XNTW and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application by XNTW, an eleven-year-old boy with dyslexia and dyscalculia, seeking funding from the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) for literacy and numeracy tutoring. The applicant had previously been a participant in the NDIS due to Autism Spectrum Disorder. The dispute before the Tribunal was whether the NDIA was the appropriate body to fund or provide the requested educational supports.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the literacy and numeracy supports sought by the applicant were "reasonable and necessary" within the meaning of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Act, and crucially, whether these supports were "most appropriately funded or provided" by the NDIA or another service system. The Tribunal was required to consider the specific provisions of the NDIS Rules, particularly those relating to the division of responsibility between the NDIS and other service providers, including educational institutions.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the interpretation of Rules 7.13 and 7.14 of the NDIS Rules. Rule 7.13 outlines the NDIS's responsibility for supports associated with the functional impact of a disability on daily living, excluding those primarily relating to education or training attainment. Conversely, Rule 7.14 explicitly states that the NDIS will not be responsible for personalising learning or supports that primarily relate to a student's educational attainment. Applying these rules to the evidence, which included school reports and expert assessments detailing the applicant's struggles with reading comprehension and basic mathematics, the Tribunal concluded that the sought-after tutoring was primarily aimed at improving his educational attainment.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the literacy and numeracy supports were not most appropriately funded or provided by the NDIA, as these fall within the purview of educational services. The decision under review, which affirmed that the NDIA was not the appropriate source of funding for these specific supports, was therefore affirmed.