WRMF and National Disability Insurance Agency

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the dispute between WRMF, the applicant, and the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), the respondent. The core of the dispute concerned whether sexual therapy constituted a "reasonable and necessary support" for the applicant under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

The Tribunal was required to determine the meaning of "reasonable and necessary supports" as defined in the *National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013* (Cth) and its associated Rules. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the applicant's particular circumstances warranted the provision of sexual therapy as a funded support under the NDIS, and whether such therapy met the criteria of being reasonable and necessary.

Deputy President Rayment OAM QC, in his decision, analysed the legislative framework and relevant case law concerning the interpretation of "reasonable and necessary supports." The Tribunal found that the NDIA's decision to refuse funding for sexual therapy was based on an incorrect application of the legislative criteria. The Tribunal reasoned that the definition of "reasonable and necessary" requires consideration of the individual's circumstances, including their goals and aspirations, and that supports should not be excluded simply because they relate to a sensitive or personal area of life, provided they are otherwise reasonable and necessary for achieving the participant's goals. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the NDIA's decision and remitted the matter back to the NDIA for reconsideration in accordance with the Tribunal's findings.