Triffitt and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) - [2025] ARTA 2078

Triffitt and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 2078 (10 October 2025)
Applicant:Corom Triffitt
Respondent: National Disability Insurance Agency
Tribunal Number: 2024/8238

Tribunal:General Member J Toohey
Place:Brisbane
Date:10 October 2025
Decision:The decision under review, being the decision of the National Disability Insurance Agency to approve a statement of participants supports made on 16 September 2024 under sections 33(2) and 100(6) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, is affirmed.

Statement made on 10 October 2025 at 3:59pm
.................................[SGD]...................................
General Member Justin Toohey

Catchwords
NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME – Reasonable and necessary supports –Reinstatement of transport funding – Getting the NDIS Back on Track Amendments – Transitional Rules – Whether transport funding for fuel and other vehicles expenses is an NDIS Support
Legislation
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) Act 2024 (Cth)
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013
Cases
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Secondary Materials
Explanatory Statement: National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024
NDIS Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits 2024-25, 1 October 2024, 16 June 2025
NDIS Operational Guideline: Including Specific Types of Supports in Plans – Transport, 2 December 2024
Statement of Reasons
SUMMARY

I have decided to affirm the decision of the Agency. The requested reinstatement of the Applicant’s transport funding to the level included in previous plans can no longer be approved. This is because funding to participants for fuel and other vehicle expenses is no longer permitted. This decision is made under section 105 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act). The reasons for this decision are as set out below.
ISSUE
The issue before the Tribunal is whether it is reasonable and necessary to include $7,245 for transport funding in the Applicant’s statement of participant supports (SPS) for the purposes of sections 33 and 34 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) (the NDIS Act).
BACKGROUND
Mr Triffitt is a 38-year-old man who has been a participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) since April 2017. Mr Triffitt was provided access to the NDIS based on impairments related to his autism and intellectual disability. He lives in his own unit on his parents’ property located in small rural community around 45 kilometres from Devonport in Tasmania.
On 2 November 2023, a delegate of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the National Disability Insurance Agency (Agency) approved an SPS for the period 2 November 2023 to 2 November 2024. In this SPS, transport funding was reduced to $1,784 per annum, being Level 1 transport funding. Mr Triffitt’s previous plan for the period 24 June 2022 to 24 June 2023 included transport funding of $7,245 per annum.[1] The Applicant submits that a similar amount had been included in Mr Triffitt’s plans since 2018. The Agency does not contend otherwise.
[1] T-documents, page 297.
The Applicant requested an internal review of the delegate’s decision, and on 16 September 2024, the Agency varied its original decision and approved a new plan for the period 16 September 2024 to 16 September 2025. On 14 October 2024, the Applicant applied for a review by the Tribunal under section 103 of the NDIS Act and section 12 of the ART Act.
The hearing was held by video on 29 August 2025. The Applicant did not participate in the hearing but was represented by his parents and a disability advocate, Ms J Ogunkoya, from Advocacy Tasmania. The Agency was represented by Mr M Daly from Mills Oakley Lawyers instructed by Ms B Mitchell of the NDIA.
GETTING THE NDIS BACK ON TRACK AMENDMENTS[2]
[2] I have used similar paragraphs to the following in other recent decisions.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) Act 2024 (Cth) (Back on Track Amendment Act) made significant amendments to the NDIS Act. A new section 32A of the NDIS Act sets out that there are now two kinds of plans: being ‘new framework plans’ and ‘old framework plans’. This matter is an ‘old framework plan’. Section 129 of the Back on Track Amendment Act deals with the application of the amendments to content and approval of ‘old framework plans’ and states that:
sections 33, 34 and 35 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, as in force on and after the commencement of this Schedule, apply in relation to a statement of participant supports included in an old framework plan for a participant if the statement is approved or varied on or after that commencement.
…
(a) whether the participant becomes a participant; and
(b) in the case of a variation—whether the plan comes into effect;
before, on or after that commencement.
The Tribunal on review is now considering whether supports are reasonable and necessary and should be funded as part of an SPS. The Tribunal will apply the amended considerations in sections 33, 34 and 35 of the NDIS Act and related rules in the Tribunal’s decision-making process.
