YHCQ and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) - [2025] ARTA 267

YHCQ and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 267 (26 March 2025)
Applicant:YHCQ
Respondent: National Disability Insurance Agency
Tribunal Number: 2022/2685

Tribunal:General Member J Toohey
Place:Brisbane
Date:26 March 2025
Decision:1. The decision under review, being the decision of the National Disability Insurance Agency:
(a)made on 7 March 2022 under section 100(6) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth);
(b)as remade on 23 January 2025 following remittal by the Tribunal under section 85 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth);

is set aside under section 105 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) and remitted for reconsideration with the directions that the statement of participant supports includes sufficient funding for:
(a)the agreed gait trainer;
(b)short-term hire of a modified vehicle for a period of 6 months;
(c)paid family support for 6 hours per day for a period of 6 months; and
(d)subject to the provision of adequate records, reimbursement for paid family support for 6 hours per day from March 2024;
(e)Applicant‑specific support worker training for a period of 6 months of:
(i) 5 hours per support worker; and
(ii) 5 hours per support worker to take part in a buddy shifts.

2. The statement of participant supports is also to include a reassessment date of 12 months after implementation of the new plan following this decision.
3. The remaining aspects of the statement of participant supports, including plan management, remain unchanged.

.................................[SGD]...................................
General Member Justin Toohey

Catchwords
NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME – Reasonable and Necessary Supports – Support Worker Training – Family Members as Paid Supports – Getting the NDIS Back on Track Amendments – Transitional Rules – Vehicle Hire – Whether short-term vehicle hire is an NDIS Support
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) 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 (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Transitional Rules 2024
Cases
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Johnstone and National Disability Insurance Agency [2023] AATA 3632
Johnstone and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 106
National Disability Insurance Agency v Davis [2022] FCA 1002
Syddall and National Disability Insurance Agency [2022] AATA
Warwick v National Disability Insurance Agency [2024] FCA 616
Secondary Materials
Explanatory Statement: National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024
NDIS Practice Standards: High intensity support skills descriptors, November 2022
NDIS Operational Guideline: Including Specific Types of Supports in Plans - Sustaining informal supports, 2 December 2024
NDIS Operational Guideline: Reasonable and necessary supports, 22 September 2024
NDIS Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits 2024-25, 1 October 2024
NDIS Operational Guideline: Vehicle modifications and driving support, 12 April 2023
Statement of Reasons
SUMMARY

