Tootell and National Disability Insurance Agency

[2023] AATA 1267

Tootell and National Disability Insurance Agency [2023] AATA 1267 (18 May 2023)

Division:NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME DIVISION

File Number(s):      2023/2420

Re:Mr Dayle Tootell

APPLICANT

AndNational Disability Insurance Agency

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member D. Connolly

Date:18 May 2023

Place:Sydney

Pursuant to subsection 42A(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the Tribunal dismisses the application for review filed on 17 April 2023.

...................................[SGD]...................................

Senior Member D. Connolly

Catchwords

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – jurisdiction – National Disability Insurance Scheme – decision made after reassessment at the CEO’s own initiative – whether internal review conducted by National Disability Insurance Agency in accordance with section 100 of the Act – whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to review a decision that has not been internally reviewed – application dismissed

Legislation

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member D. Connolly

18 May 2023

BACKGROUND

1. On 17 April 2023, Mr Dayle Tootell, with the assistance of his representative, Mr Shaughn O’Donoghue, Director, Sunshine Specialist Supports, lodged with the Tribunal an application for review of a decision of the National Disability Insurance Agency (the NDIA) dated 3 April 2023. Mr Tootell is a participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (the NDIS). Various plans have been approved to provide funding to support him, pursuant to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (the Act).

2. On 21 April 2023 the Respondent informed the Tribunal that their records indicate there has been no request for an internal review, nor a decision made under subsection 100(6) of the Act, regarding the decision of 3 April 2023. It was submitted therefore that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review this decision and the application should be dismissed.

3. On 4 May 2023, an interlocutory hearing was conducted by telephone to hear from the parties as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the decision.

   Review of a participant’s plan

4. NDIS participants have their plan prepared with the assistance of the CEO of the NDIA: subsection 32(1) of the Act. The plan includes a statement of participant supports approved by the CEO, which specifies matters including the reasonable and necessary supports that will be funded under the NDIS and the date by which the plan must be reassessed: paragraphs 33(2)(b) and (c) of the Act.

5. Under section 48 of the Act, a participant can request a reassessment of their plan before the reassessment is due, and the CEO may also decide to conduct a reassessment of a participant’s plan at any time. Where such a reassessment is conducted and a new plan is prepared, that becomes the participant’s plan as provided for in section 33 of the Act. The CEO must provide to the participant a copy of the plan.

6. Some decisions made under the Act with respect to a participant’s plan are reviewable by the Tribunal. The decisions which are reviewable are identified in section 99 of the Act and relevantly include a decision under subsection 33(2) of the Act to approve the statement of participant supports in a participant’s plan.

7. Section 100 of the Act provides for review of a reviewable decision by the NDIA. When making a reviewable decision, the decision-maker must give written notice of the reviewable decision, and the notice must include a statement that the person may request a review by the NDIA and a further review by the Tribunal: subsections 100(1) and (1A). This applies to a decision to approve the statement of supports in a participant’s plan.

8. A person directly affected by a reviewable decision may request the decision-maker review the decision: subsection 100(2).  This is referred to as a request for “internal review”.  It may be made in writing or orally, in person or by telephone or other means: subsection 100(3). 

9. If a person requests an internal review, the reviewer must make a decision confirming, varying or setting aside the reviewable decision: subsection 100(6).

10. Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of a decision made by a reviewer under subsection 100(6) to confirm, vary or set aside a reviewable decision: section 103. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to circumstances where a decision has been reviewed by a reviewer under subsection 100(6).

    Decisions by the Agency about Mr Tootell’s plans

11. Before the interlocutory hearing the Respondent provided written submissions which included information about Mr Tootell’s plans. Mr Tootell’s representative was given an opportunity to comment on those submissions. That information, and the representative’s comments, are summarised as follows.

