular funding period.
Note 2: See also subsection 182(3) (debts due to the Agency).
Agency’s Operational guidelines
The Agency has issued Operational guidelines in regard to what are considered to be ‘reasonable and necessary supports for participants.’ Unless the Operational guidelines are inconsistent with the provisions or objects of the NDIS legislation, they are to be taken into account[109] in deciding what is a reasonable and necessary support for RPJJ.
[109] See SCHW and National Disability Insurance Agency [2021] AATA 591 [13] where DP Constance referred to Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 2 ALD 634.
I have considered the following NDIS Operational guidelines – ‘reasonable and necessary supports,’ ‘principles we follow to create your plan’, ‘creating your plan,’ ‘your plan’, ‘transport funding,’ Short-Term Accommodation or Respite,’ and NDIA Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits 2024/25.[110]
[110]Operational guidelines: ‘Reasonable and necessary supports’ on 22 September 2024; ‘Principles we follow to create your plan’ on 22 September 2024; and ‘Creating your plan’ on 28 February 2025, Transport Funding on 3 October 2024. Short Term Accommodation or Respite on 24 June 2022. NDIS Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits 2024.25 on 1 October 2024.
EVIDENCE
I have considered all the accepted evidence filed within the accepted time frames provided by the Tribunal, the oral evidence provided at the hearing, and the parties’ closing submissions that pertained to the material covered during the four-day hearing. I will refer in my decision to the most relevant evidence. The fact however that I do not refer to all parts of the evidence does not mean that I have not taken all evidence before the Tribunal into account in reaching my decision.
Evidence about RPJJ
RPJJ previously resided in a regional area of Queensland from 2020 with her two children. The family moved to southeastern Queensland in January 2025 because Ms C was pursuing tertiary studies at F University.
Ms C is 18 years old, and she has provided substantial informal support to both RPJJ and Mr C since 2018, when she was 11 years old, after RPJJ was involved in an accident.[111] Ms C’s statement and conduct at the hearing demonstrated that she has shown persistence, kindness and responsibility in helping her mother and that Ms C has developed skills in time management, adaptability, problem solving skills and a strong work ethic.[112]
[111] EB-1, A20, p. 96.
[112] EB-1, A20.
Ms C’s second statement of 15 January 2025 also indicates that Ms C carried a large load as an informal carer for her mother. The tasks undertaken by Ms C included:[113]
[113] EB-1, A26.
·Typing for RPJJ;
·Preparing medications for RPJJ;
·Brushing RPJJ’s hair;
·Answering RPJJ’s phone;
·Reheating RPJJ’s food;
·Grocery shopping;
·Assisting RPJJ with car transfers;
·Watching RPJJ eat so she does not choke on her food and at times monitoring her sleeping;
·Filling in when support workers are unavailable;
·Helping with her distress, when RPJJ’s hands are numb; and
·Helping with her cognitive fatigue late in the day.
On 24 June 2025 RPJJ stated she was primarily assisted by her daughter Ms C and by funded support workers.
RPJJ advised the Tribunal on 11 August 2025 that on 7 July 2025, she and her children had moved to L Street in suburb E.[114]
[114] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 15, lines 35-37.
On 11 August 2025, RPJJ read into evidence[115]
·Ms C’s ‘notice of withdrawal’ as the primary and informal carer for RPJJ with effect from 9 July 2025.[116]
·RPJJ explained ‘it is an unsustainable situation for Ms C...’[117] as Ms C is ‘completely burnt out and exhausted.’[118] RPJJ noted her daughter, had fallen and broken her toe and suffers in her social life and has not had opportunity to make friends at all.
[115] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 20, lines 37-8. CoC#1.
[116] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 74, lines 8-12. BAFM, document 17, p. 139 of 204 pages.
[117] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 75, lines 1-20.
[118] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 26, lines 26-43. BAFM, p. 165.
I refer to Ms C’s 30 October 2024 ‘statement’[119] and the 15 January 2025 carer statement[120] in full. I accept Ms C’s statements and find that she has admirably and consistently cared for her mother and brother for many years. I acknowledge Ms C’s:
·Visible care and support she provided to RPJJ at the hearing. It was apparent there was a relationship of love, kindness and trust between mother and daughter during the hearing.[121]
·Long term informal carer role for both RPJJ and her brother.
·Written statement that she is no longer an informal carer her mother and brother from 9 July 2025 due to exhaustion.[122]
[119] EB-1, pages 93-94.
[120] EB-1, pages 109-110.
[121] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 39, lines 3-5.
[122] COC1.
RPJJ identified eleven goals in her NDIS plan at the hearing:[123]
[123] Filed 22 April 2025 NDIS Schedule of support. EB-1, pp. 179-190. In particular, p. 184. Transcript, 24 June 2025, pp. 45-46, lines 17- 47. Lines 1- 10.
·To increase my ability to live independently;
·To obtain SDA with fully accessible features so that I can live independently and safely with my family/supports;
·To increase opportunities to experience enjoyment and increase capacity for enjoyment;
·To increase opportunities and capacity to learn new fun/engaging/skill development activities;
·To increase opportunities and capacity to make new friends and social activities;
·To increase opportunities and capacity to establish friends and support network;
·To increase opportunities and capacity to improve overall health and wellbeing (fitness, mental health) by access to a home hydrotherapy pool so I can undertake hydrotherapy program (independently and regularly at home) and engage in daily exercise program (independently and regularly at home);
·To identify and support my special interest areas;[124]
·To obtain assistance in putting in place proper and timely supports to decrease further nerve damage to my fingers and palms and other injuries (falls or burns);[125]
·To support opportunities for normalising immediate family relationships between mother and daughter, mother and son and son and daughter so caring roles are not the defining feature of the relationship;[126]
·To put in place supports to help us transition roles.[127]
[124] Transcript 24 June 2025, p. 47, lines 44-45.