The Tribunal has decided to set aside and remit the decision of the Agency with directions that the Applicant’s statement of participant supports includes sufficient funding for:
(a)the agreed gait trainer;
(b)short-term hire of a modified vehicle for a period of 6 months;
(c)paid family support for 6 hours per day for a period of 6 months;
(d)subject to the provision of adequate records, reimbursement for paid family support for 6 hours per day from March 2024; and
(e)Applicant‑specific support worker training for a period of 6 months of:
(i)5 hours per support worker; and
(ii)5 hours per support worker to take part in a buddy shifts.
The statement of participant supports is to include a reassessment date of 12 months after implementation of the new plan following this decision.
The remaining aspects of the statement of participant supports, including plan management, remain unchanged.
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.
INTRODUCTION
The issue before the Tribunal is whether supports requested by the Applicant are reasonable and necessary supports to be funded 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).
On 3 February 2025, the Tribunal put in place a confidentiality order under section 70(1) of the ART Act, such that:
(a)the name and any other information tending to reveal the identity of the Applicant must not be published;
(a)the Applicant’s name is replaced with the pseudonym YHCQ in documents relating to the proceeding filed or created after the date of the order; and
(b)the name and any other information tending to reveal the identity of any witnesses or other persons who have provided evidence to the Tribunal must not be published.
YHCQ is an young Indigenous man in his mid-twenties. He lives with his family in a rural location in the Sunshine Coast region of Queensland. YHCQ is a participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). According to the functional capacity assessment conducted by his occupational therapist (BT), YHCQ lives with several significant impairments related to the following diagnoses, including:
(a)Idiopathic General Microcephaly: a rare neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by a significantly smaller head size, often associated with intellectual disability and developmental delays;
(b)Congenital Motor Nystagmus: a condition involving involuntary eye movements, affecting visual acuity and coordination, increasing the risk of falls and accidents;
(c)Autism Spectrum Disorder (Level 3): significant impairments in social communication, behaviour, and daily functioning, requiring substantial support to manage behavioural challenges and prevent harm;
(d)Dyskeratosis Congenita: a rare genetic disorder causing bone marrow failure and immune deficiencies, increasing susceptibility to infections and necessitating a sterile environment;
(e)Osteoporosis: a condition that weakens bones, leading to a high risk of fractures, especially in the event of falls or seizures; and
(f)Seizures and Epilepsy: chronic neurological conditions involving recurrent seizures, which pose significant safety risks, including the potential for serious injury or death during an episode.[1]
[1] Report of BT, Occupational Therapist, dated 2 September 2024, pages 313 and 314 of the joint hearing bundle.
On 8 February 2022, a delegate of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the National Disability Insurance Agency (the Agency) approved an SPS for the Applicant. The Applicant requested an internal review of the delegate’s decision, and on 7 March 2022, the Agency affirmed its original decision. On 31 March 2022, the Applicant applied for a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) under section 103 of the NDIS Act and section 25 of the AAT Act.
During the proceeding, the matter was remitted to the Agency for reconsideration on more than one occasion. The final remittal was made on 21 January 2025 under section 85 of the ART Act. The Agency created a new SPS following this remittal which was dated 23 January 2025. It is the 23 January 2025 SPS which is being reviewed by the Tribunal.
The hearing was held by video on 30 and 31 January 2025. YHCQ was present during the first part of the hearing. He was represented by his mother (AM) with support from his father (AF) and his support coordinator (SC). The Agency was represented by Counsel, Mr G Johnson as instructed by Mr B Hornsby of the NDIA.
At the commencement of the hearing, the Agency advised that several previously disputed supports had now been agreed between the parties and included in the 23 January 2025 SPS.[2] These agreed supports included funding for:
[2] At page 986 of the joint hearing bundle.
(a)Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA);
(b)support workers at a 2:1 ratio for 6 hours a day;
(c)high intensity support workers; and
(d)active overnight support.
Following the hearing, the parties were directed to advise of any agreement reached on the remaining issues and to provide final written submissions. The Agency provided their final written submissions on 17 February 2025. On 3 March 2025, the Agency advised that they agreed that the gait trainer was a reasonable and necessary support that should be funded. Due to cyclone Alfred, the Applicant was provided with additional time to provide their final written submissions, which were received on 12 March 2025.
ISSUES
The issues before the Tribunal are whether the following supports are reasonable and necessary supports for the Applicant:
(a)Purchase or hire of a modified vehicle;
(b)Paid family supports; and
(c)Training of support workers.
TRANSITION TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL[3]
[3] The following paragraph is approved for use in all Tribunal decisions.
On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.
GETTING THE NDIS BACK ON TRACK AMENDMENTS[4]
[4] 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. The 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.
New section 34(1)(aa)
The amendments insert a new section 34(1)(aa) that must be satisfied for a support to be considered reasonable and necessary and requires that:
(aa) the support is necessary to address needs of the participant arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements (see section 24) or the early intervention requirements (see section 25)
In the Agency’s final written submissions, dated 17 February 2025, they confirmed that the Agency does not submit that any of the supports sought by the Applicant are unnecessary to address his needs arising from an impairment in relation to which he meets the disability requirements in section 24 of the NDIS Act. Having reviewed the material before me, I am satisfied that the requested supports are intended to address needs of the Applicant arising from impairments which meet the disability requirements.
New sections 10, 34(1)(f) and Transitional Rules