Section 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act was amended and now requires that a support must be ‘an NDIS support for the participant’. This, in turn, applies the new definition of ‘NDIS support’ in section 10. Section 10 provides that rules may be made that declare whether a support is (or is not) an NDIS Support. The Minister has made the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Transitional Rules) and these rules commenced on 3 October 2024.
Schedule 1 of the Transitional Rules specifies ‘Supports that are NDIS supports unless otherwise provided’. Schedule 2 specifies ‘Supports that generally are not NDIS supports’. The Transitional Rules apply in a way which means that, if a requested support is listed in Schedule 2 as one of the supports that are generally not NDIS supports, the Tribunal is not able to include this support in an SPS.
Section 10(6) provides for some limited circumstances in which the CEO may determine that a support declared as not being an NDIS support could still be a support for a participant. These are described as ‘replacement support determinations’ and are dealt with in Part 3 of the Transitional Rules. Transport is not listed as a type of support for which a person can apply for a replacement support determination. A section 10(6) determination is not listed as a reviewable decision in section 99 of the NDIS Act. Therefore, the
Tribunal cannot make or review a replacement support determination.
Transitional Rules
Transport, vehicles and vehicle modifications are covered in several items in both Schedules 1 and 2 of the Transitional Rules. Item 6 of Schedule 1 says that ‘Assistance with travel or transport arrangements’ are NDIS supports unless otherwise provided. These supports include:
Supports that provide transport assistance to participants that cannot travel or use public transport independently.
This includes the following:
(a) transport for the purposes of participants undertaking community-based activities;
(b) transport for the purposes of participants attending school or other educational
facilities;
(c) provider travel costs;
(d) costs associated with the use of taxis or private transport;
(e) in-kind specialist school transport;
(f) travel training to build a participant’s confidence and skills to use public transport safety and independently.
Item 35 of Schedule 1 says that ‘Vehicle modifications’ are NDIS supports unless otherwise provided. These supports include:
The provision of assistive products that can be added to vehicles or modifications made to vehicles that help a participant to operate, enter, exit or ride in the vehicle safely.
This includes the following:
(a) passenger and wheelchair hoists;
(b) modified controls;
(c) modified restraints and modified car seats;
(d) certification costs for registration and additional vehicle insurance premium
costs as a direct result of a modification;
(e) services to assess and prescribe, deliver, adjust and train a participant in
successful use of an assistive product or modification;
(f) maintenance, spare parts and consumable items specific to an assistive product or modification.
This support does not include the purchase of a vehicle.
Item 6 of Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules says that ‘Day-to-day living costs — travel and transport’ generally are not NDIS supports. The list of the excluded supports under this Item are:
(a) cruises, holiday packages, holiday accommodation, and airfares, including interstate and overseas travel, and passports, visas, activities and meals included in travel;
(b) vehicles, including motor vehicles, motorbikes, watercraft, all-terrain vehicles, standard bikes and scooters, and other recreational vehicles;
(c) vehicles, devices, modifications or products that are not legal for use in the relevant state or territory;
(d) mechanical repairs (except for repairs to vehicle modifications funded under any plan for the participant), automotive tools;
(e) vehicle registration;
(f) personal mobility devices, including e-scooters, electric bikes and skateboards;
(g) transport for children as part of their reasonable care and support provided by families or carers;
(h) petrol, diesel and gas.
Item 2 of Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules also says that the following ‘Day-to-day living costs — finance and payments’ are not NDIS supports:
…(c) travel insurance, life insurance, income protection insurance, home and contents insurance, car insurance and excess insurance for novated vehicles …
(l) debts, liabilities, loan repayments, buy now pay later payments, and taxes.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Support Rules) also remain in force. To the extent that the Transitional Rules now specifically exclude certain supports from being a NDIS support for a participant, I consider that I must apply these exclusions regardless of whether a support might have been able to be funded under the Support Rules.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
The Tribunal was provided with a joint hearing bundle (JHB) by the parties, and this was accepted into evidence at the hearing.[3] This bundle included:
(a)Several letters, reports, and plans from the Applicant’s Behaviour Support Practitioner (BSP), Ms R Lennon;
(b)Reports from the Applicant’s Occupational Therapist (OT), Ms S Saucer;
(c)A letter from the Applicant’s General Practitioner (GP), Dr A Hawkins;
(d)Reports for the Applicant’s support workers;
(e)Statements from the Applicant’s parents; and
(f)Vehicle trip logbooks, maintenance invoices, and weekly travel summaries.