[125] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 48, lines 34-37.
[126] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 49, lines 4-26.
[127] Transcript, 24 June 2025, pp. 50-51, lines 37-47, lines 1-4.
RPJJ’s impairments
RPJJ contended that she relies on the report of Dr Nicholas Teo, dated 13 September 2024[128] to confirm her diagnoses of lipoedema and lymphoedema.
[128] EB-1, p. 87.
When asked about her impairments RPJJ stated ‘I think SFPN is my primary and my severe anxiety and depression are secondary.’[129] ‘NDIA accepted my SFPN in December 2023 there is a lot of physical impairment in terms of balance and other things.[130] ‘Also the swelling and the lymph and multiple other things now are a result of the SFPN.’[131] RPJJ stated:
‘I wanted to provide this evidence from Google that shows…small fibre also impacts your automated system, so for instance, your breathing, your temperature, your blood pressure, your heartbeat. So there’s other things that mightn’t – it’s not just in your feet, it’s in the whole of your body. And for me, in my circumstance was that it started off prior to 2018. It was diagnosed in 2018 but it started up before that. And it started with numbness in my big toe. And then it moved into the soles of my feet, and I ended up with burning feet. And then the numbness, the tingling. The altered sensation, which is very, very important. It’s not the pain, it’s the altered sensation, it started affecting my balance.’[132] ‘my feet are ‘numb and cold most of the time.’[133] ‘I have a tremor in my arms and I don’t eat with my family because it is embarrassing if I choke on my food.[134]
[129] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 54, lines 6-9.
[130] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 54, lines 17-18.
[131] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 54, lines 22-23.
[132] Transcript, 24 June 2025, pp. 54-55, lines 44 – 47, lines 1-9.
[133] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 56, lines 37-38.
[134] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 63, lines 1-3.
RPJJ spoke to the information she compiled about SFPN[135] stating it is ‘relatively rare’ and the sensory issues and the automated systems, people aren’t so aware of it…so ‘we have to try and educate people, like my plan manager’.’[136] ‘Fifty percent is idiopathic and there’s nothing in conventional medicine that can be done.’[137] RPJJ also contended that she feels dizzy and is fatigued and has low blood pressure and low heart beat due to the ‘5 stages of neuropathy.’[138]
[135] EB-4. See also EB-2, T13.
[136] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 31, lines 13 – 27.
[137] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 32, lines 10 – 17.
[138] BAFM, pp. 196, 200.
RPJJ contended these conditions should be accepted by the Agency because she ‘did not receive Agency funds for her diagnosis of SFPN.’[139]
[139] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 65, lines 2–15.
RPJJ stated that she started walking with hiking poles around 2016 because ‘they can go longer than a walking stick and I can [use them] in that same fashion’[140] and RPJJ uses her Four Wheeled Walker (4WW).[141]
[140] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 55, lines 13 – 25.
[141] Transcript, 24 June 2025, pp. 55-56, lines 31 – 46, lines 1- 5.
Regarding the hiking poles and 4WW RPJJ is able to
·Use the equipment to attend a shopping centre
·Stand up and sit down with the equipment for support
·Use the 4WW to sit on as she ‘can’t stand up for very long.[142]
[142] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 56, line 5.
RPJJ is able to
·Toilet herself.
·Eat, albeit her support worker may cut up the food to smaller amounts.[143]
·Independently transfer as RPJJ stated that her support workers do not help with transferring in or out of chairs or in and out of bed.[144]
·Make decisions about her money and banking, albeit she receives assistance with research from her support workers.[145]
·Her daughter helps her dress.
·Independently bathe, however, her children ‘listen out’ in case she falls.[146]
[143] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 79, lines 30-37.
[144] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 78, lines 46-47.
[145] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 79, lines 1-3.
[146] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 80 lines 5-9.
RPJJ described a ‘typical’ day as:[147]
[147] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 57, lines 21-47, p. 58, lines 1-4.
·Waking around 7am.
·‘Getting dressed is normal’.
·‘Maybe spending three, four or five hours in the home office’ undertaking life administration work which includes:
oOrganising cash flow funding;
oOrganising the warranty claim for her son’s 2.5-year-old bed that had a manufacturing default;
oOrganising the ‘warranty as her son’s phone was dropped’;
oOrganising insurance claims from cyclone X as there was damage to sewerage, septic carpets and mould on the walls;
oTrying to arrange to get a support coordinator; and
oOrganising her son’s medical and pathology appointments, perhaps every four to five days and we attend these ‘98% of the time with a support worker.’[148]
·Sometimes attending the local pool. RPJJ noted she:
oIs not attending the pool because ‘I am almost a complete write off for the whole of the day.’[149]
oIs suffering very badly [if she doesn’t go to the pool] ‘and then my arms go to sleep more…and it wakes me up multiple times a night.’
oLater RPJJ stated ‘we went to the pool recently on Sunday.’[150]
·Eating her meals separate from the family;[151]
·Watching television for an hour or two at night.[152]
[148] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 59, lines 4-7. Page 64, lines 39-41.
[149] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 59, lines 23 – 31.
[150] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 59 lines 33-39.
[151] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 63, lines 1-3.
