Watson and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time made by Ms Watson in relation to her application to become a participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The application was heard by Dr L Bygrave, Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The core of the dispute revolved around Ms Watson's significant delay in seeking an extension of time to lodge her substantive application, and whether this delay was reasonable in the circumstances.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether it was reasonable in the circumstances to grant Ms Watson an extension of time to pursue her NDIS participation. In making this determination, the Tribunal was obliged to consider the merits of the substantive application itself, which concerned whether Ms Watson met the access criteria stipulated by the *National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013* (Cth). These criteria, outlined in section 21 of the Act, require an applicant to satisfy age and residence requirements, and either disability requirements (section 24) or early intervention requirements (section 25).

The Member reasoned that a crucial element in deciding whether to grant an extension of time is an assessment of the merits of the underlying application. The *NDIS Act* sets out specific criteria for participation, including having a permanent impairment that substantially reduces functional capacity and affects social or economic participation, or for early intervention, having an impairment or developmental delay where supports are likely to reduce future disability needs. The Member noted that there was no evidence before the Tribunal regarding Ms Watson's specific conditions or impairments, which were central to establishing her eligibility under either the disability or early intervention requirements.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that it was reasonable in the circumstances to grant the extension of time sought by Ms Watson. The application for an extension of time was therefore refused.