The amendments also added section 34(1)(f) which requires that the support is 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. Section 124 of the Back on Track Amendment Act states that the reference to rules made under section 10 includes rules made under section 138 of the Back on Track Amendment Act, which allows the Minister to make transitional rules. 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’.
As I discussed in Johnstone,[5] the term of ‘generally’ in the context of Schedule 2 is used in the sense of applying to all participants as compared to a class of participants, rather than in the sense of applying in ‘most circumstances’ or similar. 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.
[5] Johnstone and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 106, [23]–[31].
Section 10(6) does provide some limited circumstances in which the CEO may determine that a support declared as not being an NDIS support could still be support for a participant (if it replaces an NDIS support and achieves the same or better result for the same or lower cost). These are described as ‘replacement support determinations’ and are dealt with in Part 3 of the Transitional Rules. A section 10(6) determination is not listed as a reviewable decision in section 99 of the NDIS Act.
18.The Minister also made the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Transitional Rules 2024 (Miscellaneous Transitional Rules). Section 7 of the Miscellaneous Transitional Rules requires that a decision‑maker must also be satisfied the support is most appropriately funded or provided through the NDIS, and not more appropriately funded or provided through other general systems of service delivery or support services. In effect, this means that decision‑makers are (at least until new rules are made) applying two versions of section 34(1)(f), as it was before the amendments, and the new version as amended.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Support Rules) also remain in force and specify several matters that are not the responsibility of the NDIS to fund.
New section 33(5)(g)
New section 33(5)(g) requires decision-makers to have regard to whether section 46 (acquittal of NDIS amounts) was complied with in relation to any previous plan for the participant. As section 129 of the Back on Track Amendment Act applies this provision to old framework plans, it must be considered. However, section 133 states that:
Section 46 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, as in force on and after the commencement of this Schedule, applies in relation to:
(a) a participant who receives an NDIS amount, including because of subsection 46(1A) of that Act, on or after that commencement; or
(b) a person who receives an NDIS amount on behalf of a participant, including because of subsection 46(1B) of that Act, on or after that commencement;
whether the participant becomes a participant before, on or after that commencement.
Therefore, the new section 33(5)(g) only applies to the acquittal of NDIS amounts received after the commencement of the Back on Track Amendment Act. The parties did not make any submissions about the acquittal of such NDIS amounts. At this point in time, I do not have sufficient information to make any finding in relation to the acquittal of NDIS amounts received after 3 October 2024.
OVERVIEW OF THE NDIS DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK[6]
[6] I have used a similar overview in other decisions.
Chapter 1, Part 2 of the NDIS Act sets the Act objects and principles including, for example, that the NDIS Act is to support the independence and social and economic participation of people with disability,[7] that people with disability should be supported in all their dealings and communications with the Agency so that their capacity to exercise choice and control is maximised in a way that is appropriate to their circumstances and cultural needs,[8] and that decision-makers are to have regard to the need to ensure the financial sustainability of the scheme.[9]
[7] Section 3(1)(c).
[8] Section 4(9).
[9] Section 3(3)(b).
Chapter 3, Part 2 of the NDIS Act deals with participants and their plans and includes further principles in relation to the preparation, variation, reassessment and replacement of plans. This guidance includes that this planning process should, so far as reasonably practicable, be directed by the participant,[10] and be underpinned by the right of the participant to exercise choice and control over his or her life.[11]
[10] Section 31(a).
[11] Section 31(g).
A participant’s plan must include a statement of the participant’s goals and aspirations[12] as well as an SPS that includes the reasonable and necessary supports that will be funded by the Agency.[13] In deciding to approve an SPS, the Agency must have regard to the matters set out in section 33(5), including applying the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Support Rules), and be satisfied that each support meets the criteria in section 34. The criteria in section 34(1) are that:
[12] Section 33(1).
[13] Section 33(2)(b).
(aa) the support is necessary to address needs of the participant arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements …
(a) the support will assist the participant to pursue the goals, objectives and aspirations included in the participant's statement of goals and aspirations;
(b) the support will assist the participant to undertake activities, so as to facilitate the participant's social and economic participation;
(c) the support represents value for money in that the costs of the support are reasonable, relative to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternative support;
(d) the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for the participant, having regard to current good practice;
(e) the funding or provision of the support takes account of what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide;
(f) the support is an NDIS support for the participant.[14]
[14] And, by virtue of the Miscellaneous Transitional Rules, that the support is most appropriately funded or provided through the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and not more appropriately funded or provided through other general systems of service delivery or support services.
The Support Rules also remain in force and provide greater explanation of the application of the criteria in section 34. For example, in relation to assessing value for money for section 34(1)(e), Rule 3.1 says that a decision-maker must consider:
(a) whether there are comparable supports which would achieve the same outcome at a substantially lower cost;
(b) whether there is evidence that the support will substantially improve the life stage outcomes for, and be of long‑term benefit to, the participant;
(c) whether funding or provision of the support is likely to reduce the cost of the funding of supports for the participant in the long term (for example, some early intervention supports may be value for money given their potential to avoid or delay reliance on more costly supports) …

