STHY and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) - [2025] ARTA 1729

STHY and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 1729 (1 September 2025)
Applicant/s:  STHY
Respondent:  CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency
Tribunal Number:                2024/2806

Tribunal:General Member D Heron
Place:Brisbane
Date:1 September 2025

Decision:Pursuant to section 105(c)(ii) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) the decision under review is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Agency for reconsideration with a direction that within 14 days of this decision, STHY’s statement of participant supports specifies the following supports as reasonable and necessary:
a) support worker funding of 4 hours per day (Monday to Friday), and 8 hours per day (Saturdays and Sundays), at the 1:1 ratio.

.................[SGD].................
General Member D Heron
Catchwords
NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME –- reasonable and necessary supports – consideration of s 34 National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) – conduct disorder – autism – best interest of child – child safety– impairment.
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth)
Secondary Materials
NDIS – Operational Guidelines - Reasonable and Necessary supports

Statement of Reasons
INTRODUCTION

STHY (the Applicant) is a 14-year-old participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (the NDIS). He met access to the NDIS on the basis of significant and permanent impairments arising from his diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorder level 2 and secondary disabilities of conduct disorder, other sensory/speech, other psychosocial disorder, hearing loss and visual impairment.[1]
[1] JTB, 1, 5.
STHY is currently under an interim child protection order granting custody to the Chief Executive of the Department of Child Safety (Child Safety). STHY is seeking NDIS funding for 24/7 support worker assistance.
DECISION UNDER REVIEW
STHY seeks external review of an internal review decision made by the National Disability Insurance Agency (the Respondent) on 26 April 2024. This decision affirmed an earlier decision dated 17 November 2023, to approve a Statement of Participant Supports.
STHY applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review pursuant to section 103 of the National Disability Insurance Act 2013 (Cth) on 7 May 2024.[2]
[2] The AAT was abolished on 13 October 2024 and the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) began on the 14 October 2024. By virtue of the transitional arrangements, STHY’s matter was automatically transferred to the ART.
While STHY is under an interim child protection order that grants custody to the Chief Executive of the Department of Child Safety, his mother retains guardianship and is his NDIS nominee. At the hearing beginning 10 June 2025 via Microsoft Teams, STHY was not legally represented and was advocated for by his mother. After taking the oral evidence of the first witness, the matter was stood down for accessibility and procedural fairness reasons. When the hearing recommenced on 4 July 2025, STHY was legally represented pro bono by Mr R A Quirk, DWF Law Australia. The Respondent was represented by Mr P Nolan, of Counsel instructed by Moray & Agnew. I considered that the accessibility and procedural fairness issues were resolved via granting the short break and in recommencing with legal representation for the Applicant.
The Applicant called Ms Lilley, STHY’s Behavioural Specialist and Mr Nussey, STHY’s Specialist Positive Behavioural Support Practitioner to give oral evidence. The Respondent called Dr Craig, Child & Adolescent Psychiatrist and Dr Chan, Specialist Consultant in Behaviour Support to provide oral evidence.
The Joint Tender Bundle was admitted into evidence and marked as exhibit 2, along with the following tendered evidence:
a)T Documents, exhibit 1.
b)Comprehensive Behaviour Support Plan for STHY by Ms Lilley dated 13 November 2024, exhibit 3.
c)Comprehensive Behaviour Support Plan and Positive Behaviour Support Plan Implementation Review (STHY’s mother) by Ms Lilley dated 27 December 2024, exhibit 4.
d)Report of Ms Lilley 29 June 2025, and attached copies of letters and emails, exhibit 5.
e)Report of Mr Nussey, Specialist Positive Behaviour Support Practitioner dated 25 June 2025, exhibit 6.
f)Supplementary Report of Dr Craig, Psychiatrist dated 25 June 2025; and Letter of Instruction to Dr Craig dated 20 June 2025, exhibit 7.
g)Bundle of emails dated 2 July 2025, exhibit 8.
h)STHY’s mothers’ first written statement, exhibit 9.
i)Report of Dr Chan, Specialist Consultant in Behaviour Support dated 26 June 2025; and Letter of Instruction to Dr Chan dated 20 June 2025, exhibit 10.
j)Applicant’s final written submissions dated 29 July 2025; and second written statement of STHY’s mother dated 6 July 2025.
k)Respondent’s final written submissions dated 12 August 2025.
ISSUES
The issues have narrowed over time, with the parties agreeing that the current Statement of Participant Supports should be varied to include the following supports:
(a) 110 hours of specialist behaviour intervention;
(b) 45 hours of training in behaviour management strategies; and
(c) 100 hours of support coordination.
The issue remaining in dispute before me is for STHY to have 1:1 support worker assistance 24 hours per day, 7 days per week comprising of the following:
(i) 8 hours of inactive overnight care;
(ii) 8 hours of active day time care; and
(iii) 8 hours of inactive day time care.
When the Applicant first applied for external review, their request was for 12 hours of support work per day, however the Applicant states the requested hours have increased to 24/7 in light of STHY maturing in size, age and the intensification of his overall needs.
The current Statement of Participant Supports (SOPS) for STHY includes support worker assistance for activities of daily living of 5 hours per weekday, and 5 hours every Saturday and 5 hours every Sunday for social and community participation.
The position of the Respondent is that the level of support worker funding should be 4 hours per day (Monday to Friday), and 8 hours per day (Saturdays and Sundays) at the 1:1 ratio. The Respondent states these supports are to be delivered in an out-of-home care arrangement provided by Child Safety, in line with the interim order of the Chief Executive that STHY be in the custody of the Chief Executive.
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The objects of the NDIS Act are set out in section 3 of the Act. As well as giving effect to Australia's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities the objects of the NDIS Act include:
·supporting the independence and social and economic participation of people with disability: s3(1)(c);
·providing reasonable and necessary supports for participants: s3(1)(d); and
·enabling people with disability to exercise choice and control in the pursuit of their goals and the planning and delivery of their supports: s3(1)(e).
Section 31 of the NDIS Act sets out several principles that apply in the development of a NDIS plan for a participant. The purpose of the plan is to state how the funds provided for the participant’s supports are to be managed. The plan is the instrument that governs the funding the participant receives under the NDIS:
31       Principles relating to plans
The preparation, variation, reassessment and replacement of a participant’s plan, and the management of the funding for supports under a participant’s plan, should so far as reasonably practicable:
(a)       be individualised; and
(b)       be directed by the participant; and
(c)where relevant, consider and respect the role of family, carers and other persons who are significant in the life of the participant; and
(ca)where relevant, recognise and respect the relationship between participants and their families and carers; and
(d)strengthen and build capacity of families and carers to support participants who are children; and
(da) if the participant and the participant’s carer agree – strengthen and build the capacity of families and carers to support the participant in adult life; and
