This in turn will lead to more frequent periods of escalation requiring the use of a restrictive practice to prevent him from accessing the community. The Applicant asserts that the 1:1 SIL sought will enable him to access to the community in a safe and supported way. (sic)

7. Pursuant to section 33(f) the Tribunal has had regard to the operation and effectiveness of any previous plans of the participant. There is some evidence that the SIL support being received by the Applicant has been effective and beneficial for him in reducing his behaviours of concern and working towards supporting him in managing his emotions before he is in an escalated state.
8. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that Mr Ahrens' flexible Social, Economic and Community Participation funds have been depleted in what could be termed a 'firefighter' approach to his support - to fund 24/7 1:1 SIL. Mr Ahrens' support coordinator redeployed his existing flexible Social, Economic and Community Participation funding to provide 24/7 1:1 support worker assistance ultimately to assist Mr Ahrens to manage his extreme behaviours of concern.
9. There is also evidence before the Tribunal that the provision of 24/7 1:1 level of support has resulted in Mr Ahrens undertaking less activities. There is evidence to indicate a narrowing of Mr Ahrens' window of tolerance towards sharing his space with other people, including his support workers.
10. The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent that though there are ancillary benefits to Mr Ahrens having 24/7 1:1 support worker assistance, this of itself does not render SIL as a suitable or appropriate alternative to mental health supports. Mr Ahrens' current funding at 1:2 SIL takes into account his need for behavioural support management and there is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal to justify the increase in hours, which are quite significant, from 3 to 21 per day.
11. The Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the current evidence that Mr Ahrens requires the increase to 24/7 1:1 support worker assistance to complete daily activities, including behavioural support management and supervision. The Tribunal has no information before it as to how the support is required during the evening, for example, and to what end it will be used to facilitate activities or otherwise.
12. The Tribunal is not satisfied that on the evidence before it, 24/7 1:1 SIL will assist Mr Ahrens to undertake activities, to facilitate Mr Ahrens' social participation.

Section 34(1)(c) and Rule 3.1 - Value for money

1. The Agency contends that without intervention from mainstream providers to address the Applicant's behaviours of concern, the provision of 24/7 1:1 support worker assistance to manage behaviours of concern does little to advance Mr Ahrens' independence and functional capacity and cannot be considered value for money relative to the costs of assisting Mr Ahrens to access mainstream mental health supports.
2. The Respondent relies on Neuropsychologist Dr Vujic's report which states that a multidisciplinary approach that includes regular input from psychology and psychiatry, is required. On the Respondent's view, then, 1:1 SIL is an alternative to mainstream health supports.
3. The Applicant argues that the current level of support will not achieve the same outcome at a substantially lower cost. It refers to the Care Group Letter of 6 March 2025 advising that Mr Ahrens' supports would be terminated to support its position. Additionally, the Applicant also refers to the Support Coordinator Mr Rivers' letter outlining his inability to find a suitable SIL provider at the 1:2 ratio when Mr Ahrens' former SIL Provider Care South issued its letter of termination.
4. The Tribunal reiterates its finding above, regarding the 'firefighter' approach adopted to Mr Ahrens' support, in its consideration of the Supports Rules that follow.

Rule 3.1 (a) - Comparable supports would achieve the same outcome at a substantially lower cost

1. The Applicant asserts that applying Rule 3.1(a) access to mainstream mental health supports is not a comparative support to 1:1 support worker assistance.[51] The Applicant argues that the purpose of this support is to assist the Applicant with activities of daily living, accessing the community and implementing behaviour management strategies. It relies on Dr Vujic's report recommendation for 24/7 1:1 support and states Mr Ahrens:

Is already accessing services from a Psychologist, a Psychiatrist, an Occupational Therapist and a Behaviour Support Practitioner. He was referred to SIDMHOS June 2021. Access to these services is not, and has never been, a substitute for support worker assistance. [52]

2. The Tribunal does not agree with this view. Evidence before the Tribunal shows that the support worker assistance has been used in practice as a substitute for other services and that Mr Ahrens has not been receiving the counselling and psychological supports that he requires.
3. Further, the supports are not comparable in the nature of the professional quality of the services provided. Support workers, and Mr Ahrens' 'highly skilled team of supports, who can meet his needs quickly and respond to incidents when they occur'[53] cannot be a substitute for the clinical care that Mr Ahrens requires.
4. The Tribunal is satisfied that under Rule 3.1(a) is met and that comparable supports would achieve the same outcome at a substantially lower cost.
5. Having considered the evidence and the relevant Support Rules and Guidelines, the Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence before it that the requested increase of support to 24/7 1:1 SIL represents value for money. The costs of the support are not reasonable, relative to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternative support pursuant to section 34(1)(c).