[3] The document numbering in the JHB index is adopted throughout these reasons.
At the commencement of the hearing the Tribunal also accepted into evidence the ‘T-documents’[4] and a letter from Mr Reeves, Integrity Empowered Living, dated 19 August 2025. The Tribunal had the benefit of receiving written submissions from the parties and oral evidence from Mr Reeves and Ms Lennon.
[4] Which are all the records that the Agency considered when making the decision under review as required by section 23 of the ART Act.
Mr Triffitt’s parents explained that the actual cost of maintaining a vehicle for the Applicant were higher than the funding that they have requested to be reinstated. The total costs were calculated by the Applicant parents to be:
Fuel - $600 month / $7,200 per year
Registration - $315 year
Servicing - $2100 (5 services per year due to warranty & kms)
Insurance - $893 year
Excess on Insurance - $500 (claim made this year)
Tyres - $1330 year (replaces approx. each 8 mths, due to km’s)
Repayments for Car - $100 week/$5200 per year
Internal damage to car - $700 (Front passenger seat broken by Corom)
Taxi Screen - $1100
3 point harness maintenance (Locking device) - $100 year
(NDIS paid for initial installation of harness)
Car seat covers & inside cleaning (Coroms wetting) - $300
Car washing - $20 week/$1040 year[5]
[5] JHB, page 163.
The amount of funding sought to be reinstated is approximately the cost of fuel and registration. Ms Saucer explained the background to Mr Triffitt’s transport needs as being:
Corom is a 37 year old man with profound Autism and intellectual disability. He is 6’4 with a single arm reach of 850mm. He is of average weight. Corom has lived in a purpose built 2 bedroom unit on his family’s property, in Dunorlan, a rural area in Tasmania all his life. He is supported 24 hours a day by 2 support agencies and approximately 8 staff members. Corom’s nearest town is Deloraine with 3000 residents and larger towns such as Launceston @ 71,000 pop and Devonport @ 26,000 pop ,where specific targeted therapy sessions and opportunities to enrich his life are available, are 65km and 46km away respectfully. There is no public transport or taxi available to Corom from his home to any of these destinations. He is therefore totally dependent on private car travel to enjoy any space/place beyond his home.[6]
[6] JHB, page 142.
Mr Reeves, provided a summary of Mr Triffitt’s weekly transport schedule as being:
·Monday – Music Therapy (Devonport – 110 km return $110).
·Tuesday – Community Access (Groceries, Deloraine – 35 km return $35).
·Wednesday – Physiotherapy & Swimming (Deloraine + Port Sorell – up to 155 km $35–$155).
·Thursday – Music Therapy Repeat (Devonport – 110 km $110).
·Friday – Simulated Horse Riding or Community Access (Hadspen 120 km or Deloraine 35 km | $35–$120).
·Saturday – Swimming or Bushwalking (Deloraine 35 km or Alum Cliffs 50 km | $35–$50).
·Sunday – Family Socialisation (Shearwater Beach 120 km or Deloraine 35 km | $35–$120).[7]
[7] JHB, pages 236 to 238.
Ms Lennon also reports that driving is used as a behaviour regulation technique:
Corom has 24/7 care needs and requires support whenever entering the community and when engaging in community based activities- his highly specialised support program and staff have developed successful and support routines that foster and promote his adjustments, and this includes accessing the highly regulating component of using a drive to support his coping and adjustment process.
Corom’s support staff assist him to manage in the vehicle, provide him with the necessary supports to address any behaviours they see when supporting him and have regularly reported to the calming and regulating nature of a drive to stabilising Corom both prior to, and after community engagement, activities. His routines and programming as well as vehicle usage has required several modifications and adjustments to allow him a similar life and parity of engagement with his environment as his same aged peers and has maintained his capacity to be included in his community.[8]
[8] JHB, page 5.
Other information before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant’s occupational therapy, speech therapy, and physiotherapy are delivered online. A personal trainer visits the Applicant’s home each Wednesday.[9]
[9] T-documents, page 40.