[152] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 64, lines 3-5.
RPJJ did explain she had attended, a house inspection and she was hopeful she would obtain a three-year lease [on another property].[153]
[153] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 64, lines 13-14.
RPJJ sent in 37 pages of photographs[154] to provide images to the Tribunal of:
[154] EB-7, Annexure A.
·Her hand;
·A hire ‘wheelie walker’;
·Her fingers after an accident;
·‘Bruising on my hand’;
·‘Painful arm areas from lipoedema removal’;
·Marking on her thumb, from using a stencil with the phone;[155]
·Blisters on her fingers;
·Finger creases and black marks;
·‘Zip line’ or face marks upon waking in the morning;[156]
·Lumps on her legs that feel like bee stings;[157]
·Fluid retention in feet, ‘I may need amputation’;[158]
·Toenail issues.[159]
[155] Transcript, 26 June 2025, pp. 24 – 25, lines 41-47, lines 1 -
[156] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 27, lines 1-45.
[157] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 28, lines 12 – 14.
[158] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 28, lines 15-17.
[159] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 29, lines 5 – 8.
RPJJ provided some of her work and life history. She stated she ‘had capacity to self-manage’ her plan as she had the following experience as a person who has:[160]
[160] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 33, lines 21 – 47. Page 34, lines 1 – 47.
·Worked with honesty and integrity;
·Qualifications from a teacher’s college;
·A Bachelor of Communications degree;
·An Advanced Certificate in Business Management;
·Completed part of a law degree;
·Previously worked in financial management, managing large amounts of money;
·Travelled extensively overseas;
·Used excel spreadsheets to manage family finances;[161]
·Managed her own bank account and financial affairs;[162]
·Worked for a local council and invested funds; and
·Conducted her own business.
[161] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 37, lines 8 – 29.
[162] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 36, lines 6 – 10.
RPJJ last reported working in 2009[163] and she currently receives a Centrelink pension.[164]
Issue number two – 16 requested supports
Supports number 1 – 3
[163] EB-2, T5.
[164] EB2, T6.
Support number 1 - Monday – Friday support worker at house 7:30-4pm each day.
RPJJ outlined that support workers usually attend her home from Monday to Friday from around 7:30am until 4pm[165] and clarified support worker ‘S’ helps with domestic tasks and sometimes works three days a week and support worker ‘T’ helps with ‘office stuff and works around three days a week.’[166] RPJJ noted:
·‘They are supposed to attend every day but sometimes it is only three out of four days.
·Support worker ‘S’ used to assist me four days from 8am – 3pm. Now it is two days a week. She does not work Mondays and Wednesdays now.
·‘T’ he works 10am-2pm for three days a week because he is at uni studying. He helps with receipts and my insurance claims with four companies that have not paid me. I focus on my son’s medical stuff, and I try do detailed cash flows.’[167]
[165] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 75, lines 26-32.
[166] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 77, lines 10-19. P. 78, lines 26-32.
[167] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 58, lines 6-23.
RPJJ’s requests support worker assistance with the following:[168]
[168] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 56, lines 25-38.
·Shopping;
·Any meal preparation at all;
·Cooking;
·Dressing: ‘my daughter has helped me previously. S may set up clothes on the bed for me;’
·House Cleaning;[169]
·Laundry;
·‘Help to communicate with my son’;
·Transport and going places ‘so I’m not driving because of my hands’. RPJJ has decided not to drive anymore;[170]
·Having doors opened for her;
·Helping her to remember things;
·Helping her with research ‘they help me find the mower man and find swimmers for Mr C’;
·Taking the dog to get washed, nails clipped and to the vet; and
·‘Transporting me to appointments each week with the GP and specialists’/
[169] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 75, lines 40-45. P. 76, lines 28-35.
[170] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 91, lines 42-47. See also T2, T5, p. 33. RPJJ has a drivers licence but stated she does not drive now. T2, T7, T10,
RPJJ is independent in the following areas, and she stated that neither S nor T help her with:
·Transfers out of bed or chairs;
·Toileting;
·Bathing; and
·Banking.
Support number 2 -Saturday support worker assistance
RPJJ stated there is a problem with the availability of support workers and her funding and that she would like to address the following issues:
·‘We have tried to get a Saturday support worker, and it has not worked because I am so absolutely exhausted on Saturday that things don’t actually happen.’[171]
·‘Maybe once a month we have a support worker on a Saturday and Sunday.’[172]
·‘I want to attend the markets.’[173]
·‘I want help get up as I am at a really high risk of a fall and for someone to get my purse, my jumper, put the walker in the car, pick up things I drop, make phone calls, find the library.’[174]
·‘I want help me with organisation for going places – help me with the kids. My ambition is not to spend Saturday in bed but to have something to do.’[175]
·‘I can’t do things due to risk of fall. I want an interest or hobby – something I enjoy doing on the weekend.’
·‘I need a support worker to help me get up and have breakfast – help to get ready’
·‘I want to look after my health.’
·‘I want to use Saturday hours to attend church or to be involved in scouts for her son and daughter.’[176]
[171] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 75, lines 34-37.
[172] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 76, lines 7 – 41.
[173] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 80, lines 2-4.
[174] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 82, lines 5 – 45.
[175] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 83, lines 15-41.
[176] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 81, lines 7 – 43.
Support number 3 - Sunday support worker assistance
RPJJ stated on Sunday there is infrequently a support worker – maybe once a month. RPJJ would like activities for her children ‘to get out and do something’.