Rule 3.1 (b) - Evidence the support will substantially improve life stage outcomes and be of long-term benefit to Mr Ahrens

1. There is some evidence that the daily provision of 24/7 1:1 SIL has been of some short-term benefit to Mr Ahrens. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the evidence suggests the support will substantially improve life stage outcomes in the long term for Mr Ahrens.
2. The Applicant refers to the Applicant's interactions with police having significantly decreased since moving into long-term SIL with 24/7 1:1 support to advance the argument that Mr Ahrens has 'already built capacity and is likely to continue to do so if adequately supported. Further, due to the Applicant's history of trauma with the police, it is to his long-term benefit to receive sufficient assistance to manage his behaviours of concern and build his capacity, which in turn minimises his engagement with emergency services'.[54]
3. The Respondent contends that though there may be ancillary benefits to the provision of 24/7 1:1 support, it will not be of long-term benefit to Mr Ahrens.
4. The Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the current evidence, that the provision of 24/7 1:1 support worker assistance will substantially improve life stage outcomes and be of long-term benefit to Mr Ahrens.
5. Considered overall, there is limited probative evidence to support Mr Ahrens' requested increase from 3 hours per day of 1:1 SIL to 24/7 1:1 supports that also demonstrates the requested supports satisfy the section 34(1)(c) value for money criteria.

Section 34(1)(d) and Rule 3.2 - Effective and beneficial

1. Rule 3.2 provides that in deciding whether the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for Mr Ahrens, having regard to good practice, the Tribunal is to consider the available evidence of the effectiveness of the support for others in like circumstances. This evidence can include the lived experience of the participant or his carers.
2. The Tribunal has evidence before it of Mr Ahrens' lived experience of 1:1 as compared with 1:2 SIL provision, as provided above. This includes data from the Incident Reports which indicates a reduction in the frequency of incidents involving physical aggression and interactions with police since moving into 24/7 1:1 SIL arrangements.
3. The Tribunal notes that, as per the SIL Operational Guidelines, SIL may include support:
   • to action any behaviour support plans
   • with supervision, personal safety and security.
4. The Applicant argues that as a matter of practicality, implementation of Mr Ahrens' approved restrictive practices would not be effective and beneficial in the absence of 1:1 SIL. The Applicant argues:

For example, the Applicant has an environmental restraint that prevents him from accessing the community when escalated. If the Applicant is not supported 24/7 1:1, there are two options for managing the implementation of this restrictive practice. One, the front gate can remain locked when support workers are not present. This in itself is a seclusion restrictive practice and would unacceptably limit the Applicant's freedom and independence contrary to the objects of and general principles guiding actions under the NDIS (ss 3, 4) and Rule 5.1(a) of the Supports Rules Two, the gate can be left unlocked when support workers are not present, which risks the Applicant accessing the community while in an escalated state. Neither of these options are effective and beneficial. [55]