(e)consider the availability to the participant of informal support and other support services generally available to any person in the community; and
(f)support communities to respond to the individual goals and needs of participants; and
(g)be underpinned by the right of the participant to exercise control over his or her own life; and
(h)advance the inclusion and participation in the community of the participant with the aim of achieving his or her individual aspirations; and
(i)        maximise the choice and independence of the participant; and
(j)facilitate tailored and flexible responses to the individual goals and needs of the participant; and
(k)provide the context for the provision of disability services to the participant and, where appropriate, coordinate the delivery of disability services where there is more than one disability service provider.
A participant’s plan does not take effect until the Statement of Participants Supports (SOPS) forming part of the plan has been approved by the CEO under s 33(4) of the NDIS Act. Section 33 of the NDIS Act sets out certain matters that must be included in a participant’s plan and to which the CEO must have regard when deciding whether or not to approve a SOPS. This includes the participant’s statement of goals and aspirations (s 33(1)); relevant assessments conducted in relation to the participant (s 33(5)(b)); and the operation and effectiveness of any previous plans of the participant (s 33(5)(f)).
For supports to be funded by the NDIS, section 34 of the NDIS Act identifies what establishes a reasonable and necessary support under the scheme. Section 34(1) is cumulative, and all 7 criteria listed in 34(1)(aa)-(f) must be satisfied or a support to be funded under the NDIS. Section 4 provides the general principles guiding actions under the NDIS Act and relevantly states:
Section 4 - General principles guiding actions under this Act
(11)  Reasonable and necessary supports for people with disability should:
(a)  support people with disability to pursue their goals and maximise their independence; and
(b)  support people with disability to live independently and to be included in the community as fully participating citizens; and
(c)  develop and support the capacity of people with disability to undertake activities     that enable them to participate in the community and in employment.
As a further consideration section 5(f) of the NDIS Act contains the general principle guiding the actions of people who may do acts or things on behalf of others under the scheme. It provides as follows;
...
(f) if the person with disability is a child--the best interests of the child are paramount, and full consideration should be given to the need to:
(i) protect the child from harm; and
(ii) promote the child's development; and
(iii) strengthen, preserve and promote positive relationships between the child and the child's parents, family members and other people who are significant in the life of the child.
The relevant rules in respect of this review are the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (the Supports Rules); National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (NDIS Supports Transitional Rules); and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Transitional Rules 2024 (NDIS Miscellaneous Transitional Rules).
Parts 3 and 5 of the Supports Rules set out criteria the Tribunal must consider when assessing supports under section 34 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.
Reasonable family, carer, and other support
3.4     In deciding whether funding or provision of the support takes account of what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide, the CEO is to consider the following matters:
(b)     for other participants:
(i)      the extent of any risks to the wellbeing of the participant arising from the participant’s reliance on the support of family members, carers, informal networks and the community; and
(ii)     the suitability of family members, carers, informal networks and the community to provide the supports that the participant requires, including such factors as:
(A)     the age and capacity of the participant’s family members and carers, including the extent to which family and community supports are available to sustain them in their caring role; and
(B)     the intensity and type of support that is required and whether it is age and gender appropriate for a particular family member or carer to be providing that care; and
(C)    the extent of any risks to the long-term wellbeing of any of the family members or carers (for example, a child should not be expected to provide care for their parents, siblings or other relatives or be required to limit their educational opportunities); and
(iii)     the extent to which informal supports contribute to or reduce a participant’s level of independence and other outcomes;
(c)     for all participants—the desirability of supporting and developing the potential contributions of in formal supports and networks within their communities.
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.
1. With regard to the respective responsibilities of the NDIS and the child protection system, the Support Rules explain:
Child protection and family support
7.11 The NDIS will be responsible for:
(a) supports for children, families and carers, required as a direct result of a child's disability, that enable families and carers to sustainably maintain their caring role, including community participation, therapeutic and behavioural supports and additional respite and aids and equipment; and
(b) where a child is in out-of-home care—supports specific to the child's disability (or developmental delay), which are additional to the needs of children of similar ages, in similar out-of-home care arrangements. The diversity of out-of-home care arrangements is recognised and the level of reasonable and necessary supports will reflect the circumstances of the individual child.
7.12 The NDIS will not be responsible for:
(a) statutory child protection services required by families who have entered, or are at risk of entering, the statutory child protection system; or
(b) general parenting programs, counselling or other supports for families, which are provided to families at risk of child protection intervention and to the broader community, including making them accessible and appropriate for families with disability; or
(c) funding or providing out-of-home care or support to carers of children in out-of-home care where these supports are not additional to the needs of children of similar age in similar out-of-home care arrangements.
Rule 7 of the Miscellaneous Transitional Rules requires that the CEO must also be satisfied the support is most appropriately funded or provided through the NDIS, and not more appropriately funded or provided through other general systems of service delivery or support services. In effect, this means that decision-makers are applying two versions of section 34(1)(f), as it was before the amendments, and the new version as amended.
The NDIS Operational Guidelines also assist in making decisions in accordance with the NDIS Act. Operational guidelines represent government policy and should be applied by the Tribunal unless there is good reason not to do so.[3] I will refer to these guidelines where relevant.
[3] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) [1979] AATA 179).
Applicant’s Plan Goals
STHY’s current plan goals pursuant to section 33(5)(a) of the NDIS Act are as follows:
·I would like to successfully transition to high school with the right supports.
·I would like to get back to surfing and be involved in the surfing and nature community.
·In this plan period I would like to improve my motor skills and build my capacity, so I am able to safely and independently complete age-appropriate tasks of daily living and personal care and reduce my reliance on informal and formal supports.
·I would like to improve my independence and mobility so I can increase my social and community participation, engage in activities I enjoy and develop lasting friendships.
The current plan