In his oral evidence, Mr Reeves also explained that he and the Applicant’s parents had explored the possibility of Mr Reeve’s service provider organisation purchasing the modified vehicle from the parents so that the service provider could instead recover fuel and other expenses as an activity related transport claim. Mr Reeve’s said that this option was not pursued further as the Applicant had multiple service providers and each service provider could only claim activity related transport expenses if they used their own vehicle.
SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS
In summary, the Agency submits that $7,245 for transport funding is not a reasonable and necessary support under section 34(1) of the NDIS Act because:
(a)Transport funding of $1,784.00 along with 2:1 Social, Economic and Community Participation (SECP) supports are sufficient;
(b)Current funding for supported independent living (SIL) supports and Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) funding, would be sufficient for the Participant to reside at a location within Tasmania from which less transport would be required;
(c)Funding requested for vehicle fuel, repairs, registration, and insurance are excluded from being an NDIS support under the Transitional Rules;
(d)There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the therapeutic benefits of driving for the applicant; and
(e)Level 1 Transport funding is consistent with the relevant operational guidelines.
In summary, the Applicant submits that $7,245 for transport funding is a reasonable and necessary support because:
(a)The decision to remove this funding was an unjustified departure from previous planning decisions;
(b)Transport funding supports the Applicant’s goal of improved independence, mental health, and social participation through access to therapies and community participation;
(c)Removal of transport funding has had severe negative consequences including escalation of aggressive behaviours and regression in previous progress made;
(d)The Applicant’s parents cannot afford to continue to provide a modified vehicle for use by the Applicant’s support workers;
(e)Support workers using unmodified vehicles is unsafe; and
(f)There are no other transport alternatives available to the Applicant.
CONSIDERATION
In my view, this matter is impacted by the application of the Transitional Rules. The Applicant’s transport needs appear to remain high. However, the transport supports that can be provided by the NDIS have reduced. The Applicant is seeking reinstatement of transport funding on this basis of expenses for a vehicle that has been purchased and modified by his parents. These expenses relate to fuel, maintenance, registration, insurance, and loan repayments for the vehicle. Funding for these transport related expenses is now expressly excluded from being an NDIS support under Items 2(c), 2(l), 6(d), 6(e) and 6(h) of Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules. It is clear to me that I cannot reach the conclusion that funding for these purposes is an NDIS support for the Applicant. Such a conclusion is prevented by operation of sections 10(4), 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act and the Transitional Rules.
Use of a modified vehicle owned by a service provider
I have considered whether there are other conclusions that might be reached. With regards to the possibility of Mr Reeve’s service provider organisation purchasing the Applicant’s modified vehicle, I note that the NDIS Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits[10] (NDIS Price Guide) says:
Claiming for Activity Based Transport Activity Based Transport
Social, Economic and Community Participation Supports
Providers of supports in the Assistance with Social, Economic and Community Participation Support Category (“community participation supports”) can, at the request of a participant, transport a participant to, or from, or as part of, a community participation support. In these cases, the provider is entitled, with the agreement of the participant, to bill the participant’s plan for the time that support workers spend providing the transport support (as part of the community participation support). They are also entitled to bill for any non-labour costs associated with transporting the participant (again, as part of the community participation support).
The worker’s time can be claimed at the agreed hourly rate for the relevant support item for the total time the worker provides support to one or more participants, including time spent accompanying and/or transporting the participant. Where a provider is transporting two or more participants on the same trip, the worker’s time should be apportioned amongst participants. This claim should be made using the relevant community participation support item and against the participant’s core budget.
If a provider incurs costs, in addition to the cost of a worker’s time, when accompanying and/or transporting participants in the community (such as road tolls, parking fees and the running costs of the vehicle), they may negotiate with the participant for them to make a reasonable contribution towards these costs. The following is a guide as to what these contributions might be:
• For a vehicle that is not modified for accessibility, up to $0.99 a kilometre;
• For a vehicle that is modified for accessibility or a bus, up to $2.76 a kilometre;
• For other forms of transport or associated costs, such as road tolls, parking, and public transport fares, up to the full amount.[11]
[10] NDIS Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits 2025-26 Version 1.0 (published 16/06/2025).
[11] Page 29. See also page 1 for a similar statement with regards to activity-based transport for capacity building supports.