5. The Applicant contends that if Mr Ahrens' 'restrictive practices cannot be effectively implemented, the Applicant is at risk of dysregulating, and while in a deregulated state, it is expected that his capacity to engage in activities of daily living will decrease'.[56]
6. The Tribunal has also considered the expert evidence before the Tribunal, under Rule 3. This includes the recommendations for 1:1 support by Dr Vujic and Psychiatrist Dr Austin-Woods. This was also supported by Mr Umali, Occupational Therapist and Behavioural Support Practitioner Ms Minogue. Notably, Psychiatrist Dr Pistilli recommended a higher ratio of SIL support for Mr Ahrens, of 2:1.
7. The Tribunal notes that there is some evidence of the effectiveness of 1:1 support provision being limited without the capacity-building supports that Mr Ahrens requires and that have been recommended by experts, such as Occupational Therapist Mr Umali.
8. Evidence before the Tribunal shows, for example, that Mr Ahrens is missing his visits to Huskisson Beach and has been asking about counselling. He does not appear to have enjoyed music therapy, but there are other community activities that he clearly misses. For example, Occupational Therapist Mr Umali gave evidence that Mr Ahrens told him that he was not seeing a psychologist and that he would like to. Mr Umali's report indicates that Mr Ahrens is currently not receiving psychological supports. In his report, Mr Umali recommended referral to a psychologist to 'address emotional dysregulation associated their psychosocial disability/mental health presentation' directly related to his NDIS accepted diagnoses. Mr Umali cautioned that without referral, Mr Ahrens, 'may experience ongoing poor health, limited motivation and or may be at risk of harming self and or others around him including property'.[57]
9. The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent that the evidence does not establish that funding 24/7 1:1 support worker assistance is likely to be effective and beneficial for Mr Ahrens and that such a level and model of support is likely to cause harm to the applicant, implementing an overtly restrictive model of support worker assistance that cannot, by its nature, assist Mr Ahrens to build independence.
10. Having considered the evidence and the relevant Support Rules and Guidelines, the Tribunal is not satisfied that 1:1 SIL funding is likely to be effective and beneficial for Mr Ahrens pursuant to section 34(1)(d).

Section 34(1)(f) - whether the requested support is a NDIS Support

1. There is no dispute between the parties as to Mr Ahrens' need for SIL to assist him with daily living. It is the increased ratio, which is quite significant, that is contested by the parties.

1. Mr Ahrens is funded for 1:2 SIL. Care Group Community Services have been providing Mr Ahrens with 24/7 1:1 SIL since March 2023.
2. The Tribunal finds that Mr Ahrens' Social, Economic and Community Participation funding has been used flexibly to provide SIL at this higher ratio. This was confirmed in an email tendered during the hearing by Mr Ahrens' Specialist Support Coordinator.[58] As a result of this higher level of 1:1 care, Mr Ahrens has depleted his NDIS support budget.
3. On 17 March 2025, the Respondent agreed to replenish the Applicant's plan for six months, which has enabled Mr Ahrens to stay with Care Group Community Services for the duration of the review before the Tribunal.

NDIS Operational Guidelines - the intended purpose of 1:1 SIL

1. Per Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2),[59] the Operational Guidelines as government policy, should be applied unless there is good reason for departure.
2. The question for the Tribunal is what for purpose 1:1 SIL is being sought and whether this purpose is excluded by the Operational Guidelines.
3. The Respondent contends that the Applicant seeks an increased ratio for SIL, inconsistently with the contents of the SIL Operational Guidelines with respect to the purpose of SIL, not for a support worker to assist with daily living activities or to support independent living.
4. Instead, the Respondent advances the term 'containment model' of behavioural therapy as the intended purpose for the increased SIL ratio. The Respondent contends the prevention of Mr Ahrens from engaging in activities that would harm himself or the community is the primary purpose for the requested support.
5. In the Respondent's contentions, daily tasks are seen to be a valid purpose of SIL, and are currently provided, whereas SIL for the primary purpose of supervision and safety as related to the applicant's behavioural support needs are excluded.
6. The Respondent relies on two of the reports in evidence:
   • The BAPBSP written by Ms Minogue dated 13 October 2023 states the Applicant is independent in activities of daily living, including showering, washing hair with prompting, toileting, brushing teeth with prompting, dressing with promoting, eating and drinking.
   • Neuropsychologist Dr Vujic's report dated 17 January 2025, which recommends 1:1 support to 'reduce the risk of harm to himself and others'.
7. The Applicant disputes the Respondent's characterisation of the model of support currently provided to Mr Ahrens as 'containment'. The Applicant asserts that the current model is not a 'containment' model, citing the letter by Ms Minogue dated 21 March 2025.