12. The Respondent provided the following table setting out the chronological information concerning Mr Tootell’s plans.

Date	Event
14.05.2021	Plan 1
15.12.2021	Home and Living (‘HAL’) decision for a 2 resident, 2 bedroom apartment.
05.04.2022	Plan 2 containing HAL decision.
28.06.2022	Review requested for HAL decision for a 1 resident apartment.
05.09.2022	HAL decision for a 2-resident apartment.
13.09.2022	Additional evidence provided for review from Applicant.
16.11.2022	Plan 3 containing HAL decision.
28.11.2022	Internal review decision completed of new HAL decision.[1]
13.12.2022	Case reopened for home and living to reconsider further evidence provided.
05.01.2023	New HAL decision made upholding decision on 05.09.2022.
03.04.2023	Plan 4.
17.04.2023	AAT Application

[1] This decision varied Plan 3.

1. The Respondent also provided the following information:

   1.On 15 December 2021 a Home and Living (‘HAL’) decision was made approving funding for a 2 resident, 2 bedroom apartment.

   2.On 5 April 2022, the Respondent approved the statement of participants support in plan (Plan 2) under s33(2) incorporating the HAL decision. This plan was a reviewable decision under s99.

   3.On 28 June 2022, the Applicant requested a review of the HAL decision for a 2-resident apartment, requesting a 1 resident apartment.

   4.HAL made a decision on 5 September 2022 for a 2-resident apartment.

   5.On 13 September 2022, the Applicant submitted additional evidence for review.

   6.On 16 November 2022, the Respondent approved a new plan (Plan 3) containing the HAL decision from 5 September 2022.

   7.A phone call occurred between the Applicant and the Agency on 24 November 2022.  The attached interaction notes provide “Shaugn advised that JDM819 had been in touch today to discuss error that may have occurred - with evidence provided possibly not considered for the RORD. Investigation may be underway to determine whether this can be reviewed again without progressing to AAT.” It is apparent that the Applicant through his SC was not seeking to take the matter to the AAT at this stage.

   8.An internal review decision was completed on 28 November 2022 in relation to Plan 3. The letter states the Applicant can apply to the AAT if dissatisfied of the decision. The Applicant’s SC was also advised via phone on 28 November 2022 that he can seek review at the AAT.

   9.However, on 8 December 2022 it was agreed for the Agency to resubmit the decision back to Home and Living asking them to reconsider their decision. This resulted in a new HAL decision which was completed on 5 January 2023 upholding the HAL decision from 5 September 2022.

   10.A new plan (Plan 4) containing the updated HAL decision, was implemented on 3 April 2023.

   11.On 7 April 2023, the Applicant’s SC was advised that he will need to request an IRD of the new plan implemented from the HAL decision.

   12.The Respondent does not hold a record for a s100 request of Plan 4.

   13.The Applicant has 3 months from 4 April 2023 until 4 July 2023 to request an internal review of Plan 4. Should the Applicant be dissatisfied with the outcome of any internal review requested, at that stage they can lodge an AAT Application for review of the internal review decision.[2]

   [2] Respondent’s Submission to the Tribunal dated 4 May 2023.

2. The Respondent provided copies of the following correspondence and case notes:

   ·Plan approval dated 24 May 2021 including information about internal review rights.

   ·Plan approval dated 5 April 2022 including information about internal review rights.

   ·Various emails to and from the representative and the NDIA dated 7 April 2022.

   ·Participant plan dated 16 November 2022.

   ·Case note dated 18 November 2022 recording that the representative had called to discuss the current plan and the progress of the section 100 review request.

   ·Case note dated 24 November 2022 recording a conversation with the representative regarding the section 100 review and decision, and information that was not taken into account as part of the review.

   ·Notice of the outcome of an internal review request, dated 28 November 2022 regarding a plan approved on 16 November 2022, varying the original decision.

   ·Case note dated 28 November 2022 recording a discussion with the representative when he was advised that a HAL “decision” was made on 5 September 2022, prior to additional information being provided on 13 September 2022. He was advised his only option was to go to the Tribunal, as the decision could no longer be reviewed internally, or that he could request a change of circumstances review, based on the additional information.

   ·Case note dated 1 December 2022 recording there was a discussion about an “outstanding issue with the s100 not having considered new evidence…”.

   ·Letter dated 10 January 2023 informing Mr Tootell and his father that his HAL needs had been assessed and changes would be made to his supports. The letter states, in part, the reason for the decision was that the “Home and Living Delegate in the Complex Assessment Meeting held on the 22nd December 2022 reviewed the application for Mr. Tootell under the Internal Review Section.100 Request”. The letter included the following information:

   Your home and living supports will be included in your NDIS plan when it is approved. If you do disagree with this decision, or any other decision about your plan, we will let you know how to request a review when we send you your plan.