Support number 4 -Occupational Therapy (OT)
RPJJ stated that she has not attended ongoing occupational therapy treatment at Suburb A where she lived for 4.5 years[177] or in Suburb E.[178] RPJJ stated the occupational therapist who she consulted [in Suburb A] did assessments and made recommendations. However, they ‘did not teach strategies about improving the way [RPJJ] does things or modifying the way she did things.’[179]
[177] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 91, line 5.
[178] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 90, line 1-2. P. 90, lines 39-47.
[179] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 91, lines 7-10.
RPJJ seeks ‘a one-off amount of 89 hours of occupational therapy funding for the purpose of producing a report about home modifications or to assist with the design of SDA accommodation.’[180]
[180] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 92, lines 6-9.
Support number 5 -Psychology
RPJJ consults Dr Colston, psychologist once a week on telehealth.[181] RPJJ seeks 57 hours of psychology funding which is 48 hours of psychology support, and ‘six hours of support for the support workers as a conduit’ and three hours for report writing.[182]
[181] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p, 96, lines 5-6.
[182] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 94, lines 5-7. EB-1, pp. 187-188.
I refer to the NDIS Pricing Arrangements which[452]
…provide integrated support for self-care, accommodation, food and activities in a centre or group residence for short periods…[for] participants [who] may require temporary comprehensive supports that are different from their usual arrangements…and may include a period of respite, which aims to support ongoing caring arrangements between participants and their carers. STA/respite allows the opportunity for the participant to be supported by someone else whilst providing their carer with short term breaks from their usual caring responsibilities.
[452] NDIS Pricing Arrangements page 47.
The Operational guideline ‘Short-Term Accommodation or Respite’ outlines that STA, including respite, is a funded support for a time when a participant needs to live out of home for a short period and may be used for respite to support the participant and the participant’s carers. The purpose is to give carers a break from their caring role and to allow the participant an opportunity to try new things or develop skills or make new friends. The guidelines also note that STA is ‘not for holidays.’
I accept the Agency contentions that the primary purpose of STA is for situations where the participant or informal carer need to be away from the usual living arrangements for a ‘transient period of time’ for reasons such as respite or giving informal carers a break. I find that developing skills and making new friends are of an ancillary benefit because there are other supports available to RPJJ to develop social relationships through assistance in accessing social and recreational activities and through occupational therapy and psychological supports.
I accept Ms Houston’s oral evidence[453] and the Agency submissions that ‘the use of STA is not relevant to support [RPJJ] to increase her function or meet her NDIS goals’.[454] This is because I find that RPJJ has access to other supports such as psychology which assists RPJJ in managing her parenting responsibilities.[455]
[453] EB-1, p. 243.
[454] Pursuant to section 34(1)(b) of the NDIS Act.
[455] Agency closing submissions, p. 28 at [120].
I accept the Agency submissions that RPJJ’s evidence indicates her primary use of STA has been for family holidays and as a temporary shelter from a potential natural disaster. I find that when used for either of these purposes the STA support is not a NDIS support pursuant to section 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act.
I accept the Agency submissions that RPJJ may require respite as a primary carer for Mr C as he lives with his own disability. This STA is more appropriately funded through Mr C’s NDIS plan and SOPS. I find that section 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act requires that the support for RPJJ be necessary to meet RPJJ’s needs arising from her impairments. Therefore, STA cannot be funded as a NDIS support for RPJJ by reason of her son’s disability.[456]
[456] Agency closing submissions, pp 28-29.
Between day three and four of the hearing, RPJJ lodged Ms C’s signed ‘Notice of Withdrawal from NDIS caring role.’ I acknowledge that from 9 July 2025 Ms C was no longer an informal carer for RPJJ nor Mr C. RPJJ also stated that Ms C’s withdrawal as her informal carer was one of the change of circumstances forms.[457] RPJJ was asked about this. Despite these questions, it remained unclear as to why the withdrawal notice had been provided at this juncture and how it had impacted RPJJ.
[457] BAFM, document 12, p. 68 of 204.
I cannot be satisfied that RPJJ’s requested support for STA is directed at improving the capacity of Ms C as an informal carer or providing Ms C with respite from her caring role as she is no longer undertaking this role. Therefore, STA would not serve a purpose in providing Ms C with respite.
On the evidence I cannot be satisfied that the cost of STA represents value for money pursuant to section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act because it is unclear what benefits are to be achieved and against which criteria to weigh the value for money requirements given the evidence noted above. It is not necessary for me to proceed to consideration of the remaining mandatory criteria under section 34(1) of the NDIS Act.
The requested STA support, therefore, cannot be included in RPJJ’s SOPS as a ‘reasonable and necessary’ support.
Support 15 relocation expenses CB support
RPJJ seeks reimbursement for past expenses incurred by reason of her move from Suburb A to Suburb E.
RPJJ stated the costs were:[458]
·Removalist costs totalling $1,500.00.
·Accommodation and fuel travelling from Suburb A to Suburb E.
[458] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 43, lines 34-36.
I do not accept RPJJ’s contentions on the fourth day of the hearing that ‘she could submit this documentation at a later date’[459] and that she had submitted ‘all receipts.’[460] RPJJ was put on notice that the Agency made a call for receipts relating to this requested support.[461] I am satisfied that counsel for the Agency explained what a call meant for RPJJ and that it must be answered. RPJJ did not produce any further receipts.[462]
[459] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 21, lines 5-9.
[460] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 46, lines 26 ff.
[461] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 48, line 43.
[462] Agency closing submissions, p. 30, at [131].