The current model is NOT a containment model as [the Applicant] has:

• Ability to leave his home with staff support when he requests. He accesses the community with his staff support each day (which requires significant support planning each day)
• Frequent family contact and time spent in the family home
• Weekly gym sessions with personal trainer (highly scaffolded with staff)
• Visits with friends, in the community and their home.[60]

1. The Applicant argues that the Operational Guideline expressly states that SIL may include support 'to action any behaviour support plans you have' and 'with supervision, personal safety and security'. The Applicant asserts that there is:

a clear distinction between using SIL for behaviour management which includes the implementation of regulated restrictive practices contained in the behaviour support plan, and actual containment. > > The Applicant's behaviours of concern are a manifestation of his disability and interfere with his ability to independently engage in activities of daily living. Accordingly, the Applicant asserts that 24/7 1:1 support worker assistance includes the implementation of behaviour support strategies to support him to be independent and to build capacity for behaviour management. [61]

2. The Tribunal accepts that to the extent that support worker assistance is directed at supporting Mr Ahrens to independently engage in activities of daily living and build capacity for behavioural management, they fall within the Operational Guideline. Mr Ahrens is already funded for SIL and the Respondent does not dispute that SIL is a reasonable and necessary support for Mr Ahrens, in line with the Operational Guideline. This is supported by the Internal Review Decision dated 28 June 2024 by the Agency, which states:

It is also acknowledged that you require assistance with instrumental activities of daily living including medication management, meal preparation, shopping, laundry and cleaning. During the daytime hours it is considered reasonable to continue to fund you 3 hours per day of 1:1 support to assist you in the above areas as well as for management of behaviours.

3. The Tribunal has insufficient evidence before it to make findings on the regularity of Mr Ahrens' visits with friends (in the community or in their home) or his weekly gym sessions. The Tribunal has heard oral evidence from the Applicant's Aunt of the reduction in Mr Ahrens' access to the community, and his social and community participation. The Applicant's Aunt could not speak to why and assumed that this was not a part of Mr Ahrens' plan.
4. Further, the SIL Operational Guideline expressly includes the actioning and implementation of behaviour support plans in addition to support for Mr Ahrens with supervision, personal safety and security.
5. The Tribunal finds that the SIL is currently being used to action Mr Ahrens' behaviour support plans in addition to being used for the purposes of supervision, personal safety and security. Both purposes are expressly included in the Operational Guideline.

The Supports Rules - whether 24/7 1:1 SIL is a NDIS Support

1. Schedule 1 of the Transitional Rules outlines generally the type of support that is encompassed by specialist behaviour support, daily personal activities and development of daily care and life skills.
2. The Respondent contends that activities of daily living are expressly delineated from behaviour management under Schedule 1 and by this, the legislative intent was that NDIS participants who required intensive behavioural supports would be supported through the NDIS to access general support systems to improve their access to those systems with NDIS supports.
3. The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent that as a result, behavioural management is generally intended to be funded, as the implementation and management of strategies in a behaviour support plan and are not expressly for the ongoing management of extreme behaviours of concern through support worker assistance.[62]
4. The Tribunal notes the regularity with which police are called out to support Mr Ahrens when he is highly elevated and exhibiting behaviours of concern. This includes, for example, police having to draw their weapons in response to Mr Ahrens walking towards them with a knife with which he was threatening staff. Added to this is the attendance of Ambulance services. There are multiple incident reports where a minimum of two police officers, and on occasion four police officers, are called to de-escalate Mr Ahrens when he is in an elevated state. Support Worker incident reports describe how multiple police officers work with Mr Ahrens, to de-escalate the situation and encourage him to take his PRN medication.
5. Notably, this has also occurred when Mr Ahrens has been receiving 24/7 1:1 support worker assistance. For example, three police and an ambulance were called on 20 August 2024 and on 7 August 2024 two police were called to Mr Ahrens' home and tried to diffuse the situation.
6. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that 24/7 1:1 SIL is primarily being sought to keep others and the community safe when Mr Ahrens is in an elevated state. Schedule 2 of the NDIS Transitional Rules make it clear that the NDIS will not be responsible for supports whose primary purpose is to provide 'secure accommodation facilities where the purpose of the accommodation is to safeguard the community or prevent re-offending, including secure mental health facilities.[63]
7. The Tribunal finds that the primary purpose of the requested increase of 24/7 support worker assistance to 1:1 ratio is to continue to provide accommodation for Mr Ahrens to safeguard the community, including family members and support workers.
8. Therefore, the Applicant does not meet s 34(1)(f) for the reasons above.
9. In any event and putting aside my reasons in relation to s 34(1) above, I consider that the support cannot be funded as it is likely to cause harm to Mr Ahrens and therefore falls within the confines of r 5.1(a) of the Supports Rules.