   ·Case note dated 25 January 2023 recording that the representative and Mr Tootell’s father were contacted regarding a complaint that the HAL panel had not considered all relevant information and had conducted the review without Mr Tootell’s parents’ consent or knowledge. They also “discussed external review rights and explained AAT process...will send both Shaughn and Chris with information on AAT process, NDIS review and IER Program…”.

   ·Case note dated 27 January 2023 recording that the representative had called to query the email address and Tribunal applications.

   ·Plan dated 3 April 2023 (which does indicate it was a decision made by a reviewer and includes information about review rights).

   ·Various emails to and from the representative and the NDIA between 1 February 2023 and 4 April 2023.

3. In summary, Mr Tootell’s representative has responded to the Respondent’s submission as follows[3]:

   ·The HAL panel held on 15 December 2021 was conducted without the knowledge of Mr Tootell’s stakeholder group. An application had not been made on his behalf. The first the group became aware of the panel was during a meeting with his NDIS planner in March 2022. Accordingly, Mr Tootell was denied an opportunity to provide any information.

   ·Mr Tootell’s nominees did not receive correspondence regarding the decision of 5 April 2022. They were informed on 7 April 2022 by the planner.

   ·The representative was advised by the planner to submit the section 100 form via the enquiries email address and to upload relevant documents in the portal to prevent the emails being blocked by the email firewall. He did this.

   ·Neither the representative nor Mr Tootell’s parents received any written notification relating to the decision made by the HAL panel on 5 September 2022.

   ·On 3 August 2022 the representative was informed that the HAL panel had not yet sat, and that Mr Tootell’s plan nominee would be provided with a letter outlining the decision shortly after the decision was made. On 8 September 2022 he called the NDIA to discuss the progress of the section 100 review. He was again informed that the panel had not sat. Mr Tootell’s planner confirmed the supporting documents had not been received by the NDIA and suggested he resubmit them via the enquiries email address and copy her into the emails. It was then that he discovered he had mislabelled some of the documents with the incorrect NDIS reference number. Of the documents labelled correctly, he submitted a Specialist Support Coordination summary report and a Catalogue of supporting evidence which provided a list of the documents submitted for the panel and a brief summary of each document.

   ·Neither Mr Tootell nor his parents have received any written notification relating to the decision of 16 November 2022 (Plan 3). Nor have they received written notification of the internal review decision of 28 November 2022.

   [3] Applicant’s submission dated 4 May 2023.

4. With respect to the Respondent’s submission that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the decision made on 3 April 2023, the representative argued that they are appealing the HAL “decision”, not the plan. He opined that the HAL panel was prompted by his section 100 request for review in June 2022 and the second HAL panel was prompted by a complaint he made to the Minister’s office. He is of the view the initial panel should be considered invalid because Mr Tootell did not provide consent and was not afforded the opportunity to provide relevant information. In his view the second panel was not valid because the NDIA did not consider all the evidence presented to them.

5. The representative stated that Mr Tootell has been unable to appeal the HAL “decision” because the NDIA has not provided Mr Tootell’s plan nominee with written advice from the HAL panel delegate. The Agency advised him they were unable to lodge a section 100 request on the HAL “decision” as they had already been through that process.

6. Prior to the hearing, Mr Tootell’s representative also provided written submissions and copies of documents including the following:

   (a)an application for a section 100 review dated 27 June 2022 for review of the decision made on 5 April 2022; and

   (b)a copy of an email from the Agency to Mr Tootell’s representative, dated 5 January 2023, stating in part:

   A decision has been made following the recent Home and Living s100 request to review the original 2 person SDA decision for Dayle Tootell. All documentation provided for consideration was included. Following review of the evidence provided, the decision was to uphold the decision from 5/9/22 for Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA): Robust. 2 resident, 2 Bedroom. A letter will come from the Home and Living team outlining the decision.