The Agency Operational guidelines for Home Modifications explain that:
Usually, we won’t fund the costs of moving house, unless we decide it’s value for money and it’s the most effective way to meet your disability support needs. This is because everyone has to pay moving costs, whether or not they have a disability.[463]
[463] NDIS Operational guideline Home modifications, 4 June 2025.
I am not satisfied on the evidence that RPJJ has provided the receipts for the purpose of funding this requested support. It was unclear why they were not provided. Therefore, I cannot be satisfied on the evidence that there is any expense to reimburse.
I cannot be satisfied that RPJJ has particularised the specific items that she seeks, and it is not known whether those items are able to meet the criteria pursuant to section34(1) of the NDIS Act.
I note that with respect to the fuel and accommodation expenses in the form of temporary housing while moving home that this is not a NDIS support:
·Fuel is excluded by schedule 2, ‘day-to-day living costs – travel and transport’ item 6 (h) (petrol); and
·Accommodation is excluded by item 19, (b) ‘Housing and community infrastructure’ housing for people with disability, other than participants eligible for specialist disability accommodation.’
The requested relocation costs support cannot be funded as these are not NDIS supports pursuant to section 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act therefore they cannot be included in RPJJ’s SOPS.
Support 16 – SDA capital support
Ms B’s assessment of RPJJ took place at D Street on 31 March 2025.[464] RPJJ relied on Ms B’s ‘Home and Living Suitability Report’ dated 21 April 2025 to support her application for SDA.[465] Ms B was not available to give evidence.
[464] EB-1, p. 158.
[465] EB-1, p. 156.
I note that RPJJ negotiated and signed a new three-year lease with special conditions in the tenancy agreement from the landlord to install a hydrotherapy pool. RPJJ also moved to the L Street property in Suburb E after 26 June 2025.[466]
[466] Addendum A to RPJJ’s tenancy agreement.
RPJJ contends she is eligible for SDA and that it is a reasonable and necessary support for her pursuant to section 34(1) of the NDIS Act.
SDA is defined as follows:[467]
accommodation for a person who requires specialist housing solutions, including to assist with the delivery of supports that cater for the person’s extreme functional impairment or very high support needs.
[467] National Disability Insurance Scheme (Specialist Disability Accommodation) Rules 2020 (Cth) r 5.
The issues before the Tribunal regarding SDA are as follows:
·Firstly, whether RPJJ is ‘eligible’ for SDA under rule 11[468] of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Specialist Disability Accommodation) Rules 2020 (Cth) (SDA Rules) and in consideration of the Operational guideline (Specialist Disability Accommodation);
·Secondly, on the basis that RPJJ is ‘eligible,’ whether SDA is a ‘reasonable and necessary support’ for RPJJ under section 34 of the NDIS Act; and
· Thirdly, on the basis that RPJJ is ‘eligible’ for SDA, and it is also a ‘reasonable and necessary support’ for her, whether the following features of SDA are most appropriate for what RPJJ seeks under Rule 15 of the SDA Rules which is:
oBuilding Type:[469] a three-bedroom separate dwelling;[470]
oDesign Category:[471] Accessible, robust design;
oLocation:[472] In ‘suburb E.’
[468] See also SDA rules s 10 this describes the purpose of part 2 of the rules under the heading ‘eligibility to receive support for SDA.
[469] Section 15 and 16 SDA Rules.
[470] EB-1, p.
[471] Section 17 SDA Rules.
[472] Section 18 SDA Rules.
The Agency contends that RPJJ is not eligible for SDA pursuant to the SDA Rules and that it is not a reasonable and necessary support for her pursuant to the statutory scheme.
Section 11 of the SDA Rules states: (Tribunal underlining for emphasis)
Eligibility to receive support for specialist disability accommodation
A participant is eligible to receive support for specialist disability accommodation under the National Disability Insurance Scheme if the CEO is satisfied that:
(b) The participant:
(i)has an extreme functional impairment (see section 12); or
(ii)has very high support needs (see section 13); and
(c) the participant meets the SDA needs requirement (see section 14).
I accept the Agency closing submissions that even if I accept Ms B’s assessment and conclusions in part C[473] of her report about RPJJ’s functional impairments the conclusions that Ms B has given do not satisfy me that RPJJ has either an ‘extreme functional impairment’ or has ‘very high support needs’ pursuant to either section 11(a) or 11(b) of the SDA Rules.
[473] EB-1, pp. 164-169.
I do not accept Ms B’s assessment that RPJJ ‘has a primary diagnosis of SFPN’ as the evidence does not bear this out. RPJJ was granted access to the scheme for psychosocial impairment. There is limited probative evidence before the Tribunal to positively satisfy me that RPJJ’s impairments from SFPN or lipoedema or lymphoedema satisfy the criteria in section 24(1)(c) of the NDIS Act. I do not accept Ms B’s conclusions. Ms B was not available to provide evidence.[474]
[474] EB-1, A31.
I am not satisfied on the evidence that RPJJ experiences:
·‘An extremely reduced functional capacity’ in the activities of mobility, self-care or self-management pursuant to section 12(1)(a) of the SDA Rules;
·A ‘very high need’ for person-to-person supports in undertaking the activities of mobility, self-care or self-management pursuant to section 12(1)(b) of the SDA Rules;
·A ‘very high need’ for person-to-person supports either immediately available or constant, for a significant part of the day pursuant to section 13(1)(b) of the SDA Rules. I note that section 13(1)(a) of the SDA Rules is not relevant as RPJJ has never previously lived in SDA.