STHY’s current plan is dated 31 October 2024 – 31 October 2025, and is majority plan managed. It includes the following funding:

Core

Assistance with Daily Life

$140,560.68

Capacity Building

Choice and Control

$1,485.84

Behaviour Support

$26,758.8

Improved Daily Living

$30,262.44

Relationships

$3,080.04

Support Coordination and Psychosocial Recovery Coaches

$15,243.24

Capital

Assistive technology

$11,300.08

Evidence about STHY

STHY met access to the NDIS in 2017 on the basis of his diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder level 2.[4] STHY is identified as exhibiting the following behaviours of concern:
[4] JTB, T8, 383.
·Physical aggression to others: exhibiting punching, kicking, biting, grabbing, striking, pinching, choking, stomping, slapping, and pulling others hair. STHY has attempted physical strangling to others, holding knives in a threatening manner to others, using objects as weapons and harming animals and pets. Homicidal and suicidal threats. Police and emergency services attending to many physical incidents.
·Unsafe travel: includes touching car instruments and grabbing the driving wheel while vehicle is in transit.
·Property damage: reported to include throwing, striking and kicking items. STHY has exhibited behaviours of using objects to hit property and break items with his hands, kicking objects, punching and kicking resulting in holes, along with lighting items on fire.
·Verbal aggression (others): reported to include serious threats of harm, using derogatory names, swearing at others, sexually inappropriate language, yelling and threatening others along with threats of harm to animals/pets.
·Inappropriate sexual behaviour.[5]
[5] STHY Comprehensive Behaviour Support Plan 13 November 2024 – 13 November 2025, exhibit 3.
STHY has been placed in an approved residential service by Child Safety in November 2024, under his interim child protection order. He absconded his residential service and is choosing to ‘self-place’[6] at his mother’s home.
The incident reports, including police caution notices of STHY’s aggression both physical and verbal towards his mother contained in the evidence are extensive. The documented incidents before the Tribunal start from 8 March 2023, noting that there may be further incidents prior to this timeframe.
STHY’s mother remains as his legal guardian.[7] STHY’s mother is an NDIS participant and lives with a background of complex trauma and psychosocial disabilities including Dissociative Identity Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder with suicidal ideation, Generalised Anxiety Disorder, Depression, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and bilateral hearing impairment.[8]
STHY is enrolled in a mainstream public high school and was attending on a reduced schedule of 3 hourly school days. During the course of the hearing his mother explained STHY is engaging in school refusal and has not attended school since early in term two, 2025. STHY’s mother explained he is currently not going to school for fear of being taken by Child Safety.[9]
29.There is an application before the court to extend the current child protection order for two years. The evidence before the Tribunal from Child Safety is that STHY has been placed in an approved residential service. There are no further details regarding Child Safety’s support of STHY before the Tribunal.
The Applicant’s position
[6] Self-placing occurs when a young person chooses to leave a care arrangement established and overseen by child protection services.
[7] JTB, 6, 55.
[8] JTB, 20, 133.
[9] Applicant’s final written submissions, paragraph 24.
The Applicant requests 24/7 support worker assistance for STHY. The Applicant relies upon the report of Dr Craig dated 8 November 2024 recommending 24/7 1:1 support for STHY, along with expert evidence of STHY’s Behaviour Support Practitioners Ms Lilley and Mr Nussey.
The Applicant states that the intensity of STHY’s care needs is due to his disabilities and go beyond the needs of a child of a similar age in a similar out-of-home care arrangement.[10]
[10] Applicants closing written submissions para 62.
The Applicant requests the 24/7 support broken down as follows:
a)8 hours of inactive care during the weekday daytime for STHY to have his supports on-call, for example, should he be required to leave school early;
b)8 hours inactive overnight to ensure that STHY is safe and supported during the overnight hours; and
c)8 hours for direct support worker assistance when STHY is not at school.
The Respondent’s position
The Respondent contends that STHY’s need for supervision and care beyond the Respondent’s proposed funding position, is one which is expected to be provided by family and informal supports. The Respondent’s position is that hours beyond their proposal reflect STHY’s needs, such that a child of a similar age in a similar out of home care arrangement would ordinarily require.
The Respondent concedes based on the opinion of Dr Craig, that the Applicant’s mother providing support poses risk to both STHY’s wellbeing and to his mother. The Respondent maintains STHY’s need for supervision beyond the Respondent’s proposed funding position, is the responsibility of child protection and not the responsibility of the NDIS.
The Respondent states that Rules 7.11 and 7.12 in the Support Rules make plain that while the NDIS will be responsible for supports required as a direct result of a child's disability, it is not responsible for funding or providing out-of-home care or support to carers of children in out-of-home care where these supports are not additional to the needs of children of similar age in similar out-of-home care arrangements.
The Respondent refers to item 14 in Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules that excludes guardianship services for children, babysitting, nannying services, and au pairs as an “NDIS Support”. Item 14 of Schedule 2 states that child protection services required by families who have entered, or are at risk of entering, the relevant State or Territory statutory child protection system and out-of-home care or support to carers of children in out-of-home care, where these supports are not additional to the needs of children of similar age, in similar out-of-home care arrangements, are not NDIS supports.
The Respondent asserts that whether or not funding is available through Child Safety is not the test of whether it is most appropriately funded or provided through the NDIS. The Respondent contends it is not the role and purpose of the NDIS to step in and fill the gaps in other services systems.
The Respondent opines the request for support worker assistance proposed to be delivered in STHY’s mothers’ home, is in breach of the order of the Chief Executive of Child Safety. The Respondent states that the Applicant’s request is inviting the Tribunal to:
accept, and endorse, the Applicant and his mother’s non-compliance with the order of the Chief Executive of the Department of Child Safety and acquiesce to a model of home care that places the Applicant’s mother to an extremely high risk of physical and verbal harm.[11]
[11] Respondent’s Closing Written Submissions, page 1.
The Respondent relies upon the evidence, assessment and reports of Dr Craig, Child Psychiatrist dated 8 November 2024, and his supplementary report dated 25 June 2025. The Respondent also relies on the oral evidence and report of Dr Chan, Specialist Consultant in Behaviour Support dated 26 June 2025.
The Respondent contends that the correct and preferable decision is for the Reviewable Decision to be varied to include support worker funding of 4 hours per day Monday to Friday, and 8 hours per day Saturday and Sunday, at the 1:1 ratio.