The NDIS Operational Guidelines also assist in making decisions in accordance with the NDIS Act. Operational guidelines represent government policy and should be applied by the Tribunal unless there is good reason not to do so.[15] I will refer to these guidelines where relevant below.
[15] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
The Tribunal was provided with a joint hearing bundle by the parties, and this was accepted into evidence at the hearing.[16] This large bundle of documents (1015 pages) included:
[16] The document numbering in the hearing bundle index is adopted throughout these reasons.
(a)The ‘T-documents’;[17]
[17] Which are all the records that the Agency considered when making the decision under review as required by section 37 of the AAT Act.
(b)Several letters and reports from the Applicant’s GP (Dr M) from January 2022 to September 2024;
(c)Statements, including carer impact statements, from the Applicant’s parents;
(d)Letters and reports from occupational therapists, including from:
(i)JW in 2020;
(ii)BT in the period June 2021 to October 2024; and
(iii)ER in January 2024;
(c)A support worker statement from BK in December 2024; and
(d)Various hospital discharge letters and other medical records.
The Tribunal also had the benefit of receiving written submissions from the parties and oral evidence from:
(a)the Applicant’s mother (AM);
(b)the Applicant’s occupational therapist (BT);
(c)the Applicant’s support coordinator (SC);
(d)the Applicant’s general practitioner (Dr M);
(e)the Applicant’s nurse navigator (NN); and
(f)an independent occupational therapist (ER).
The Applicant also arranged for BK, one of the Applicant’s support workers, to provide oral evidence but, unfortunately, BK was not available due to a family emergency.
CONSIDERATION
Applicant’s goals
Section 33(5)(a) of the NDIS Act says that, in deciding whether or not to approve an SPS, decision-makers must have regard to the participant’s statement of goals and aspirations. A copy of the Applicant’s most recent plan records the Applicant’s goals as being:
(a)I would like to be supported with my assistive technology requirements to ensure that my equipment is safe, fit for purpose and well maintained.
(b)I would like to have more opportunities to participate in recreational activities, attend community events and increase my social circle.
(c)I would like to reduce my dependence on my parents for my personal care and domestic tasks at home and in the community.
(d)I would like to be supported with all aspects of my activities of daily living and community participation and to attend my allied health and mainstream appointments.
(e)I would like to improve my ability to communicate my wants, needs, feelings and preferences.
(f)I would like to improve my safety and wellbeing (and that of my carers) at home and when I am in the community.
I have had regard to these goals and aspirations and will refer to them where relevant below.
Issue (a): Purchase or hire of a modified vehicle
The Applicant seeks funding in his SPS for either:
(i)Purchase of a non-standard vehicle that can be appropriately modified;
(ii)Modifications to a vehicle purchased by the Applicant; or
(iii)Hire of a fully modified wheelchair accessible vehicle until an appropriate vehicle can be purchased by the Applicant and modified.
This issue has a difficult history. During the Tribunal’s dispute resolution process, the Agency offered to fund the purchase of a second-hand vehicle, vehicle modifications and vehicle hire for 6 months. The parties continued to negotiate on an appropriate vehicle price. Prior to reaching a final agreement, the Back on Track Amendment Act and Transitional Rules commenced. The Agency updated its position to advise that it was no longer able to fund the purchase of a vehicle. The Applicant expressed strong concerns that the Agency had engaged in ‘tactical behaviour’ in delaying agreement on this issue.[18]
[18] See H85 of the joint hearing bundle at page 659.
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.
Issue (a)(i): purchase of a vehicle to be modified
The Applicant acknowledges that the Back on Track Amendment Act and Transitional Rules now prevent NDIS funding for the purchase of a ‘standard’ vehicle. However, the Applicant submits the make and model of a vehicle that is that is suitable for the required modifications is well beyond the cost of a typical standard vehicle for a person without disabilities. The Applicant says that this is a one-off expenditure, or one that is incurred only a few times in a lifetime, and such an expense should not be categorised as a day-to-day living cost and, therefore, should not be excluded under the Support Rules.
There are decisions, including the Federal court decision in Warwick,[19] which have accepted similar propositions. However, these decisions were made prior to the Back on Track Amendment Act and commencement of the Transitional Rules. The Transitional Rules now specifically exclude some items which might otherwise be considered as exceptional, or at least very infrequent, expenditure. For example, stamp duty on a house transfer is listed as not being an NDIS Support in Item 1(a) of Schedule 2.
[19] Warwick v National Disability Insurance Agency [2024] FCA 616.
I note that Item 6(b) of Schedule 2 does not use the term ‘standard’. The term ‘standard’ is used in other parts of the Transitional Rules. ‘Standard item’ is defined in section 4 as meaning:
standard item for a participant or prospective participant means an item that is
not modified or adapted to address the functional impairments of the participant
or prospective participant.
While the make and model of vehicle sought by the Applicant is more expensive than might be typical for a young man without a disability, this does not mean that it is a not a standard vehicle. A vehicle prior to modification is a standard item but a modified vehicle is not a standard item. In any case, the exclusion of motor vehicles in Item 6(b) is not qualified by the term ‘standard’.
This conclusion is underscored by the words at the end of Item 6 of Schedule 1 which says that the category of vehicle modifications ‘does not include the purchase of a vehicle’. While I am very sympathetic to the circumstances of the Applicant, I am required to apply the rules that are now in force and do not consider that I have the discretion to arrive at any other conclusion. Funding to purchase a vehicle is not an NDIS support that can be included in the Applicant’s SPS.
Issue (a)(ii): vehicle modifications
The parties have agreed, in principle, that vehicle modifications are a reasonable and necessary support for the Applicant. However, the Agency submits that:
The Agency’s position is that the applicant would need to submit a change in circumstances form/request a plan review once he has identified a suitable vehicle for modification. The Agency will review this request, along with supporting evidence, before deciding whether the support is reasonable and necessary.[20]
[20] Agency’s Written Closing Submissions, paragraph 16.
The Applicant disagrees and submits that vehicle modifications can be approved as a ‘quote required’ capital item and that a further plan reassessment is not an appropriate pathway for this to occur. I agree with the Applicant. There is ample evidence before the Tribunal on this issue and I am satisfied that vehicle modifications are a reasonable and necessary support to be funded in the Applicant’s SPS.
Without a modified vehicle the Applicant is not able to access the community for social activities or essential services. The Applicant is unable to travel using public transport or a non-modified vehicle. There is very limited availability of modified taxis in the Applicant’s location, and taxis have difficulty accessing his property. The cost for the modifications is approximately $52,000.[21] This is a significant expense but is value-for-money relative to the benefits achieved.[22] There are no lower cost alternatives that are currently available.[23] This need is directly related to the Applicant’s disability.[24] Vehicle modifications will assist the Applicant with his goals to participate in recreational activities and community events, and to improve his safety and wellbeing.[25] This support is necessary for the Applicant’s social participation and is beneficial in reducing the risk of harm to the Applicant.[26] It is not reasonable to expect the Applicant’s family to provide the vehicle modifications.[27] Vehicle modifications are an NDIS support under Schedule 1, Item 35 of the Transitional Rules.[28] This support is most appropriately funded under the NDIS as it relates directly to the Applicant’s disability needs and is not available under another system of support.[29]