I find that Ms B’s report does not provide sufficient supporting evidence to demonstrate RPJJ’s ‘extreme functional incapacity’ eligibility criterion in section 11 and 12 of the SDA Rules. Examples of this include:
·Ms B explains that RPJJ receives 6 hours of support worker assistance for five days per week and ‘heavy support’ from Ms C;[475]
·Ms B explains ‘very high need’ for person-to-person supports as assistance with access to the community (this was not linked to mobility) I note Ms B also refers to matters such as ‘keyboard typing’;
·Ms B did not set out her opinion about the role of AT, equipment, or home modifications for RPJJ as required by section 12 of the SDA Rules.
[475] EB-1, A32.
I note the decision of Burrows and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 607 (‘Burrows’) where I accept SM French’s analysis that tasks such as domestic cleaning may not be considered as part of ‘self-care’.[476]
[476] Burrows at [90].
I accept the Agency submission that the description of the activity of ‘self-care’ in the SDA rules should be interpreted in a way that is consistent with section 24(1)(c) of the NDIS Act given that the extreme functional impairment criterion is imported from the language in section 24(1)(c) of the NDIS Act.[477]
[477] EB-1, p. 273 at [81].
I find that RPJJ is able to use the following AT including:
·Mobilising with an Airgo Fusion four wheeled walker;[478]
·Using a tipping jug;
·Using nonslip mats;
·Mobilising with two trekking poles used for shorter distances;
·Using food container ware with more ‘user friendly’ lids.
[478] EB-1, p. 164.
RPJJ’s own evidence, which I accept was that she does not have ‘grab bars’ in her current bathroom and that she is able to transfer herself to toilet and to bathe.
I find that since 9 July 2025 RPJJ does not have an informal carer.[479] Counsel for the Agency asked RPJJ about the context for this situation. RPJJ did not answer the question, though it was asked multiple times, and RPJJ did not answer when asked to describe the difference in care arrangements before 9 July 2025 and after 9 July 2025.[480]
[479] BAFM, document 17, p. 139.
[480] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 71, line 19. P. 75. Lines 4-25. See also Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 75, lines 32 ff.
I am not satisfied on the evidence that RPJJ provided regarding how she uses her funded support worker supports. This was highly relevant to the SDA Rules relating to a participant’s need for person-to-person supports.[481]
[481] SDA rules, ss 11(a)(ii) and 13(1)(b) in the ‘very high support needs’ criterion.
I cannot be satisfied on the evidence in Ms B’s report. This report did not consider whether modifications or low-cost modification could remedy any potential accessibility issues in RPJJ’s previous or current rental property.
Pursuant to section 34(2) of the NDIS Act I find that as RPJJ does not meet the criteria in the SDA Rules within the meaning given in section 11 of the SDA Rules then RPJJ is not a participant who is likely to have this support stated in her plan.[482]
[482] Transitional Supports Rules, clause 1, schedule 1, item 29, column 3.
I cannot be satisfied on the evidence that SDA is a NDIS support for RPJJ within the meaning of section 10 of the NDIS Act in order to satisfy section 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act. This is in light of section 10(4) of the NDIS Act as expressed in the Transitional Supports Rules, at item 19, paragraph (b).
I also note the Operational guidelines where it is expressed that ‘other government and community services are responsible for providing housing and accommodation if you don’t need specialist disability accommodation for your disability support needs. They need to make sure you have access to accessible, affordable and appropriate housing, including social housing.’[483]
[483] Operational guidelines, SDA, p. 8.
In conclusion for issue number two, for the reasons outlined above, I find that none of the 16 requested supports that RPJJ seeks can be specified in RPJJ’s SOPS. This is because they are not reasonable and necessary supports pursuant to section 34(1) of the NDIS Act. Therefore, they cannot be funded under the scheme.
Issue number three - Plan management
RPJJ’s current SOPS indicates that her core supports, and capacity building supports budget are ‘plan-managed’ pursuant to section 42(2) of the NDIS Act.
RPJJ seeks to have this changed to ‘self-management’ pursuant to section 43(1)(a) of the NDIS Act.
The Agency contends that RPJJ’s SOPS should remain plan-managed due to the history of RPJJ’s previous plan management decisions.
RPJJ contended that she was ‘flexibly’ using her funded core supports such as her support worker supports on STA funding. I accept that core supports have flexibility in use because participants may need to use their respective supports flexibly at times. However, I do not accept that RPJJ has used her core supports funding for supports for which she was funded.
I find that RPJJ’s responses to questions about her plan overspend were unclear. This was despite RPJJ being taken to her current plan breakdown.[484] Two examples were when RPJJ was unable to clarify:
·Why her core supports in the social and community participation funding had been used at the amount of 89% of the plan at the date of 11 August 2025. It was unclear why this had occurred after only 4 months had passed into the current 12-month plan duration.
·Why RPJJ’s plan identified that she had used her funded supports on six paid and one attempted but subsequently rejected line items between the dates of 1 December 2023 and 15 August 2024.[485] RPJJ also confirmed she was not currently funded for transport.
[484] EB-12. Plan 26 April 2024 – 26 April 2026.
[485] EB-13, claim line items with 7 rows of line items. Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 86, lines 4 – 25.
I accept the Agency’s submission that STA was not a funded support for RPJJ.[486] When RPJJ’s plan had no provision for STA funding, RPJJ incurred $29,140.57 on STA funding over the Christmas period of December 2023/January 2024 comprised of:
·An 11-day stay at Property P at a cost of $28,008.50;
·A 4-day stay with a different STA provider in late January 2024 at a cost of $1,132.07.[487]
[486] EB-5, the auto extended plan following the 17 November 2023 remittal by the AAT.