Rule 5.1(a) - likely to cause harm to the participant or pose a risk to others

1. Part 5 of the Supports Rules provide the General Criteria for supports.
2. Rule 5.1(a) of the Supports Rules provides that a support will not be provided if it is likely to cause harm to the participant or pose a risk to others.
3. The Applicant's Aunt, who Mr Ahrens calls 'mum', herself a trained support worker, gave evidence about the incident leading to Mr Ahrens having to leave the family home. She provided evidence that there was a rapid regression transitioning from a highly structured schooling life after Mr Ahrens finished high school in around October 2018. The Applicant's Aunt stated Mr Ahrens' behaviours of concern were exacerbated by Covid-19 lockdown when the situation in the family home became more tense with Mr Ahrens gaming more often. This appears to have reached a tipping point when Mr Ahrens became violent towards his sister and her two children, both under the age of 2.
4. The Applicant's Aunt gave evidence about how she feared for the safety of her grandchildren, who she had to take out of the house. She told me how she feared for her daughter's safety but also for Mr Ahrens who she said could no longer continue to live in the family home. She feared for what Mr Ahrens could do to himself or to others when in a heightened state and unable to manage his behavioural responses. The Applicant's Aunt explained how during the time he lived with her, she was so afraid that at times she would wait on the front porch for Mr Ahrens to fall asleep before going back into the home.
5. The incident Reports before the Tribunal from 2020-2025 demonstrate critical incidents where first responders, including the police and the ambulance services, have been called. The Incident Reports show instances where support workers are afraid when Mr Ahrens loses control and tries to harm himself and others, including his support workers. This has continued to occur with 24/7 1:1 SIL. Evidence shows physical altercations with support workers, who struggle to protect themselves and try to push Mr Ahrens off them, for example, when Mr Ahrens tries to put his hands around their necks.
6. The Applicant contends that the outcome of the support model provided by the Respondent will cause harm to Mr Ahrens. The Applicant argues that the evidence shows Mr Ahrens' 'behaviours of concern increase during periods of transition and uncertainty, leading to increased interactions with police and emergency services. The Applicant asserts that this is not value for money and places the Applicant and members of the community at a greater risk of harm.
7. The Respondent contends that funding 24/7 1:1 support worker assistance is likely to cause harm to the Applicant, by implementing an overtly restrictive model of support worker assistance that cannot assist Mr Ahrens to build independence.
8. The Tribunal finds that in limiting Mr Ahrens' capacity to build independence, and in tasking support workers with the management of extreme behaviours of concern, supports which should be provided through the mental health system, the support will cause harm to the Applicant in the long term.

Whether supports appropriately funded or provided through the NDIS

1. Now that 24/7 1:1 SIL has been found not to be reasonable and necessary under section 34 of the NDIS Act, the Tribunal must also be positively satisfied, that the 1:1 ratio for 24/7 SIL, are more appropriately funded through the NDIS rather than other service systems.
2. The National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Transitional Rules 2024 (Miscellaneous Rules) provide that in addition to the considerations under section 34(1) of the NDIS Act, the decision maker must also be satisfied that the support is most appropriately funded or provided through the National Disability Insurance Scheme and not another system. The Amending Act replaced the former s 34(1)(f). The same obligation now appears instead at section 7 of the Miscellaneous Rules. The CEO must also be satisfied that:

the support is most appropriately funded or provided through the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and is not more appropriately funded or provided through other general systems of service delivery or support services offered by a person, agency or body, or systems of service delivery or support services offered: > > (a) as part of a universal service obligation; or > > (b) in accordance with reasonable adjustments required under a law dealing with discrimination on the basis of disability.

Supports appropriately funded or provided through the NDIS > > 3.5 Schedule 1 sets out matters for the CEO to have regard to in considering whether > > supports are most appropriately funded or provided through the NDIS, rather than > > through other service systems (service systems is defined in paragraph 6.4). > > 3.6 The matters to have regard to are set out under the following headings in the > > Schedule: > > (a) Health (excluding mental health); > > (b) Mental health; > > (c) Child protection and family support; > > (d) Early childhood development; > > (e) School education; > > (f) Higher education and vocational education and training; > > (g) Employment; > > (h) Housing and community infrastructure; > > (i) Transport; > > (j) Justice.