The Respondent accepts STHY’s mother cannot provide for his care, as a result of her own disabilities. Overall, the Respondent states that the support worker assistance requirements beyond those outlined by the Respondent as reasonable and necessary in paragraph 12, do not arise from STHY’s accepted impairments. Rather, the Respondent states these are needs a 14-year-old in out-of-home care would ordinarily require. The Respondent states that as these are needs a 14-year-old would ordinarily require they are appropriately the responsibility of the Child Safety system.
Because of the level of risk, the Respondent submits that the Tribunal cannot fund the hours of support being requested.
THE EVIDENCE
STHY’s mother
STHY’s mother provided two written statements and a Statement of Lived Experience. In her written statement dated 6 July 2025 she notes that STHY:
has a history of repeatedly absconding from out-of-home care. Because of the increased risk to [STHY] absconding when unsupervised, particularly during the evenings when support workers are asleep, child safety workers have taken him to stay with me during the evenings. I believe he is likely to continue to attempt to abscond from out-of-home care, if removed from my home.
Since December 2024, the Department of Families, Seniors, Disability Services and Child Safety of Queensland (Child Safety) has not met with [the applicant] at all, and he has remained living with me, notwithstanding the interim child protection order currently in place. The extent of his interaction with Child Safety at that time was when he came to the door and told them words to the effect, I'm safe, now fuck off, and after that they left.
STHY’s mother explains that prior to ceasing his attendance at school STHY had two incidents, one a reported threat of sexual assault on another student and the other a threat of assault on another student. STHY’s mother states that following the second school incident:
…was again in touch with me and told me the incident was very serious and that when he returns to school, he would need to have an aid with him the whole day, as he can’t be left alone unsupervised. [STHY] says it’s Child Safety’s fault these measures were put in place and that he won’t return to school until Child Safety is out of the picture. He hasn’t been back to school since.[12]
[12] Exhibit 9, 2.
Ms Lilley
Ms Lilley is STHY’s Behaviour Support Practitioner, she has over 16 years’ experience working within the Positive Behaviour Support framework. This includes contributing to the development of behaviour support plans, developing behaviour support plans, and overseeing the implementation of behaviour support plans. She has held roles in community-based disability and mental health services as well as government (Disability Services) and has formal training including a Bachelor of Science (Psychology), Masters in Health Services Management and a Post Graduate Certificate in Behaviour Support along with functional behaviour assessment coursework.
Ms Lilley was initially STHY’s behaviour support practitioner, preparing behaviour support plans on 8 May 2023 and 13 November 2024. Ms Lilley was also the behaviour support practitioner for STHY’s mother. In March 2025, STHY’s behaviour support management moved over to Mr Nussey, with Ms Lilley remaining working with STHY’s mother. Ms Lilley explained this move happened due to the sexualised behaviours of STHY requiring Mr Nussey’s expertise and input as an experienced mature, male practitioner within this specialised and discrete area of practice.
Ms Lilley’s evidence can be summarised as follows:
·Developmentally STHY is going through a difficult period in his life starting high school, with a strong desire for independence and dealing with the impact of hormones.
·STHY’s disability impacts his understanding of rules and consequences, his ability to emotionally and behaviourally regulate in a way that allows him to accept support/guidance from others and to create safety for himself and others.
·Strategies have been developed that consider both STHY and his mother. For the strategies to be effective when Mum is in a dissociated state, requires both parties to have trained support workers to assist each party.
·For strategies to be effective, there must be staff to implement the strategies, the staff must have a high level of training in de-escalation, crisis management and restrictive practices. All staff must be able to support each other and continue to consistently use the strategies over time.
·To date there has not been the level of NDIS funding to test the effectiveness of the developed strategies with a fully trained staffing team for both Mum and STHY.
·Behaviours of concern are most likely to occur in the morning, if STHY started his day with high sugar intake and the afternoons to bedtime especially when unable to access technology as desired and when others do not immediately respond to his requests which are often unreasonable.
·STHY’s behaviours of concern and harm set off his mother’s reactions when she seeks to have STHY conform to expected social behaviours. When STHY is unwilling to comply, both their behavioural responses intensify, and both require support to negotiate the complexities that arise.
·With the right support at the right time, there has been successful negotiation between STHY and his mother. There have been periods where consequences/punishments have not been deemed reasonable, and both STHY and his mother have worked with the practitioner and their respective staff to agree on rules and consequences.
·Sustained change requires the funding and staff to implement the strategies.
·Recommends 24/7 1:1 support for STHY.
Ms Lilley also provided letters and emails contained in the JTB and T Docs, along with her supplementary report dated 29 June 2025, exhibit 5.
Mr Nussey, Psychologist and NDIS Specialist Behaviour Support Practitioner
Mr Nussey has been working in full time private psychological practice since 2003 and is a NDIS Specialist Behaviour Support Practitioner since 2019. He holds a Bachelor of Psychology (Honours) and has been providing therapy and development processes since 1990. He is currently undertaking a Graduate Diploma in Neuroscience, University of New England. He is a psychologist, with General Registration with the Australian Health Practitioners Registration Board and a member of the: Australian Psychological Society (MAPS); Australia New Zealand Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abuse (ANZATSA), Child Protection Practitioners Association of Queensland (CPPAQ) and Association of Positive Behaviour Support Australia (APBSA).
His specific areas of focus include developmental trauma and attachment disorders; substance misuse; sexual abuse; problem/abusive sexual behaviours; areas of juvenile offending including violent and sexual, family reunifications after significant trauma including physical and sexual abuse and neglect, alcohol and other drug misuse and dependency, complex mental health, self-harm, suicide risk and psychosis. In March 2025, Mr Nussey commenced as STHY’s behaviour support practitioner.
Mr Nussey’s oral evidence can be summarised as follows:
·The pattern observed is that Mum enters a dissociative experience bought on by STHY’s behaviours, this escalates both parties and the outcome is that Mum typically ends up being assaulted by STHY.
·Dr Craig and Dr Chan have relevantly provided their opinions that STHY and his Mum shouldn’t be living together.
·Whether STHY and Mum should be living together, isn’t the right question – contends that the right question to ask is whether any system has the practical capacity to stop them living together.