   Information provided at, and after, the hearing

7. At the hearing I explained that the Tribunal only has jurisdiction to review certain decisions, and only if there has been an internal review undertaken pursuant to subsection 100(6) of the Act. Accordingly, it only has jurisdiction to review the decision of 3 April 2023 if it is a decision completed by a reviewer or, if it is an original decision, a reviewable decision under section 99 has been made.

8. The Respondent submitted that the decision of 3 April 2023 was made after a reassessment by the CEO pursuant to section 48 of the Act, on the CEO’s own initiative. It confirmed it was a decision made in accordance with section 33 of the Act.

9. Mr Tootell’s representative questioned whether that was the case. He stated that he made submissions in September 2022 that the first two HAL panels be considered invalid because the NDIA lost documents that he had provided, and therefore they were not taken into account. He was told the best they could do was request a section 100 panel “resit”. He and Mr Tootell’s parents still did not receive documentation of the subsequent decision (Plan 3) and have not since received any documentation of that decision, or the process undertaken. He asked that the Respondent confirm that the decision of 3 April 2023 was in fact the outcome of a reassessment on the CEO’s own initiative.

10. I noted that the copy of the new statement of participant supports dated 3 April 2023, filed with the Tribunal by the Respondent, does not state that it was approved after a reassessment on the CEO’s own initiative. Nor does it indicate it is a decision by a reviewer. I also noted it does not provide Mr Tootell with information about his review rights. The Respondent referred to a letter sent to Mr Tootell on 10 January 2023 which includes information about review rights. I explained that I may not be satisfied that information provided in January 2023 demonstrated that the Respondent had met its obligations to inform Mr Tootell of his review rights with respect to the decision made on 3 April 2023.

11. I explained that I needed to see evidence that the new plan approved on 3 April 2023 was the outcome of a reassessment pursuant to section 48, on the CEO’s own initiative. I explained that this is important because the Tribunal must be satisfied that decision was not the outcome of a section 100 review, in which case the Tribunal would have jurisdiction.

12. It was drawn to my attention that the decision of 10 January 2023 was the outcome of a Home and Living Complex Assessment meeting on 22 December 2022 in response to a section 100 review request. I explained that while it appears a decision was made in January 2023 in response to Mr Tootell’s request for review, the Agency has since made another decision, in April 2023 (Plan 4), the subject of this review application. The representative stated that the planner informed him that the latest plan came out of the section 100 request.

13. I gave the Respondent an opportunity after the hearing to provide further information to confirm its submission that the decision of 3 April 2023 was made pursuant to section 48 of the Act, on the CEO’s own initiative.

14. After the hearing the Respondent provided copies of interaction notes[4] to demonstrate that the plan dated April 2023 was implemented to increase Capacity Building (CB) funding, after further evidence was provided in March 2023. Attention is drawn to interaction note #130597224 dated 14 March 2023 which relevantly states:

    LTPR[5] to reset review rights for HAL decision which upholds the original SDA decision 2 person SDA. The only other changes to this plan are an increase to CB supports per HAL recommendation and reflective of Dayle's complex needs across domains. Updated OT report provided. Supports are deemed reasonable and necessary.

    ….

    [4] Filed by the Respondent on 9 May 2023.

    [5] An email from the NDIA dated 15 May 2023 advised that LTPR stands for ‘Light Touch Plan Review’.

15. There is also an interaction note dated 9 March 2023 which refers to an updated occupational therapist report being provided.

16. The Respondent submitted this demonstrates the review was conducted by the delegate under section 48 of the Act (although the Respondent notes the record refers to section 49). Therefore, it is submitted by the Respondent that the review ought to be categorised as a section 48 review after new evidence was provided.

17. On that point, the interaction notes record that on 11 January 2023 a note was made that a new plan was required by section 49 (sic) to ensure the participant has rights to an internal review. I am satisfied that this reference to a new plan relates to the decision of 3 April 2023 because no other plan was approved between 11 January 2023 and 3 April 2023.

1. I note however that there was a case note made on 11 April 2023 stating:

   Phone conversation with SC 4/4/23. Discussed plan approved and ready for next step of review process. Discussed update to CB supports OT and Psychology. Nil other changes to the plan. SC is to support the family to follow with AAT/IER process as they would like further consideration of the SDA decision. All internal avenues have now been pursued. SC is aware that the new plan is in place with minimal changes, and SBs require update. Nil other current issues identified.