[21] Joint hearing bundle page 585 and 586.
[22] Section 34(1)(c).
[23] Support Rules, Rule 3.1(a).
[24] NDIS Act, section 34(1)(aa).
[25] Section 34(1)(a).
[26] Sections 34(1)(b) and (d).
[27] Section 34(1)(e).
[28] Sections 10 and 34(1)(f) as amended.
[29] Section 34(1)(f) prior to amendment.
The quote for vehicle modifications in the joint hearing bundle is dated 9 July 2024. While the final cost of the modifications may depend on the vehicle that is purchased and could require updated quotes, this is a matter for implementation and the precise figures do not need to be determined by the Tribunal.
Issue (a)(iii): vehicle hire
The Applicant seeks funding to hire a modified vehicle while they proceed with purchasing and modifying a vehicle. Based on the advice of an accessible vehicle provider, the Applicant estimates that they may need to hire a vehicle for 12–24 months.[30]
[30] Referring to an email dated 9 December 2024, page 695 of the joint hearing bundle.
In summary, the Agency submits that:
(a)Schedule 2 does not delineate between hire/lease and purchase of vehicles;
(b)The cost of long-term hire could be as significant as the purchase of a vehicle;
(c)The amendments were intended to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of the NDIS;
(d)Section 10(4) of the NDIS Act provides that the rules may declare that a support is not an NDIS support and this means that the only issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether funding for the hire of a vehicle is within the terms of Schedule 2; and
(e)The Vehicle Modifications Guideline was last updated 12 April 2023 (prior to the Back on Track Amendment Act) and cannot be used to interpret or overcome the amendments and rules made in 2024.
In summary, the Applicant submits that vehicle hire can be funded as:
(a)It falls within Item 6 of Schedule 1, because the Applicant is unable to use public transport and requires transport to access the community;
(b)The NDIS Price Guide provides a line item for specialised transport services for a participant to access the community;[31]
(c)The Vehicle Modifications Guideline provides that the Agency may pay for a hire vehicle while modifications are being completed;[32]
(d)Vehicle hire is not prevented under Item 6 of Schedule 2;
(e)The consultation draft rules did not ‘carve out’ vehicle hire;[33]
(f)The explanatory statement to the Transitional Rules only refers to purchase of standard vehicles;[34] and
(g)The Tribunal decision in Syddall is an authority for funding the leasing of a vehicle.[35]
[31] NDIS Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits 2024-25 v1.3 published 1 October 2024, page 57.
[32] NDIS Operational Guideline: Vehicle modifications and driving support, published 12 April 2023, page 17.
[33] Explanatory Statement: National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024, page 30 and 32.
[35] Syddall and National Disability Insurance Agency [2022] AATA 3738 at [48].
I do not accept the Agency’s submission that the only issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether funding for the hire of a vehicle is within the terms of Schedule 2. Section 10(1) of the NDIS Act also provides that the rules may declare that a support is an NDIS Support. While this is expressed as being subject to section 10(4), in my view, it is clear that both Schedules 1 and 2 are intended to operate and should be read together. An inclusion in Schedule 1 should be read as being subject to a clear exclusion in Schedule 2.
I agree with the Applicant that short-term hire of a modified vehicle, while modifications are completed on a longer-term vehicle, is capable of being funded. Pages 16 and 17 of the Vehicle Modifications Guideline says that:
What other supports do we fund?
When we fund vehicle modifications and driving supports, we may also fund other related supports. This includes help to:
…
fund a solution to your regular transport needs while your vehicle is being modified. We may pay for a hire vehicle for you while your modification is being completed or we may add extra transport funding to your plan. We’ll consider your situation, what will meet your needs and be value for money in the short term.
On page 3 of the Vehicle Modifications Guideline it is also clearly stated that:
Vehicle modifications and driving supports we don’t fund
…
oFunding to buy or lease a vehicle
I agree with the Agency that long-term hire of a vehicle could be equivalent to the cost of purchasing a vehicle (or could perhaps be higher) and that consideration of the scheme’s financial viability is relevant here.[36] I also agree that, at some point, the long-term hire or lease of a vehicle amounts to funding a vehicle and therefore would be excluded from being an NDIS support under Item 6 of Schedule 2.
[36] NDIS Act, section 4(17).
I note that the decision in Syddall was prior to the Back on Track Amendment Act and commencement of the Transitional Rules and do not consider that this remains a relevant authority on this point.
I do not consider that there is an inconsistency between the Vehicle Modifications Guideline and the Transitional Rules. Purchase, or long-term lease, of a vehicle is not a support the NDIS will fund under either the Vehicle Modifications Guideline or the Transitional Rules. Short-term vehicle hire is permitted under the Vehicle Modifications Guideline in narrow circumstances and is not excluded under the Transitional Rules. I do not consider that these narrow circumstances present a risk to the sustainability of the scheme and the Tribunal was not provided with any actuarial or other costings that would suggest otherwise. The alternative, being that the Applicant in this matter would not have access to the community while he was arranging a modified vehicle, is untenable and is inconsistent with the intent of this beneficial legislation.[37]
[37] National Disability Insurance Agency v Davis [2022] FCA 1002, [142].
The cost of hiring a suitable vehicle is approximately $3,300 per month[38] and would likely exceed the costs for vehicle modifications at around the 15 months point. It may be that the Applicant is able to source a suitable vehicle, particularly in the second-hand market, within a shorter period. On balance, I consider that it is reasonable and necessary to fund hiring a modified vehicle for the Applicant for a period of 6 months.
[38] Page 697 of the joint hearing bundle.
Hiring a vehicle for 6 months is value-for-money relative to the benefits achieved.[39] There are no lower cost alternatives that are currently available.[40] This need is directly related to the Applicant’s disability.[41] This support assists the Applicant with his goals to participate in recreational activities and community events, and to improve his safety and wellbeing.[42] It is necessary for the Applicant’s social participation and beneficial in reducing the risk of harm to the Applicant.[43] It is not reasonable to expect the Applicant’s family to meet this expense.[44] Short-term hire of a modified vehicle is ancillary to the NDIS support in Schedule 1, Item 35 of the Transitional Rules.[45] Short-term hire is not prevented from being funded under Schedule 2, Item 6. This support is most appropriately funded under the NDIS as it relates directly to the Applicant’s disability needs and is not available under another system of support.[46]
[39] Section 34(1)(c).
[40] Support Rules, Rule 3.1(a).
[41] NDIS Act, section 34(1)(aa).
[42] Section 34(1)(a).
[43] Sections 34(1)(b) and (d).
[44] Section 34(1)(e).
[45] Sections 10 and 34(1)(f) as amended.
[46] Section 34(1)(f) prior to amendment.
Depending on how the Applicant’s family is able to progress with the purchase of a modified vehicle, it is possible the Agency will need to consider extending the short-term hire for another short period. In my view, it will be important for the Applicant’s family to be able to demonstrate to the Agency that they are using their best endeavours to buy a suitable vehicle as soon as possible. If they are able to arrange this in less than 6 months, they should do so. While I do not doubt that the Applicant’s parents are highly motivated to ensure this support is in place, I am highlighting the importance of moving quickly, as this is not a support that should be provided on a longer-term basis.
Issue (b): Paid family supports