7.1 The Act limits the supports that can be provided or funded under the NDIS to supports that are not more appropriately funded or provided through other service systems, for example as part of a universal services obligation or in accordance with reasonable adjustments required under a law dealing with discrimination on the basis of disability. > > 7.2 The considerations set out in this Schedule must be taken into account by the CEO in deciding whether a support is more appropriately provided or funded by the NDIS or another service system. > > 7.3 For the avoidance of doubt, while this Schedule sets out considerations relevant to whether a support should be considered to be more appropriately provided or funded through another service system, it does not purport to impose any obligations on another service system to fund or provide particular supports.

5. With respect to mental health, Rules 7.6 and 7.7 provide:

7.6 The NDIS will be responsible for supports that are not clinical in nature and that focus on a person's functional ability, including supports that enable a person with a mental illness or psychiatric condition to undertake activities of daily living and participate in the community and social and economic life. > > 7.7 The NDIS will not be responsible for: > > (a) supports related to mental health that are clinical in nature, including acute ambulatory and continuing care, rehabilitation/recovery; or > > (b) early intervention supports related to mental health that are clinical in nature, including supports that are clinical in nature and that are for child and adolescent developmental needs; or > > (c) any residential care where the primary purpose is for inpatient treatment or clinical rehabilitation, or where the services model primarily employs clinical staff; or > > (d) supports relating to a co-morbidity with a psychiatric condition where the comorbidity is clearly the responsibility of another service system (eg treatment for a drug or alcohol issue).

The Transitional Rules clearly outline that the NDIS will not be responsible for supports related to mental health that are clinical in nature, including acute, ambulatory or continuing care or rehabilitation, or residential care where the primary purpose is for inpatient or outpatient treatment or clinical rehabilitation. > > The NDIS Transitional Rules also make clear the NDIS will not be responsible for supports whose primary purpose is to provide (emphasis added) 'secure accommodation facilities where the purpose of this accommodation is to safeguard the community or prevent reoffending, including secure mental health facilities'. > > Although the Applicant's contention is that support worker assistance is directly related to the Applicant's disabilities, the 24/7 1:1 model of support ... is more appropriately characterised as a 'containment model', the primary aim of which is to prevent the Applicant from independently accessing the community or causing harm to himself or others.[64]

7. The Respondent contended that the Tribunal could not be satisfied, on the current evidence, that the Applicant requires an increase to 24/7 1:1 support worker assistance to complete daily activities,[65] which includes actioning behaviour support plans, per the Operational Guidelines.
8. I agree with this view. Having regard to the clinical purpose of the supports requested and the needto safeguard the community from harm, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the requested significant increase of support worker assistance at a 24/7 1:1 ratio is appropriately funded or provided through the NDIS.

1. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not positively satisfied of each of the legislative criteria under section 34 of the NDIS Act. Therefore, the provision of 24/7 1:1 SIL is not a reasonable and necessary support.
2. Pursuant to section 105 of the ART Act, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

[1] National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF [2020] FCAFC 79, at [145].

[2] Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2019] HCA 16; (2019) 266 CLR 250 at [51] (Bell, Gageler, Gordon and Edelman JJ).

[3] Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634; see also BHXJ and NDIA [2023] AATA 513, at [76] per SM Groom.

[4] Beezley v Repatriation Commission [2015] FCAFC 165 (2015); 150 ALD 11 at [68].

[5] National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF [2020] FCAFC 79 [201].

[6] NDIA v WRMF [2020] FCAFC 79 [141].

[7] T1B, 'Complex Case Consultation, NSW Health - Clint Pistilli (Psychiatrist) et al'. AB19, 'Behaviour Assessment and Positive Behaviour Support Plan', pp 775-848.

[8] T1B, 'Complex Case Consultation, NSW Health - Clint Pistilli (Psychiatrist) et al'.

[11] T7, 'Notice of Cessation, Denise Hanley (Regional Manager CareSouth), p 157.

[12] T9, 'Form, Change of Details or Change of Situation', pp 212‑-222 at p 217.

