Williams and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application by Ms Williams for access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The dispute arose because the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) determined that Ms Williams did not meet the access criteria under sections 24 and 25 of the *National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013* (Cth). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to review this decision.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Ms Williams' impairments, including a learning disability, chronic inflammatory spondylarthritis, anxiety, depression, and chronic fatigue syndrome, resulted in a "substantially reduced functional capacity" to undertake any one or more of the specified activities listed in the NDIS Act. The Tribunal also considered whether Ms Williams met the early intervention requirements, although the focus of the decision was on the "disability requirements" under section 24.

The Tribunal considered expert evidence from a psychologist, Mr Don Finnegan, who had treated Ms Williams for many years. Mr Finnegan testified that Ms Williams' impairments interacted significantly, impacting her executive functioning, problem-solving abilities, and capacity to manage daily living and complex decisions. While the Tribunal was satisfied that Ms Williams had a disability, that her impairments were permanent, and that they affected her capacity for social or economic participation, it found that the evidence did not establish a "substantially reduced functional capacity" in the specific activities enumerated in section 24(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the NDIA acknowledged some reduced capacity in learning, self-care, and self-management, but submitted this reduction was not substantial enough to meet the legislative threshold.

The Tribunal affirmed the NDIA's decision that Ms Williams did not meet the access criteria for the NDIS. The Tribunal emphasised that this decision did not diminish the reality or impact of Ms Williams' impairments, but rather reflected a finding that the specific legislative criteria for substantially reduced functional capacity had not been met at that time. The Tribunal noted that Ms Williams remained open to reapplying for access in the future should her functional capacity substantially reduce.