·On at least two occasions Child Safety has sought to remove STHY and each time STHY has been returned by Child Safety workers back to his Mum’s house.
·Overall experience with Child Safety and children STHY’s age, is that the Department doesn’t have the ability to force him out of the family home - even after guardianship orders are in place. Understandably this may be different in theory, however this is how things are in practice with this age group.
·Perceive there is a great deal of truth to Dr Craig’s opinion and respectfully even Dr Craig recognised in his report that it will be difficult to enforce STHY not living with Mum.
·The current plan in the house is to have Mum up one end of the home, STHY down the other end and each having their own supports, recommends this as the best way forward.
·With regards to Child Safety – based off experience, STHY is placed in residential care with 24/7 provision of care, or in a group situation. This would mean STHY either becomes socially isolated or risks exposure to more diverse patterns of antisocial behaviour.
·Usually, residential group homes expose children to peers who engage in more diverse patterns of offending, antisocial behaviours or more risky behaviours. Typically see children being hurt or understandably doing what they need to do to fit in with the group.
·The practical reality is that STHY will continue to self-place with his Mum, funding should be based on the actuality of the situation as it stands.
Mr Nussey also provided his report dated 25 June 2025. In his report, Mr Nussey notes that there are ‘clear differences in his aggression between his behaviour in the community and at home. In the community, such as at school [STHY] can be volatile, though becomes avoidant, while at home with [Mum], [STHY] volatility leads to physical aggression (including sexual).’[13]
[13] Exhibit 6, page 5.
Mr Nussey considers that the ‘best practice step’ in growth/capacity building is to reduce ‘external control/monitoring gradually as the opportunity for and expectation of [STHY] to maintain either internalised regulation, to seek desired outcomes in a pro-social manner that builds relationships and safety for himself and those around him. He considered that this is best achieved in the family home, responding to the high-risk behaviours of concern as disability-based maladaptation’s, that supported and coached intervention will alter over time while also maintaining the family unit/connection.’[14]
[14] Exhibit 6
Dr Craig, Child & Adolescent Psychiatrist
Dr Craig is a Child & Adolescent Psychiatrist, a Fellow of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (FRANZCP) and General Adult Psychiatrist engaged by the Respondent to provide expert opinion evidence. Dr Craig examined STHY in-person on 8 November 2024, STHY was accompanied by his support worker. Dr Craig then also met separately with STHY’s mother for further history taking. He also was provided with reports, letters and incident reports regarding STHY in completing his assessment. Dr Craig’s evidence can be summarised as follows:
·STHY diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) at five years of age with onset of language delayed, being nonverbal for the first two years of life. He would head bang when upset. He has a diagnosis of Usher syndrome. In 2022 Child Psychiatrist Dr Eyears, made an additional diagnosis of Conduct Disorder.
·Dr Craig agrees with the diagnoses of Autism level 2, ADHD, Conduct Disorder and he would add an underlying diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
·STHY is currently prescribed sertraline, lisdexamfetamine, dexamfetamine and clonidine, with previous trials of aripiprazole, fluoxetine, and risperidone.
·STHY has a history of long-standing problems with his emotional regulation. Frequent episodes of physical aggression toward his mother began at around 5 years of age.
·STHY has been verbally abusive, physically abusive and sexually abusive to his mother. Similar behaviours demonstrated toward members of the public and support workers, such as threatening support staff with knives. History of suicidal threats when demands are not met.
·History of fire setting, including burning the family pets. There is a history of harming animals. His service animal was removed from his care due to these behaviours.
·Emergency services frequently attend STHY’s mothers home due to his behaviour. He has been cautioned by the police for assault on his mother, yet to be formally charged for a crime.
·He reported that his mother’s behaviours when dissociating can annoy and frustrate him, as “she acts like a child”. He was unable to recall his responses toward his mother during these episodes.
·Medication appears to have been limited in effectiveness to treat his emotional dysregulation. Attempts in psychological interventions have been unsuccessful.
·His most recent psychology team have withdrawn, in view of staff not feeling safe working with him due to his threatening and aggressive behaviours. Therapy to date has been identified as having no real impact on his conduct disorder behaviours.
·The obvious barrier to accessing treatment is STHY’s aggressive behaviour toward providers. It is likely that professionals will not tolerate threats of violence and disengage from him. STHY does not appear motivated to change his behaviour, which will impact heavily on engagement and treatment success.
·STHY uses violence to have his needs met within relationships. His capacity for social interaction is further incapacitated when in heightened emotional states. There are frequent violations of the rights of others. He requires supervision to ensure that he does not harm others and that his social interactions are appropriate in nature.
·STHY’s conduct disordered behaviours, in particular his sexually inappropriate behaviour toward others, physical violence, harm to animals and fire setting, are all of grave concern.
·Recommends 24/7 1:1 supervision outside of school hours to ensure STHY’s safety, as well as others due to high risk of fire setting, assault, and sexual assault of others.
·Recommends supervision should be provided by male support workers, who will not be intimidated by STHY’s behaviour. Further STHY should not be left unsupervised with younger or vulnerable peers to minimise the risk of abuse toward others.
·Recommends STHY should be housed on his own. He poses a risk to other tenants, in particular other vulnerable children. Recommends he should not live with his mother due to her own psychiatric conditions, and current and future risk of him physically and sexually abusing her, as evidenced by previous behaviour.
·Recommends that STHY’s relationship with his mother is maintained, however this is through active supervision. Recommends that they both require their own 1:1 supports during these interactions to ensure all parties are safe.
·Risk minimisation within the home environment would include removal/restricted access to weapons or items that could be used as weapons. Fire safety protocols should be followed. Police should be contacted if there are any violent behaviours toward others in order to give a clear message that this behaviour is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
·Recommends STHY attend a fire safety program in order to better educate him in relation to the risk of fire setting.
·Recommends autism spectrum disorder-informed therapies should be maintained to support STHY to better manage his impulsivity and emotional regulation. This would include psychology and occupational therapy and looking at speech therapy. His medication should be continued with the same goal.
·Recommends an updated forensic assessment completed by a forensic psychologist in view of his increasing history of sexualised behaviour toward others.