[13] E1, Email from Mr Joel Rivers to Shana Dekker', 7 May 2025.

[14] H1, T4, 'Record of Implementation - Trusted Clinical Services ', pp 57-77.

[15] H3, 'Report of Vine Umali (Occupational Therapist), pp 901-929. (sic)

[17] AB15, 'Carer Impact Statement', pp 738-739.

[18] AB21, 'AB21 - Response to Targeted Questions, Khaila Minogue,' pp 850-862.

[19] AB8, 'Positive Behaviour Support Plan, Khalia Minogue', pp 692-719.

[20] T8, 'Behaviour Support Plan, Khalia Minogue (Behaviour Support Practitioner)', pp 158-214.

[21] AB19, 'Behaviour Assessment and Positive Behaviour Support Plan', pp 775-848.

[22] T16, 'Risk Management Plan, Khalia Minogue (Behaviour Specialist)', pp 323-382. Likely date is November 2021.

[23] AB14, 'Supplementary Report, Khalia Minogue', pp 732-737 and AB16, 'Supplementary Report, Khalia Minogue', pp 740-748.

[24] AB19, 'Behaviour Assessment and Positive Behaviour Support Plan', pp 775-848.

[25] AB17, 'Assessment Report, Dr Adam Vujic', pp 749-762.

[26] T5, 'Letter, Dr Charles Austin-Woods (Psychiatrist)', p 75.

[27] AB19, 'Behaviour Assessment and Positive Behaviour Support Plan', pp 775-848, at pp 45-46.

[28] AB22, 'Applicant Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions,' 863-890.

[29] AB19, 'Behaviour Assessment and Positive Behaviour Support Plan', pp 775-848, at pp 48-73.

[30] H4, AB19, 'Behaviour Assessment and Positive Behaviour Support Plan', pp 775-848 at p 48.

[31] H4, AB19, 'Behaviour Assessment and Positive Behaviour Support Plan', pp 775-848 at p 54.

[32] AB14, 'Supplementary Report, Khaila Minogue,' 732-737; AB16, 'Supplementary Report, Khaila Minogue,' 740-748.

[33] AB16, 'Supplementary Report, Khaila Minogue,' 740-748.

[34] AB16, 'Supplementary Report, Khalia Minogue', pp 740-748.

[35] AB16, 'Supplementary Report, Khalia Minogue', pp 740-748.

[36] AB16, 'Supplementary Report, Khalia Minogue', pp 740-748.

[37] T12, 'Report of Vince Umali (Occupational Therapist)', pp 252-271.

[38] H3, 'Report of Vine Umali (Occupational Therapist), pp 901-929. (sic)

[39] H3, 'Report of Vine Umali (Occupational Therapist), pp 901-929. (sic)

[40] H3, 'Report of Vine Umali (Occupational Therapist), pp 901-929. (sic) at p 26.

[41] T5, 'Letter, Dr Charles Austin-Woods (Psychiatrist)', p 75.

[42] AB17, 'Assessment Report, Dr Vujic', pp 749-762.

[43] T1B, 'Complex Case Consultation, NSW Health - Clint Pistilli (Psychiatrist) et al', pp 7-8.

[44] T1B, 'Complex Case Consultation, NSW Health - Clint Pistilli (Psychiatrist) et al'.

[45] T1A, 'Incident Report 29.03.2021', pp 15-17; T17, 'Incident Reports, Various Authors', pp 323-382; AB7 - Summary of Incident Reports and Incident Reports', pp 589-691; H5, 'Incident Reports', pp 1006-1029.

[46] T1A, 'Incident Report 29.03.2021', pp 15-17.

[47] AB7, '7 Summary of Incident Reports and Incident Reports', pp 589-691.

[48] AB20, 'Email, John Chan-Sau, Care Group Community Services', pp 863-890.

[49] AB6, 'Letter from Joel Rivers, Trusted Support Coordination', pp 587-588.

[50] AB19, 'Behaviour Assessment and Positive Behaviour Support Plan', pp 775-848.

[57] H3, 'Report of Vine Umali (Occupational Therapist) dated 26 March 2025,' pp 901-929, p 27.

[59] Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634.

[63] NDIS Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth), sch 2, item 13.

[64] AB23, 'Respondent Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions' (RSOFIC), pp 891-900.