On my reading of the above extract for NDIS Price Guide, the ability for service providers to claim for vehicle running cost remains somewhat unclear. There seems to be an inconsistency between two statements: the first being that a service provider can bill the participant’s plan for non-labour transport costs; the second being that a service provider may negotiate with a participant to make a reasonable contribution towards the running costs of service provider’s vehicle. This second statement appears to me to be more consistent with the exclusion of such running costs from being an NDIS Support under the Transitional Rules.[12]
[12] Operational guidelines represent government policy and should be applied by the Tribunal unless there is good reason not to do so. See Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634.
If this second proposition is correct then, aside from the issue of multiple service providers, a transfer of ownership of the Applicant’s modified vehicle to a service provider might not offer an alternative basis for the requested transport expenses to be funded. The NDIS Price Guide allows a service provider to negotiate with a participant to make a reasonable contribution towards the running costs of a vehicle. It is not entirely clear to me that the NDIS Price Guide permits the service provider to make a claim for these running costs to the NDIS. In the current matter, as the service provider does not own the modified vehicle, I do not need to make a decision on how to correctly apply the NDIS Price Guide.
Private transport
While not specifically raised by the parties, I have also considered whether the use of a modified vehicle, owned by a third party other than the service provider, could be an NDIS Support under Item 6(d) of Schedule 1 of the Transitional Rules if it is a taxi or private transport. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that taxis are not available for the Applicant. Hypothetically, if a suitably modified vehicle were owned by an entity other than the Applicant’s family or service provider, it seems to me that this would be capable of being considered a ‘private transport’ for the purpose of Item 6(d) of Schedule 1 of the Transitional Rules. For example, a vehicle operated by a charity or the Applicant’s church might fall within the concept of ‘private transport.’ This is not the present situation for the Applicant and the Tribunal is not able to conclude that private transport is available to the Applicant based on the current information.
Transport Guideline
I have also looked to the NDIS Operational Guideline: Including Specific Types of Supports in Plans - Transport[13] (Transport Guideline) to see whether any further clarity can be gained about the appropriate use of transport funding. Unfortunately, the Transport Guideline does not make any reference to the Transitional Rules or NDIS Price Guide. The Transport Guideline only refers to the Support Rules in section 12, saying:
Transport supports include supports that enable participants to build capacity to independently travel, including through personal transport-related aids and equipment, or training to use public transport.
A participant’s transport supports may also include the reasonable and necessary costs of taxis or other private transport options for participants who are not able to travel independently, as well as transport to and from school for students.
Transport supports only relate to participants and do not relate to travel for families, carers or providers of supports. However, providers of supports may claim
reasonable travel time when delivering reasonable and necessary supports in the home, or when accompanying participants to access the community.
…
A support will not be provided or funded under the NDIS if it relates to day-to-day living costs (rule 5.1(d) of the Supports for Participants Rules).
Day-to-day living costs may include rent, groceries or utility fees, however, this is not an exhaustive list. Transport is an incidental cost of everyday life for most people and, therefore, can also be considered to be a day-to-day living cost.
However, the NDIS may fund day-to-day living costs that are incurred by a participant solely and directly as a result of their disability support needs (rule 5.2(a) of the Supports for Participants Rules).
[13] Published 2 December 2024.
Despite being published after the commencement of the Back on Track Amendment Act and the Transitional Rules, the Transport Guideline is not consistent with the Transitional Rules and requires updating. It is no longer correct to say that ‘the NDIS may fund day-to-day living costs that are incurred by a participant solely and directly as a result of their disability support needs’ without then saying that some day-to-day living costs for travel and transport are specifically excluded under the Transitional Rules.
It would be helpful if the Transport Guideline clarified the position for participants in Mr Triffitt’s situation where taxis, other private transport options, and public transport are not available.
Levels of transport funding
Presently, section 12.2 The Transport Guideline says the following about the levels of transport funding:
There are generally three levels of funding support for transport. The levels are used to provide a transport budget for participants.
In exceptional circumstances, participants may receive higher funding if the participant has either general or funded supports in their plan that enable their participation in employment.
Level 1
the NDIS may provide $1,784 per year for participants who are not working, studying or attending day programs but are seeking to enhance their community access.
Level 2
the NDIS may provide $2,676 per year for participants who are currently working or studying part-time (up to 15 hours per week), participating in day programs and for other social, recreational, or leisure activities.