Dr Craig provided two reports dated 8 November 2024 and a supplementary report dated 25 June 2025. In his first report dated 8 November 2024 he recommends STHY has 24/7 care.
In his supplementary report, Dr Craig was asked to provide the hours of support that are additional to the needs of a similar aged child to STHY in an out of home care situation. Dr Craig concluded that three to four hours of support each school weekday is an additional need to that of a child of a similar age in a similar out of home care arrangement. For the weekends, he identified a total of six to eight hours each day of support worker assistance as an additional need of STHY, to a child of a similar age in a similar out of home care arrangement.
Dr Craig states in his supplementary report that ‘The most appropriate approach to protect both parties, would be that [STHY] remain under the long-term custody of the Chief Executive (Child Safety). Within this model of care, the adults appointed by the Chief Executive would assume responsibility for aspects of his care that would normally be provided by a parent. The combination of this level of support, coupled with the recommended support worker hours, would ensure adequate care and supervision of [STHY]. I do not see a viable way in which [STHY] and [Mum] are able to live together, without both parties being at risk of significant harm.’[15]
[15] Exhibit 7, Report dated 26 June 2025, page 6.
Dr Chan, Specialist Consultant in Behaviour Support
Dr Chan was Deputy Commissioner, Practice Quality and Clinical Advisory, Senior Practitioner, Behaviour Support with the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission from July 2018 to December 2023. He holds a Ph. D in Medicine from the University of Sydney, a Master of Arts Honours in Linguistics Macquarie University, a Bachelor of Applied Science University of Sydney, a Licentiate, Trinity College London and is a Certified Practising Speech Pathologist and Member Speech Pathology Australia.
He was previously Deputy CEO, MINDS, Singapore. Prior to this he was Yooralla’s first Chief Practitioner. Dr Chan is an Adjunct Professor at the University of Queensland’s School of Education and former Adjunct Professor, University of Sydney’s Sydney Medical School. He was Queensland’s first Chief Practitioner Disability and held the inaugural Governor-in-Council appointment as the Director of Forensic Disability dedicated to safeguarding the rights of forensic adults with intellectual or cognitive disability. He was also Victoria’s inaugural statutory Senior Practitioner in Disability Services.
Dr Chan has not examined STHY in-person, nor met STHY’s mother. He provides his oral evidence and report ‘on the papers’. Dr Chan’s oral evidence can be summarised as follows:
·     STHY and his mother both have a substantial record of medical and health-care assessments and Behaviour Support Plan’s (BSPs) developed over the past years.
·     Based on the substantial incident reports with significant incidents of injury to STHY, his Mum and staff, it is his view that there has been minimal progress made in terms of their safety and well-being.
·     Notes a lack of or absence of implementation of the BSPs with an absence of discrete implementation as evidenced by therapeutic progress notes, measurable outcomes and a lack of one-on-one clinical or therapeutic intervention. The BSPs do not fully meet the international best practice of a quality BSP.
·     BSPs developed by Ms Lilley for STHY both appear to be similar, thus reasonable to conclude that there has been minimal change or progress in his behaviours of concern and the use of restrictive practices.
·     In his opinion the current Comprehensive Behaviour Support Plan for STHY has not taken reasonable steps to prevent violence and abuse nor to prevent sexual misconduct towards his mother, particularly the protracted history of the concern.
·     Based on the available evidence before him, recommends that STHY should not be living with his mother.
·     The numerous incident reports reiterate the tension and very difficult environment having STHY and his mother living together. He notes interactions between STHY, and his mother exacerbate and trigger each other’s behaviours to a very significant level of risk. The incident reports indicate that behaviours remain at a level of severity and frequency.
·     Research shows that STHY’s behaviours of concern are likely to peak around this period of adolescence. The research indicates that it will progress into early adulthood. The evidence of the incident reports indicates his behaviours will progress into violence against his mother. STHY has used threats of returning to Child Safety when there is an altercation between them, showing he has insight into what triggers his mother’s angst.
·     He states that STHY needs a structured and thriving environment, that on the evidence before him, cannot be provided currently living at his mother’s home. His mother will also benefit from a ‘break’ in caring to pursue her goals and facilitate her mental health recovery.
·     Dr Chan explained in his opinion STHY’s mother is his trigger, therefore in removing the trigger STHY can start to develop to shape appropriate behaviours.
·     Dr Chan accepts that STHY would be stressed from the change in environment, however this does not trump or negate the need for change.
·     Dr Chan recommends that a detailed comprehensive behaviour support plan outlining this transition over 2 – 3 months would then be required.
Dr Chan also supplied his written report dated 26 June 2025.
CONSIDERATION
Whether the support is necessary to address the needs of the participant arising from an impairment for which they met access: s 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act
STHY met access to the NDIS on 4 August 2017 on the basis of the disability requirements under section 24 in relation to impairments attributable to disabilities of Autism Spectrum Disorder level 2, and other sensory/speech, other psychosocial disorder, hearing loss and visual impairment.
Dr Craig states that three to four hours of support each school weekday and six to eight hours on the weekend are STHY’s disability related supports, with the remainder being needs that a child of a similar age in a similar out of home care arrangement would require.
Ms Lilley has stated that STHY requires 24/7 supports and that he should be given the opportunity to make this situation living with his Mum work, with the appropriate supports.
Mr Nussey agrees that appropriate 24-hour care for STHY could lead to growth and capacity building over time, stating that in his opinion, care outside of the family context will lead to regression for STHY.
STHY’s Occupational Therapist Ms Huynh in her report dated 29 July 2024 recommends daily living assistance as follows:
Monday – Sunday 6 hours per day + travel costs
[16] JTB, 24, 224
For example, [STHY] would receive these supports during the hours of 7am – 9am to assist with completing morning daily routines and 5.00pm – 9pm to support with evening daily routines.[16]
In regard to social and community participation Ms Huynh recommends:
During school terms (40 weeks) where [STHY] attends school from 9am-2.30pm:
Monday – Friday for 2.5hours per day + travel costs E.g. 2.30pm – 5pm
Saturday – Sunday 8 hours per day + travel costs E.g. 9am – 5pm
During school holidays (12 weeks) where [STHY] does not attend school from
9am-2.30pm:
Monday – Sunday for 8 hours per day + travel costs E.g. 9am – 5pm.[17]
[17] JTB, 24, 227.
On the evidence I have not been persuaded that STHY requires 24/7 support due to his accepted disabilities for which he has met NDIS access. I agree that disability support is required at the lower rate recommended by Dr Craig. I find the additional hours are not addressing the needs of STHY arising from his accepted impairments, rather these are needs arising from him being a 14-year-old in an out of home care arrangement. I agree that disability support is required at the top end of the lower rate recommended by Dr Craig, being four hours of support each school weekday and eight hours on the weekend.
Section 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act is not satisfied in relation to the request for 24/7 supports. I am satisfied of 34(1)(aa) in relation to support worker assistance for 4 hours per weekday and 8 hours per Saturday and Sunday.
Whether the support is an NDIS support for the participant: s 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act
Section 34(1)(f) is a new amendment to the NDIS Act which commenced on 3 October 2024 and requires that a support is an NDIS support as prescribed in Schedule 1 of the NDIS Supports Transitional Rules.
Item 14 of Schedule 2 of the NDIS Supports Transitional Rules excludes as an NDIS Support:
(b) guardianship services for children….
(g) child protection services required by families who have entered, or are at risk of entering, the relevant State or Territory statutory child protection system…
(i) out-of-home care or support to carers of children in out-of-home care where these supports are not additional to the needs of children of similar age in similar out-of-home care arrangements.
The Respondent contends that STHY’s need for support beyond 4 hours each weekday, and 8 hours each Saturday and Sunday is to be expected to be provided by families, carers, informal networks and the community. To the extent that the Applicant’s mother cannot (or should not) be providing that support, it is more appropriately sourced through child protection and family support, and therefore is not an NDIS Support.
The Applicant states the reliance on r 7.12 of the Support Rules by the Respondent lacks specificity, and to properly establish this argument there needs to be evidence of what the out-of-home care arrangements are. They further state to invoke r 7.12 the Respondent should have made inquiries about that model(s) and have provided this information to the Applicant and the Tribunal.
The respective responsibilities of the NDIS and the Child Protection systems, the Support Rules relevantly states:
Child protection and family support
7.11 The NDIS will be responsible for:
…….
(b) where a child is in out-of-home care—supports specific to the child's disability (or developmental delay), which are additional to the needs of children of similar ages, in similar out-of-home care arrangements. The diversity of out-of-home care arrangements is recognised, and the level of reasonable and necessary supports will reflect the circumstances of the individual child.
7.12 The NDIS will not be responsible for:
(a) statutory child protection services required by families who have entered, or are at risk of entering, the statutory child protection system; or
The Applicant contends that r 7.11(b) recognises that the NDIA will fund supports specific to a child's disability which are additional to the needs of children of similar ages, in similar out-of-home care arrangements.” The Support Rules recognise the diversity of out-of-home care arrangements and that the level of reasonable and necessary supports will reflect the circumstances of the individual child.
The Applicant states that a relevant consideration about what is reasonable and necessary in this case is the fact that STHY has self-placed with his mother notwithstanding an interim child protection order being in place and will likely abscond from out-of-home care if removed from his mother's home. The Applicant in its Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions notes:
In short, Child Safety will not enforce the interim child protection order. While we cannot know exactly the applicant’s exact reasons for leaving out-of-home care, it can be inferred from his reported behaviours that they are directly linked, or at least contributed to, by his limited impulse control, emotional dysregulation, and triggers from change in environment arising from his disability. All the more reason for a transitional plan.[18]
[18] Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions paragraph 76.
The Applicant’s position is that the 24/7 supports are necessary as transitional for another 9 to 12 months. The Applicant notes Dr Craig stated in cross-examination that the only way to assess efficacy is after supports have been in place and an assessment is undertaken in 12 months' time.[19]
[19] JTB, 4, 49-50.
The Applicant further states that the making of these supports as reasonable and necessary is confirmed in the evidence of Dr Chan where he states that there is a need for a transitional plan for STHY to be moved to Child Safety’s care stating there may be a need for a circuit breaker, but it needs to be implemented gradually.
79.Dr Craig in his supplementary report and during his oral evidence at the hearing recommended three to four hours of support each school weekday and six to eight hours on the weekend as being STHY’s disability related support need. He recommends these hours being disability related, with the remainder of required support being needs that a similar aged child in a similar out of home care arrangement.
In Dr Craig’s first report dated 8 November 2024, he recommended 16 hours each weekday (based on an 8-hour school day where STHY is supervised by teaching staff) and 24 hours per day on the weekends. Dr Craig in his first report notes:
“Support workers have to wake [STHY] each day or he will sleep in and be late for school, despite having alarms set. He requires prompting from supports with all self-cares tasks in order to be at school on time, otherwise tasks are neglected. Workers make his breakfast and pack his food for the school day. Without this assistance, the task is not completed. [STHY] walks to school each day, accompanied by support workers. They are required to ensure that he attends school, to reduce his impulsive behaviours and ensure his safety due to his poor vision, in particular his poor peripheral vision when crossing roads. Workers also collect and supervise the walk home each day.