[487] EB-1, p. 275.
Under section 33(2)(d) of the NDIS Act a participant’s SOPS is to specify the management of the funding for the support under the plan, that is whether such funding is to be ‘self-managed’, ‘plan-managed or ‘Agency-managed’.
The Agency submitted that RPJJ’s self-management of her funds presented an unreasonable risk to her that would result in section 46 of the NDIS Act regarding the acquittal of NDIS amounts not being complied with pursuant to section 44(1)(c) of the NDIS Act.
RPJJ’s 5 December 2022 plan pursuant to section 33(2)(d) of the NDIS Act[488] specified that the management of the funding for the supports in RPJJ’s plan would be Agency-managed. RPJJ received 40 hours of support coordination services to provide education regarding the use of NDIS funding in line with the impairments for which RPJJ met access to the scheme.
[488] Read with the provisions in chapter 3, part 2, division 3 of the NDIS Act, in particular section 42(2)(c) of the NDIS Act.
As part of RPJJ’s internal review decision request of 16 December 2022,[489] RPJJ sought the management of her funding for supports be changed from Agency-managed to plan-managed.[490] The internal review decision dated 25 January 2023 confirmed that the funding should remain Agency-managed. The delegate reasoned that:
‘2022 invoices display that supports provided within the plan have not been used in the manner they were intended and not been used for your disability related needs and significant appliances, tennis coaching, pet grooming, fuel, home repairs and school uniforms. A support coordinator can provide education around what is the responsibility of the NDIS to fund and what represents an everyday cost. Previously, 12 months of plan funding has been spend in 4 months. This presents an unreasonable risk to you. The plan is 12 months in duration, so that you can have more frequent reassessment meetings where plan management changes can be considered.’
[489] T23.
[490] Section 42(2)(b) of the NDIS Act.
RPJJ applied to this Tribunal on 21 February 2023 and requested funding for supports and that her core supports budget be self-managed. On 2 August 2023, RPJJ lodged a certificate of achievement in relation to a course on self-management of NDIS funding.
The 12-month interim plan was issued on 17 November 2023 pursuant to a remittal under section 42D of the AAT ACT.[491] RPJJ’s core supports budget became self-managed and RPJJ requested a further replenishment of funds in relation to her core supports budget during the Tribunal proceedings.
[491] 19 October 2023 and 20 October 2023
On 13 April 2024 the Agency provided an interim budget replenishment of a six-month pro-rata duplication of RPJJ’s current plan plus any additional capacity building supports and that RPJJ’s core supports budget would be plan-managed to ensure RPJJ had flexibility to access unregistered providers.
At this time the Agency concerns were that RPJJ was:
·Approximately 40% of the way through the budget year of 17 November 2023 to 17 November 2024 with 98% of core supports budget used.
·Invoices received by the Agency had raised concerns regarding RPJJ’s ability to appropriately plan and budget her core supports funding to ensure funds were expended in accordance with RPJJ’s NDIS plan, including across the duration of the plan.
I find that RPJJ spent the following amounts as invoiced:
·$28,008.50 to STA Provider O dated 1 December 2023 for STA and Assistance from 25 December 2023 to 4 January 2024.
·$460.76 to Wild Earth dated 28 December 2024 for men’s hiking shoes, women’s socks, men’s socks and trekking hiking poles.[492]
·$1,132.07 to ‘Modern Cottage with Spa’ dated 25 January 2024 in relation to an entire holiday home two-bedroom house from 26 January to 29 January 2024.[493]
·$2,200 to V Provider dated 2 February 2024 for the cost to supply men and machines to finish doing trees and clean up around yard.[494]
[492] EB-1, R1, p. 199.
[493] EB-1, R1, p. 196.
[494] EB-1, R1, p.
On 26 April 2024 RPJJ’s plan was replenished to provide RPJJ with core supports funding on a plan-managed basis to ensure continuity of funding during the Tribunal proceedings.
Section 43 of the NDIS Act indicates the Agency is not obliged to give effect if any of the matters specified in section 43(2A) to 43(6) of the NDIS Act exist.
Sections 43(1), (1)(a) (3) and also sections 44 and 46 are set out in full at [72]-[74] under the heading of the legal framework.
On 13 December 2024, the Minister produced the Funding Management Rules. The version of the Rules which apply in this review commenced on 4 March 2025.[495] I accept the Agency submissions that many of the matters prescribed in the Funding Management Rules mirror pre-existing criteria that were specified in the repealed NDIS Plan Management Rules 2013 (Cth).[496]
[495] See the NDIS Amendment Management of Funding and plan management rules 2025 rule 2, to the table, item 1 (the Amendment Rules were made on 27 February 2025 and were registered on 3 March 2025.
[496] EB-1, p. 277.
The Agency raised concerns that RPJJ’s previous expenditure was not aligned with RPJJ’s SOPS plan. I refer to section 46 of the NDIS Act.
46 Acquittal of NDIS amounts
Requirement to spend money only on NDIS supports and in accordance with plan
(1) A participant who receives an NDIS amount, or a person who receives an NDIS amount on behalf of a participant:
(a)may spend the money only on NDIS supports for the participant; and
(b)must spend the money in accordance with the participant’s plan (subject to paragraph (a)).