2. The interaction notes also include an email sent to the representative from Amanda Downes on 4 April 2023 stating as follows:

   I have received notification of the plan approval. CB supports are increased as previously discussed. I will send through a new RFS. My understanding of the IER process is that an AAT application is lodged-and you will have option to take the IER pathway within the AAT process. This should become evident as you lodge.

3. Mr Tootell’s representative responded[6] to the Respondent’s submissions, questioning whether the plan dated 3 April 2023 was the result of the occupational therapy report provided in March 2023, as the interaction notes frequently refer to an early plan review occurring as the result of the HAL “decision”. He notes there is no reference to the CEO initiating the review of the plan in the interaction note of 14 March 2023.  He draws attention to the note of 14 March 2023 stating “(p)revious plan was on track. Early review due to new HAL decision.”

   [6] Applicant’s Submission dated 11 May 2023.

4. The representative also highlights various parts of the interaction notes provided. These includes references to the Independent Expert Review (IER) process, which involves a panel making recommendations on certain matters that are the subject of external review. I note that not all matters before the Tribunal are referred to the IER.

   Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to review the decision of 3 April 2023?

5. As noted, the decisions which are reviewable by the Tribunal are identified in section 99 of the Act. Section 99 of the Act does not include a “decision” or a recommendation of the HAL panel. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not have the power to review such a “decision” or recommendation. It is important that this is clear to Mr Tootell and his representative.

6. The relevant reviewable decision in this case is a decision to approve the statement of participant supports in Mr Tootell’s plan. As far as I am aware the HAL panel does not approve a statement of participant supports pursuant to subsection 33(2) of the Act.

7. Having regard to the parties’ submissions, the correspondence and interaction notes provided, I am satisfied of the following:

   ·on 5 April 2022 a plan was approved for Mr Tootell and he was informed about his internal review rights;

   ·on 28 June 2022 Mr Tootell’s representative sought internal review of that decision;

   ·on 5 September 2022 a HAL panel sat to discuss further information provided and a decision was made, but not all relevant information was taken into account;

   ·on 16 November 2022 a plan was approved, but it had not taken into account all relevant information;

   ·this was discussed with the representative on 24 November 2022;

   ·on 28 November 2022 the notice of the outcome of the internal review request, (a decision made under subsection 100(6), the plan approved on 16 November 2022) was sent to Mr Tootell’s father, including information about external review rights;

   ·on 28 November 2022 the representative was advised that if they were unhappy with this decision the only option was to go to the Tribunal, as the decision could no longer be reviewed internally;

   ·on 1 December 2022 the NDIA acknowledged new evidence was not considered during the section 100 review;

   ·on 22 December 2022 another HAL meeting was held and further evidence was taken into account;

   ·on 10 January 2022 the NDIA wrote to Mr Tootell and his father advising that Mr Tootell’s HAL needs had been assessed, that changes would be made to his supports and they would be informed of their review rights when the new plan was sent;

   ·on 25 January 2023 the NDIA contacted the representative and Mr Tootell’s father, regarding a complaint to the Minister’s office, where they discussed external review rights and explained the AAT process;

   ·in March 2023 an occupational therapist report was provided to the NDIA; and

   ·on 3 April 2023 a copy of a new approved plan was sent to Mr Tootell (however the copy of the plan sent does not include information about review rights).

8. I am satisfied Mr Tootell was not happy with the plan approved on 5 April 2022 and an internal review was requested. That review was completed on 16 November 2022 when the new plan (Plan 3) was approved. The notice of the outcome of the internal review request was not sent until 28 November 2022. Mr Tootell was informed of, and had a right to seek, external review of that decision.

9. However, it was drawn to the NDIA’s attention that not all relevant information had been taken into account when that internal review was undertaken. The representative has submitted the NDIA should have known about the new information. The Respondent acknowledges there was information not taken into account but has submitted further information was provided in March 2023 and this was taken into account to approve the new plan.