In the afternoon/evenings, support workers assist with daily self-cares, meal preparation and bedtime routines. Without this assistance, tasks are neglected. He requires prompting with all tasks. Support workers also assist with transportation and supervision at any therapy/medical appointments that arise during the week. Overnight supervision is required to ensure his safety due to his risk-taking behaviours. They are also required to ensure that he remains asleep in bed, or [STHY] will leave his room and engage in various leisure activities throughout the night.[20]
[20] JTB, 4, 41-42.
Dr Craig reported based on his in-person assessment with STHY in November 2024 that:
[STHY] openly discussed being physically violent toward others, as well as damaging property, when in states of heightened emotion. He reported harming animals when frustrated by them. He was annoyed that his dog was removed from his care, feeling this was unjust, despite acknowledging harming his pet. He reported current fire setting behaviours. He reported struggling to control his anger.[21]
[21] JTB, 4, 34.
STHY’s Support Coordinator Ms Meyers in her Support Coordination July 2024 report states, there has been noticeable resistance and reluctance to engage in daily tasks, which is impacting the progress toward improving motor skills and achieving independence in personal care. The lack of willingness to participate in these essential activities presents a challenge to building the necessary capacity for performing age-appropriate tasks safely and independently.[22]
[22] JTB, 69, 326.
Ms Huynh, STHY’s Occupational Therapist writes in her report dated 10 May 2024:
regulation and behaviour difficulties significantly impact on his ability to engage in
self-care, household tasks, leisure, learning, and capacity build supports. When [STHY] is regulated and calm, he has been observed to participate in daily tasks such as cooking and cleaning with prompting. However, [STHY] experiences frequent and persistent patterns of irritable mood, and can become heightened / dysregulated for hours. [STHY] requires 1:1 assistance at all times when accessing activities in the community (i.e. to ensure safety, money management, planning and organising tasks, managing anxiety in new environments, controlling impulses, understanding consequences of actions.[23]
[23] JTB, 20, 143.
In her report dated 26 August 2024, Ms Lilley, Behaviour Support Practitioner explains that:
The functional impacts of [STHY] disabilities include significant difficulties with emotional regulation and impulse control, very limited abilities to consider that others may hold a different point of view than he does, little if any regard to rules and laws as they may apply to him, impaired social skills and interpersonal skills, and difficulties with both receptive and expressive language. [STHY] does not demonstrate consequential thinking skills. Functional impacts include that [STHY] finds waiting extremely difficult and has significant difficulties considering the thoughts, views and feelings of others. [STHY] has little understanding of the value of money and the need to live within financial means. Requests made by [STHY] are often unreasonable and cannot be met by his mother or by service providers; when requests are not met, [STHY] uses behaviours of harm to seek to have his requests met. [STHY] does not know his own strength which may be due to low sensory registration, and he does not consider that he may be hurting/harming others. When highly dysregulated [STHY] reports that he has no memory of his behaviours. At times [STHY] uses harm as he feels it socially just to hurt others who have hurt him. This hurt is most often his requests not met immediately.[24]
[24] JTB, 43, 241.
I accept the evidence of Mr Nussey, that the behaviours engaged in by STHY are seen prevalently in the family home toward his mother, citing the differences between STHY’s volatile aggression versus avoidance as an outcome of STHY’s reflective risk assessment. I agree with the incident reports contained in the JTB and with the evidence of Dr Chan that STHY’s behaviours are generally targeted toward his mother.
I accept the Respondent’s position that under Supports Rule 5.1(a) the model of funding sought, being the 24/7 support worker assistance in STHY’s mother’s home, cannot be funded as it is likely to cause harm to the participant or pose a risk to others.
I accept that the 4 hours each weekday and 8 hours each Saturday and Sunday as per Dr Craig’s recommendations are NDIS supports under item 14 and item 15 of Schedule 1 of the NDIS Supports Transitional Rules. These supports fall under both item 14, support for daily personal activities, and item 15, support for development of daily care and life skills.
I am of the view that this level of support worker funding is to be provided in the out-of-home care arrangement in line with the interim order of the Chief Executive of Child Safety. I note that the practical choices STHY and his mother make regarding their living arrangements go beyond the scope of this Tribunal.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal has not been satisfied of all of the 7 requirements in ss 34(1)(aa)-(f) of the NDIS Act for the requested 24/7 support worker assistance.
The Tribunal is satisfied that 34(1)(aa)-(f) requirements are satisfied in relation to the lower hours of 4 hours per weekday and 8 hours each Saturday and Sunday at the 1:1 ratio are reasonable and necessary supports for STHY.
DECISION
Pursuant to section 105(c)(ii) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) the decision under review is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Agency for reconsideration with a direction that within 14 days of this decision, STHY’s statement of participant supports specifies the following supports as reasonable and necessary:
a) support worker funding of 4 hours per day (Monday to Friday), and 8 hours per day (Saturdays and Sundays), at the 1:1 ratio.
Date of hearing:  10 June, 30 June and 4 July 2025
Representative for the Applicant:            Mr R A Quirk, DWF Law Australia
Counsel for the Respondent:                    Mr P Nolan, of Counsel
Solicitors for the Respondent:                   Moray & Agnew

*Core*
Assistance with Daily Life	$140,560.68
*Capacity Building*
Choice and Control	$1,485.84
Behaviour Support	$26,758.8
Improved Daily Living	$30,262.44
Relationships	$3,080.04
Support Coordination and Psychosocial Recovery Coaches	$15,243.24
*Capital*
Assistive technology	$11,300.08