The Applicant also seeks continued funding for family members to be paid as support workers. In summary, the Applicant submits that the Applicant’s parents need to remain as paid supports because:
(a)The series of hospital admissions in 2024 show how support workers can miss the Applicant’s non-verbal cues for pain and discomfort;
(e)The advocacy of AM during hospitalisation ensured interventions which prevented worse outcomes;
(f)AM (and Indigenous Liaison Officers) were important in ensuring culturally appropriate care;
(g)The Applicant’s Mother and Father complied with the Agency’s invoicing requirements;
(h)The Agency provided written approval for paid family supports every 3 months up to March 2024;
(i)After March 2024, the Agency only provided verbal approval and the Applicant’s parent have not invoiced the Agency for any further payments since;
(j)Support workers are not able to safely complete personal tasks for the Applicant as the Applicant’s current home environment is not suitable for this assistance; and
(k)The Applicant’s parents complete these personal care tasks as they accept the risk of injury involved in caring for their son.
In her oral evidence, AM said that the aspects of the current environment that were not suitable for support workers to complete some tasks were that: there was no adult change facility, the bathroom was not accessible, and AM used a trundle bed in the Applicant’s room overnight. AM said that her and AF would still need to be paid as formal supports until the SDA was built on their property, which could take up to 2 years or more.
AM was also concerned that it would take time to source appropriate support workers and to ensure that were properly trained and culturally safe. When I asked AM for an example of support workers not providing culturally appropriate services, she said that some individuals didn’t understand the need to attend cultural activities such as NAIDOC week celebrations.[47] I note that AM was distressed by questions that raised restrictive practices and accept that AM is not using restrictive practices.
[47] This example is also provided in the Applicant’s written closing submissions.
The Agency concedes that family members have been paid as formal supports previously, but say this was provided on a limited basis:
It is accepted that the Agency has in the past agreed to fund, on a short-term basis, family support for [YHCQ]. This was in the aftermath of the injuries [YHCQ] experienced in 2023.
The Agency’s position as set out in its planning operational guidelines is that generally it will only fund family members in exceptional circumstances (risk of harm or neglect, strong personal views, religious or cultural reasons). The Agency’s position is that it will not fund a family member to provide personal care or community access supports unless all other options to identify a suitable provider of supports have been exhausted. Further, that if the funding for supports under a participant’s plan is managed by the Agency, family members will only be able to be funded to provide supports if they are a registered provider.
Based on the evidence before me, particularly from Dr M (the Applicant’s longstanding GP), it is clear that the Applicant’s current level of function and support needs represent a new ‘baseline’. The effects of his 2023 injuries have stabilised and will not improve. As recommended in the functional capacity assessment report of BT, these impacts have resulted in an ongoing need for 2:1 support for most transfers and related tasks.[48] This is recognised in the agreement of the Agency to fund support workers at a 2:1 ratio for 6 hours a day.
[48] Page 337 of the joint hearing bundle.
I accept the Applicant’s parent’s evidence that they currently are the second support workers for tasks that require a 2:1 ratio. In her closing submissions, AM proposed a gradual reduction of paid family supports over an 18-month period. AM says that this timeframe was supported by the oral evidence of NN. However, I have reviewed the recordings from the hearing and do not agree that NN’s evidence was directed to the need for paid family supports. I understood NN’s evidence to be that clinical governance and oversight would be required for 12 to 18 months with a review at 6 or 12 months to assess whether the team had been developed to a point that this governance could be reduced. I also accept the evidence of SC that it would take 5–6 months to build up the support worker team to a level that would relieve the Applicant’s parents from needing to provide this additional level of support.
The Sustaining Informal Supports Guideline says:
11.1 Does the NDIA fund family members to provide supports?
Funding a family member to provide supports to a participant can be detrimental to family relationships.
For example, the consequences of funding a family member to provide supports may include unintentionally creating an environment where a participant’s wishes in relation to their care arrangements or the delivery of their supports is diminished, or there is no or limited respite for the family worker taking on the role of support worker.
Generally, the NDIA will only fund family members to provide supports in exceptional circumstances.
For example, when:
othere is a risk of harm or neglect to the participant;
othere are religious or cultural reasons for funding a family member to provide supports; or
othe participant has strong personal views, for example in relation to their privacy or dignity.
The NDIA will consider the circumstances of each case, any wishes expressed by the participant and also take into account what is reasonable to expect others to provide.
The NDIA will not fund a family member to provide personal care or community access supports unless all other options to identify a suitable provider of supports have been exhausted.
Note, if the funding for supports under a participant’s plan is managed by the NDIA, family members will only be able to be funded to provide supports if they are a registered provider of supports …
I consider that there is a risk of harm to the Applicant if his parents are unable to continue to provide support worker assistance to him while the team of support workers is being sourced. In my view, this aspect of the Sustaining Informal Supports Guideline is satisfied. Paying family members as support workers should however be limited to the time in which these exceptional circumstances apply.
I agree with the Agency that there is currently insufficient evidence to conclude that support workers cannot provide 2:1 support to the Applicant in his current environment due to safety concerns. I acknowledge the oral evidence of SC that she has file notes of her conversations with service providers who are unwilling to take on this risk. However, I do not consider this evidence to be of enough weight to allow me to conclude that service providers will not provide 2:1 supports in the Applicant’s current environment. The Applicant’s request that family members continue to be paid as support workers until completion of the SDA is therefore not the appropriate timeframe. It is reasonable and necessary for this arrangement to continue until 2:1 support workers are in place – which is estimated to be within 6 months.
I note that funding for a Positive Behaviour Support Plan (PBSP) has recently been added to the Applicant’s SPS. As a PBSP is not currently in place, it is not yet known whether any restrictive practices will be required. The PBSP funding is the only aspect of the Applicant’s current SPS which is Agency managed. Therefore, family members are not currently required to be registered providers under the Sustaining Informal Supports Guideline.
I have had regard to the principles in section 31 of the NDIS Act that the reassessment of a participant’s plan should, so far as reasonably practicable:
… (c) where relevant, consider and respect the role of family, carers and other persons who are significant in the life of the participant; and
(ca) where relevant, recognise and respect the relationship between participants and their families and carers; and …
(da) if the participant and the participant’s carers agree--strengthen and build the capacity of families and carers to support the participant in adult life;
I have also taken into account what is reasonable to expect families and carers to provide. I consider that it is reasonable for the Applicant’s parents to stay involved in selecting and training support workers, assisting with the Applicant’s communication, promoting culturally appropriate practices, and advocating for his cultural and health needs. However, these are not aspects of the Applicant’s parental care that should be funded by the NDIS. I am concerned that there is a risk of burn-out, particularly for AM; however, I am also optimistic that this should reduce over time with the improved level of supports that will be in place soon.
In their written closing submissions, the Agency accepts that a transition period for the Applicant’s parents to reduce the level of paid support they provide can be linked to the onboarding of additional support workers:
In the Agency’s submission, it is not reasonable for the applicant to be funded for additional support (by way of paid family support) in order to await the (as yet not commenced) construction of an SDA on the [YHCQ family] property. Rather, any “transitional” period that might involve paid family support should be limited to the time necessary to ensure that appropriately qualified and trained support workers as now funded in the applicant’s plan are available and willing to commence their care of the applicant. [SC] gave evidence that she would attend promptly to the task of attempting to procure additional support workers now that the additional funding had been agreed.[49]
[49] Agency’s Written Closing Submissions, 17 February 2025, paragraph 24.