Level 3
the NDIS may provide $3,456 per year for participants who are currently working, looking for work, or studying, at least 15 hours per week, and are unable to use public transport because of their disability.
The Agency submits that Mr Triffitt remains eligible for transport funding at Level 1. The Applicant submits that Mr Triffitt is also eligible for Level 2 funding as he is ‘participating in day programs and for other social, recreational, or leisure activities’. If I were to apply the Transport Guideline without reference to the Transitional Rules, I would agree with the Applicant. However, when the Transitional Rules are considered, approval of either Level 1 or Level 2 funding for Mr Triffitt appears problematic. The issue here remains whether Mr Triffitt be able to utilise this funding in practice. This is because applying funding to fuel or other vehicle costs will now be prevented by the Transitional Rules. Section 46 of the NDIS Act was amended by the Back on Track Amendment Act to make it clear that NDIS amounts may only be spent on NDIS Supports. It is also clear that fuel, maintenance, registration, insurance, and loan repayments for a vehicle are not NDIS Supports under the Transitional Rules.
Saving provisions for stated supports
While I consider that I cannot now approve transport funding which would be used for fuel and running costs for the Applicant’s vehicle, I also consider that the Agency’s inclusion of $1,784 per year for ‘Recurring Transport’ is capable of being affirmed. This is because these funds are expressed as a ‘stated support’ in Mr Triffitt’s plan which commenced on 16 September 2024. As such, they are ‘saved’ by section 6 of the Transitional Rules which states that:
6 Transitional rule for certain pre-commencement plans
(1) This section applies in relation to a participant if the plan that is in effect for the participant includes a statement of participant supports approved by the CEO before the commencement of Schedule 1 to the amending Act.
(2) A support specified in the statement as a reasonable and necessary support for the participant for the purposes of paragraph 33(2)(b) of the NDIS Act is taken to be an NDIS support for the participant if:
(a) the support is expressed in the statement to be a stated support; …
The Explanatory Statement to the Transitional Rules says the following on page 11:
Section 6 provides a transitional rule for some participants. In effect, it will ensure a participant who has a support stated in their plan can continue to access that support after commencement if it is not an NDIS support. …This will apply for as long as the relevant plan is in effect. …
This provision is important to ensure that participants can continue to access supports that are not NDIS supports if they have been specifically identified as reasonable and necessary for the participant prior to the Amending Act commencing. This will provide continuity of supports for a period of time while the participant becomes familiar with the list of supports that are NDIS supports and is able to select alternatives, if applicable.
In my view, affirming the Agency’s decision will mean that this ‘recurring transport’ will remain as a stated support while Mr Triffitt’s existing SPS continues to be in effect.
Conclusion
I am sympathetic to the concerns raised by the Applicant’s parents, advocate, service providers and treating team. It does appear that the Applicant’s behaviours of concerns have worsened since his transport funding was reduced and that the Applicant’s parents are not able to afford to provide the level of transport required.
The way in which the planning decision was made to reduce Mr Triffitt’s transport funding does not seem to align with the principle stated in the NDIS Act that people with disability and their families should have certainty that participants will receive the care and support they need over their lifetime.[14] In my view, if transport funding was to be reduced, it would have been a better process for the Agency to support the Triffitt’s to explore alternative or innovative solutions prior to reducing the funds. A ‘step-down’ approach to reducing the funds over time might also have been appropriate.
[14] NDIS Act, section 4(3).
However, the Tribunal must apply the NDIS Act and rules as made by Parliament and the Minister. The current framework precludes decision-makers from approving supports which are not NDIS Supports. These exclusions were enacted to ensure the financial sustainability of the scheme. Reinstatement of the Applicant’s transport funding cannot be approved because providing funding to participants for fuel and other vehicle expenses is no longer permitted.
DECISION
The decision under review, being the decision of the National Disability Insurance Agency to approve a statement of participants supports made on 16 September 2024 under sections 33(2) and 100(6) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, is affirmed.

Dates of hearing: 29 August 2025

Advocate for the Applicant:
Ms J Ogunkoya, Advocacy Tasmania

Solicitors for the Respondent:
Mr M Daly from Mills Oakley Lawyers

Dates of hearing:	29 August 2025
Advocate for the Applicant:	Ms J Ogunkoya, Advocacy Tasmania
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr M Daly from Mills Oakley Lawyers