10. I am satisfied the NDIA decided in December 2022 to reassess Mr Tootell’s plan before its reassessment date. There is no power in the Act allowing the Respondent to reopen an internal review and make a second decision under subsection 100(6). In my view the only power available to the Respondent when they decided in December 2022 to reassess Mr Tootell’s plan was the section 48 provision which allows the CEO to conduct a reassessment of a participant’s plan, at any time. I acknowledge that this is not explicitly stated in the NDIA’s records. I am of the view this is a shortcoming that the NDIA needs to address. But its failure to make this clear to Mr Tootell does not give the Tribunal jurisdiction to review the decision to approve a new statement of participant supports, apparently made on 3 April 2023.

11. I am of the view the advice given to the representative and Mr Tootell’s father in January 2023 regarding external review was relevant to the plan approved in November 2022, after the completion of the internal review. The notice sent on 28 November 2022 advises that if Mr Tootell wishes to seek external review by the Tribunal the application is to be made within 28 days.  I note Mr Tootell did not seek external review within 28 days. The application for review by the Tribunal was not made until 17 April 2023, when review of the decision of 3 April 2023 was sought.

12. It is no wonder Mr Tootell’s representative and his parents have taken the view the Tribunal has jurisdiction – the NDIA has led them to believe this is the case, because they have not kept them adequately and correctly informed of the changes to their review rights after the reassessment in April 2023. Ms Downes made a note in March 2023 that the “LTPR would reset review rights for HAL decision”[7]. It is not apparent to me that this “reset of review rights” was clearly conveyed to Mr Tootell’s representative or his parents.

    [7] Interaction Notes filed by the Respondent on 9 May 2023.

13. I note the Respondent has not provided to the Tribunal evidence that it informed Mr Tootell of his review rights with respect to the approved plan sent to him on 3 April 2023. The Respondent is of the view Mr Tootell has only until 4 July 2023 to seek internal review. If it is the case that Mr Tootell has been properly notified of this decision and his review rights, then this is correct. However, if he has not been properly notified of his review rights, then this is wrong, and the Respondent needs to provide a valid notice, including information about his review rights, immediately. The period during which Mr Tootell may seek review depends on when he is properly notified. I have not seen evidence that he has been properly notified. In my view there is a real likelihood the clock has not started ticking with respect to the relevant period to seek review.

14. I have formed the view the correspondence regarding the 3 April 2023 notice of the new plan cannot be construed as a decision under subsection 100(6). There is nothing in the correspondence before me to confirm that Plan 4 was approved by an officer in their capacity as a reviewer, making a decision pursuant to subsection 100(6).

15. In this case, I have found the only power available to the Respondent to approve the new plan provided to Mr Tootell on 3 April 2023 is the reassessment provision in section 48. As a result, I am satisfied this is a new reviewable decision, a decision to approve a statement of participant supports, and not the outcome of the section 100 review request.

16. The Tribunal can review a decision to approve a statement of participant supports that has been internally reviewed. It is only after the completion of the internal review that the Tribunal’s review jurisdiction is enlivened. I am not satisfied an internal review of the decision to approve a statement of participant supports, as indicated by the plan sent to Mr Tootell on 3 April 2023, has been internally reviewed. Nor am I satisfied Mr Tootell has been properly notified of the decision and provided with information regarding his review rights.

17. For the reasons given above, I am not satisfied the notice of 3 April 2023 regarding Plan 4, approved after taking into account further information, was a decision under subsection 100(6) of the Act. I am of the view a decision approving a new statement of supports was made following a reassessment undertaken pursuant to section 48 of the Act.

    CONCLUSION

18. As there has not been a decision by a reviewer made under subsection 100(6) of the Act, in relation to the plan sent to Mr Tootell on 3 April 2023, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction.

    DECISION

19. Pursuant to subsection 42A(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the Tribunal dismisses the application for review filed on 17 April 2023.

I certify that the preceding forty-eight (48) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member D Connolly

...................................[SGD].....................................

Associate

Dated: 18 May 2023

Date(s) of hearing:	4 May 2023
Date final submissions received:	11 May 2023
Advocate for the Applicant:	Mr S O'Donoghue, non-legal advocate
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms S Minhas, National Disability Insurance Agency