Based on evidence before me, I am satisfied that it is reasonable and necessary for the Applicant’s parents to be paid as support workers for 6 hours per day (in total, as opposed to 6 hours per day, per parent) for the next 6 months. This need is directly related to the Applicant’s new disability-related functional baseline.[50] Limiting the time in which this arrangement continues will assist the Applicant with his goal to reduce his dependence on his parents for personal care.[51] Continuing this support for a short period is necessary for the Applicant’s participation in daily activities and is beneficial in reducing the risk of harm to the Applicant.[52]
[50] NDIS Act, section 34(1)(aa).
[51] Section 34(1)(a).
[52] Sections 34(1)(b) and (d).
This is value-for-money relative to the benefits achieved.[53] There are no lower‑cost alternatives that are currently available.[54] The high level of support required by the Applicant is well beyond what is reasonable to expect family to provide to an adult.[55] Assistance with daily personal activities is an NDIS support under Schedule 1, Item 14 of the Transitional Rules.[56] This assistance is most appropriately funded under the NDIS as it relates directly to the Applicant’s disability needs and is not available under another system of support.[57] Overall, I consider that continuing paid family supports on this limited basis is a reasonable and necessary support to be funded in the Applicant’s SPS.
[53] Section 34(1)(c).
[54] Support Rules, Rule 3.1(a).
[55] Section 34(1)(e).
[56] Sections 10 and 34(1)(f) as amended.
[57] Section 34(1)(f) prior to amendment.
Subject to appropriate records being provided to the Agency, the Applicant’s parents should also be eligible to be reimbursed for up to 6 hours per day (combined, not each) for the services they provided after March 2024.[58] I also consider that it may be appropriate for any need for continued paid family support to be reassessed after 6 months. It may be that the Applicant’s function has declined further and that additional 2:1 support hours are required. I note the concerns of NN in her oral evidence that 2:1 supports for 6 hours per day might not be adequate currently and that the Applicant’s decline has been significant in the last 12 months. It may also be the case that service providers are not able to provide these supports safely within the Applicant’s current home environment. In these circumstances, the Agency may need to reassess whether support workers for the 6 hours of 2:1 supports have been able to be onboarded, whether this level of support is adequate and, if not, whether the Applicant’s parents should continue to be paid to provide additional support.
[58] For a consideration of reimbursement issues, see Johnstone and National Disability Insurance Agency [2023] AATA 3632, paragraphs 18 and 19.
Issue (c): Training of support workers
The Applicant seeks funding for the following training for 15 support workers:
·20 hours per staff member for buddy shifts;
·10 hours per staff member for equipment training;
·30 hours per staff member for PBSP training.
The Applicant relies on the functional capacity assessment report of BT for these recommended training hours. The total cost of these training hours is approximately $60,000 per year.[59]
[59] Page 337 of the joint hearing bundle.
The Agency submits that this level of training is not reasonable and necessary as:
(a) There is an expectation that support workers who provide care to participants have a baseline level of training to undertake their work and capacity to learn, on the job, tasks and requirements that are specific to the participant.
(b) Additional 2:1 funding has been provided for six hours per day which will enable appropriate knowledge sharing and up-skilling to occur between the more experienced supporter provider to the new or less experienced support provider …[60]
[60] Agency’s Written Closing Submissions, paragraph 26.
The Applicant submits that the funding of 2:1 support workers for 6 hours per day is not appropriate to be used for buddy shift training as the 2:1 support workers are required to focus on high-risk tasks during these shifts. The oral evidence of BT supports this contention. In most respects, I found the evidence of BT to be carefully considered and persuasive, particularly with respect to the gait trainer, which has now been accepted by the Agency as a reasonable and necessary support. However, I found BT’s evidence with respect to training less persuasive. BT did not agree that the addition of 2:1 support shifts, or the requirement for registered providers to ensure that staff are trained to the appropriate standard,[61] would reduce the requested training hours. BT did acknowledge that the training needs would likely reduce over time.
[61] NDIS Practice Standards: High intensity support skills descriptors, November 2022, Version 3.
The evidence from BT was less consistent with the other oral evidence provided. SC was clear that training of support workers to meet the standards required for high intensity support workers was the responsibility of the registered provider of these services. SC was also of the view that the 2:1 support worker shifts were not a substitute for buddy shifts. However, NN considered that that ‘on-the-job’ training was essential and that 2:1 shifts with an experienced support worker was a workable model for this. NN also said that, for clinical oversight, a registered nurse would need to provide each support worker with 2 hours of training every 4 months. BT, SC and NN all agreed that procedures, resources and training would need to be developed that were specific to the Applicant’s complex needs and risks.
The Applicant’s current SPS includes funding for some provision of training resources and activities. In the plan breakdown accompanying the 31 January 2025 plan there is:
·15 hours for a behaviour management plan and training;
·30 hours of support coordination and 10 hours of specialist support coordination to support connection, engagement and coordination with chosen service providers; and
·78.5 hours for ‘Assessment Recommendation Therapy or Training’ by a physiotherapist, exercise physiologist, speech pathologist or occupational therapist.
These hours appear to be for provision of training or coordination by the relevant allied health professional or coordinator. It is less clear whether support worker time to participate in this training is included in the funding. The Transitional Rules refer to training support workers as being an NDIS support unless otherwise provided[62] in Schedule 1 at:
·Item 10(b) with regard to ‘training and ongoing monitoring of staff in implementation’ of a PBSP;
·Item 12(f) with regard to community nursing care ‘training of support workers to respond to a participant’s complex needs’; and
·Item 16(d) with regard to ‘training support workers, family and friends to perform roles where appropriate’ for a participant’s disability-related health care.
[62] See for example Item 8(d) of Schedule 1.
I think it is implicit in the Transitional Rules that NDIS supports that included providing training to support workers would cover the funding of support workers to take part in this training.
I note that the other references to training in Schedule 1 relate to training the participant, such as life skills training in Item 15. Schedule 2 excludes training from being an NDIS support in some circumstances, such as training for employers to make reasonable adjustments in the workplace: see Item 18(g).
In my view, it is reasonable and necessary to include dedicated training for the Applicant’s support worker team with respect to his specific ongoing and changing needs. This is separate from the registered provider training, which is the responsibility of the provider. Based on NN’s opinion that a nurse would provide 2 hours of training per support worker every 4 months, this would equate to 6 hours of training per support worker, per year. Allowance needs to be made for the support workers to also receive Applicant‑specific training from a positive behaviour support practitioner, exercise physiologist, occupational therapist, or speech pathologist. Some of this training may be able to be provided in small groups rather than as 1:1 training for each support worker. For the information before me, I consider it preferable to also include dedicated buddy shifts rather than fully relying on the 2:1 support worker shifts for this ‘on-the-job’ learning. It is reasonable for the Applicant’s parents to share their in-depth knowledge about the Applicant’s communication and cultural needs as part of this ‘on-the-job’ training.[63] Overall, I consider that a total of 10 hours of Applicant‑specific training per year, per support worker is reasonable and necessary. I also consider that 10 hours per support worker, per year to take part in buddy shifts is reasonable and necessary.
[63] Section 34(1)(e).
Support worker training and buddy shifts specific to the Applicant’s needs (and on top of their training as high intensity support workers) is related to the Applicant’s complex and changing disability-related support needs and risk profile.[64] This approach will support his goal of improving his safety and wellbeing (and that of his carers) at home and in the community.[65] The training and buddy shifts are necessary for the Applicant’s participation in daily activities and social activities, and are beneficial in reducing the risk of harm to the Applicant.[66] This represents value-for-money compared with the benefits achieved.[67] The use of 2:1 shifts as a form of buddy shift, and for learning from the Applicant’s parents, will assist. However, these are not a comparable supports which achieve the same outcome at a substantially lower cost.[68] Training support workers in the Applicant’s specific support needs is an NDIS support under Schedule 1 of the Transitional Rules.[69] This Applicant‑specific training and related buddy shifts are most appropriately funded under the NDIS. The general training of the support workers to the high intensity support worker standards remains a responsibility of the registered provider.[70]
[64] NDIS Act, section 34(1)(aa).
[65] Section 34(1)(a).
[66] Sections 34(1)(b) and (d).
[67] Section 34(1)(c).
[68] Support Rules, Rule 3.1(a).
[69] Sections 10 and 34(1)(f) as amended.
[70] Section 34(1)(f) prior to amendment.