I am not satisfied that RPJJ’s funding for supports would be spent in accordance with her plan or managed appropriately for the duration of the plan. I find that the safeguards implemented by the Agency to mitigate against the risk of RPJJ expending her funding for supports otherwise than in accordance with her plan are appropriate based on the evidence.[497] Rule 6(2)(a) of the Plan Management Rules states:
[497] Funding Management Rules, rule 6(2)(a).
Part 3—Unreasonable risk
6 Considering whether there is an unreasonable risk to the participant—matters to which the CEO must, and must not, have regard
(1) This section is made for the purposes of subsections 44(3) of the Act and 74(6) of the Act.
Matters to which the CEO must have regard – participant
(2) The following are matters to which the CEO must have regard in considering, for the purposes of subsection 44(1) of the Act, whether a participant’s management of the funding for supports under a plan to a particular extent would present an unreasonable risk to the participant:
(a) whether, and the extent to which, any identified risk could be mitigated by:
(i) particular supports, safeguards or strategies that are, or will be, included in the participant’s statement of participant supports to which the plan management request relates;
(ii) any informal, community or mainstream supports that the participant has in place;
…
(e) the participant’s ability or capacity to make decisions or to appropriately manage finances, taking into account any support or assistance the participant is likely to receive to do so;
I note that the Agency has provided RPJJ with funding for support coordination services to provide education regarding the use of NDIS funding and RPJJ was provided with an opportunity to self-manage the core supports budget in her interim plan dated 17 November 2023 and then in RPJJ’s interim plan dated 22 November 2023.
I find that despite these safeguards and strategies there was a significant amount of expenditure made that was not in accordance with the SOPS that continued to occur. I am satisfied that the evidence demonstrates there is a risk to RPJJ’s capacity to appropriately manage her supports funding pursuant to rule 6(2)(e) of the Funding Management Rules.
I note that the over expenditure set out above has not been repeated since 26 April 2024 which was the date when RPJJ’s funding returned to being plan-managed. I am satisfied that RPJJ’s plan should remain plan-managed at this stage.
I find that section 44(1)(c) of the NDIS applies as when read in conjunction with section 46(1) of the NDIS Act it requires RPJJ to acquit NDIS amounts by:
·Spending money provided by way of funding only for NDIS supports; and[498]
·Spending money in accordance with RPJJ’s plan.[499]
[498] Section 46(1)(a) of the NDIS Act.
[499] Section 46(1)(b) of the NDIS Act.
Based on the evidence, I am satisfied:
·There is a risk that RPJJ may not comply with section 46(1) of the NDIS Act if she were to self-manage her funding.[500]
·A plan manager is the ‘minimum safeguard that should be implemented.’
·The oversight of a plan manager may be able to assist RPJJ in utilising her core supports flexibly.[501]
[500] Rule 6(2)(a) of the Funding Management Rules.
[501] Agency closing submissions at [147].
I accept the Agency’s submissions that plan management is not likely to disadvantage RPJJ for the following reasons because plan management means:
·A plan manager pays providers on behalf of RPJJ.
·A plan manager assists RPJJ to keep track of her funds and assists RPJJ to ensure that her funds are spent in accordance with the plan as required by section 46(1) of the NDIS Act.
·A plan manager can reject an invoice if it is not in accordance with the plan, and RPJJ can appeal against that decision if she is dissatisfied. I understand this to mean that RPJJ may then be able to appropriately budget and mitigate against the risk of funds being prematurely exhausted as has previously occurred.
·RPJJ can discuss her choices with her plan manager ahead of an expenditure to ensure the expenditure is within the plan limits, particularly where more innovative ways of spending funds may be sought. This would allow RPJJ flexibility in relation to how her funds are used whilst still maintaining the budget of the plan.[502]
·RPJJ is not restricted in selecting and engaging providers of her choosing, she may choose unregistered providers if she so wishes.[503]
·There is no additional work for RPJJ to undertake for plan management, other than to present her invoices for payment. I understand that only in circumstances where there is a query from the plan manager about an invoice would RPJJ be contacted to discuss the invoice. Furthermore, a plan manger would usually provide information regarding the levels of funding remaining to allow RPJJ to track her own plan expenditure.
·RPJJ may choose which plan manager she wishes to use and RPJJ has the opportunity to change plan managers if she so wishes.
[502] AS required by section 46(1) of the NDIS Act.
[503] This is contrasted to Agency-managed funds.
I note that it is open to RPJJ to request the Agency undertake a re-assessment of her plan management at any time.
I am satisfied that RPJJ’s SOPS should remain plan-managed as the self-management request is likely to result in one of the matters in sections 44(1)(b)(i) or 44(1)(c) occurring. I accept that the risk of either occurring is minimised to the greatest extent practicable whilst also allowing RPJJ to flexibly use unregistered providers if the management of her funds is conducted by a registered plan manager.
The Tribunal acknowledges RPJJ’s view that she believes she was treated unfairly and discriminated against. For the reasons already stated the Tribunal does not accept RPJJ’s contentions. The Tribunal formed the view that RPJJ was treated with dignity and respect and that she was afforded procedural fairness during her application.
For the reasons given, the Tribunal pursuant to section 105 of the ART Act affirms the decision under review.
I certify that the preceding 424 (four hundred and twenty-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member S Smith.
………[SGD]...........
Associate
28 October 2025
Dates of hearing:
Date final submissions received:
Applicant’s response received:
24, 25, 26 June 2025, 11 August 2025
14 October 2025 – Respondent.
28 October 2025
Applicant:
RPJJ (Self-represented)
Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Amanda Danti, Moray and Agnew Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Arron Hartnett
0
9
0