For implementation, my view is that it would be appropriate for this support to be calculated on a 6-month pro-rata basis. This is because the training is only likely to become necessary once developing the team of support workers is well under way, which is likely to be around 6 months. For this reason, I am approving 5 hours of Applicant‑specific training, and 5 hours of buddy shifts, per support worker for a 6‑month period.
IMPLEMENTATION
Given the rate at which YHCQ’s needs have changed in the past 12 months, the recent changes to the agreed supports, and the supports that are no longer able to be agreed upon following the Back on Track Amendment Act and Transitional Rules, there is still a lot of uncertainty in relation to YHCQ’s circumstances for plan implementation. While I consider a reassessment date in 12 months’ time is appropriate, I also recommend that the Applicant and Agency approach plan implementation collaboratively with regular communication and a progress check at around 6 months. It will be important to consider at this progress check whether:
(a)The Applicant’s function has stabilised or whether additional support workers hours are required;
(b)The Applicant has been able to develop a support worker team (that can operate in the Applicant’s current home environment) such that paid family supports can be safely decreased;
(c)The training hours for the support worker team can commence as planned, or need to be deferred while the team continues to be developed; and
(d)The Applicant has been able to purchase a vehicle for modification, or a pre-modified vehicle, such that short-term vehicle hire can be safely concluded.
DECISION
Short-term vehicle hire, paid family supports, and support worker training are reasonable and necessary supports to be included in the Applicant’s SPS. The approved timeframes and amounts requested for these supports are less than what was requested by the Applicant. As agreed between the parties and confirmed by the Tribunal, the gait trainer is also a reasonable and necessary support to be included in the Applicant’s SPS. A reassessment date of 12 months is appropriate with a recommended progress update meeting after the initial 6 months.
The decision of the Agency under review is set aside and remitted for reconsideration with the directions that the Applicant’s statement of participant supports includes sufficient funding for:
(a)the agreed gait trainer;
(b)short-term hire of a modified vehicle for a period of 6 months;
(c)paid family support for 6 hours per day for a period of 6 months;
(d)subject to the provision of adequate records, reimbursement for paid family support for 6 hours per day from March 2024; and
(e)Applicant‑specific support worker training for a period of 6 months of:
(i)5 hours per support worker; and
(ii)5 hours per support worker to take part in a buddy shifts.
The statement of participant supports is to include a reassessment date of 12 months after implementation of the new plan following this decision.
The remaining aspects of the statement of participant supports, including plan management, remain unchanged.

Dates of hearing: 30 and 31 January 2025

Date final submissions received: 12 March 2025

Representative for the Applicant: AM, Applicant’s Mother

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr B Hornsby, NDIA Dispute Resolution & Litigation Branch

Mr G Johnson, PG Hely Chambers

Dates of hearing:	30 and 31 January 2025
Date final submissions received:	12 March 2025
Representative for the Applicant:	AM, Applicant’s Mother
Solicitors for the Respondent: Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr B Hornsby, NDIA Dispute Resolution & Litigation Branch Mr G Johnson, PG Hely Chambers