Outcome of your internal review request - plan management decision > > ... > > I am writing in response to your request we received on 22 January 2025.You asked us to review the earlier decision we made on 5 November 2024. Our earlier decision was that the statement of supports in your plan would be agency-managed. > > Outcome of review > > I have considered all the evidence available to me when making my decision about how the supports in your plan should be managed. I have included your request/s below: > > • All funding to be plan managed > > I have not approved your request to change how your supports are managed in your plan.[3]

6. The Applicant stated that their reasons for requesting a review by the ART were as follows:

The current agency-managed plan does not meet my son's needs and restricts access to the necessary and previously utilised services. > > The following are the primary issues: > > Inability to Use Unregistered Support Workers > > Many of the support workers who have built trust and rapport with my son are unregistered, and this restriction impacts the continuity and quality of care. > > Inability to Use Unregistered Therapists > > Some of the therapists who have provided consistent and specialised care are also unregistered, and my son cannot continue with them under agency-managed arrangements. > > Inability to Use Services Overseas During Grace Periods > > My son has previously benefited from access to support services while temporarily overseas. This flexibility has now been removed.

7. The ART convened two case conferences with the parties on 20 June 2025 and 29 August 2025. On 12 September 2025, the Agency requested an interlocutory hearing:

... to determine whether the Tribunal application should continue or be dismissed, having regard to the issue of the Tribunal's jurisdiction in this matter, and the general basis of the Applicant's application. > > This request is made having regard to the current Tribunal application fundamentally arising from the Tribunal's decision dated 1 October 2024, which the Respondent implemented on 5 November 2024.

8. The matter was listed before me to conduct a directions hearing by telephone on 14 November 2025. I issued directions requiring the parties to provide written submissions prior to an interlocutory hearing by telephone which was held on 19 December 2025. The Applicant did not take part in the directions hearing or interlocutory hearing. He was represented by his father, Haider Al-Dabbagh. The Tribunal arranged an interpreter to assist the Applicant's father. The Agency was represented by Mr M Hopkins from Mills Oakley Lawyers.
9. At the interlocutory hearing, the Agency identified that the Federal Court decision in Deayton[4] may be relevant and sought to make further submissions on the application of this authority. I directed further submissions from the parties. Final submissions were received on 30 January 2026.

(a) When the Agency implemented the AAT decision, the Agency changed the Applicant's plan management type from plan-managed to Agency-managed. This was intended to give effect to the Tribunal's recommendation that the Applicant's family members not be paid to provide support to the Applicant. > > (b) In requesting an internal review on 22 January 2025, the Applicant refers to the AAT decision as being the basis on which the Respondent should change his plan management type. > > (c) The Agency's implementation of the AAT decision is not a new reviewable decision as it did involve the Agency's own consideration of the supports to be funded. As, such this was not a decision that was capable of internal review. The decision described as an internal review decision on 11 March 2025 was a 'purported internal review decision'. > > (d) Implementation of a Tribunal decision is not a reviewable decision under section 99 of the NDIS Act as the decision-makers listed in this section only include the Agency's CEO and the Commissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. As no reviewable decision has been made, the Tribunal's jurisdiction in not enlivened. > > (e) The primary issue raised by the Applicant is that his family members be permitted to be paid for the support the following including that invoices submitted to the Agency in relation to family members providing him with support be paid. The Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction in relation to approval by the Agency of invoices lodged with it by a participant. > > (f) The AAT decision finalised the Applicant's previous appeal. The Tribunal does not have the power to review its own decisions. The two mechanisms for review of decisions by the Tribunal are to make an application to the Tribunal's Guidance and Appeals Panel or the Federal Court. > > (g) Applying Deayton, the date of the approval of the Applicant's SPS should be regarded as 1 October 2024, being the date of the AAT decision. It would be inconsistent with Deayton for the Agency's implementation of the AAT decision to itself be regarded as a decision, where the date of the approval of a SPS is taken to be the date of the Tribunal's decision, and not the implementation of that decision.

(a) The Agency, after the AAT decision, has made new administrative decisions to: > > > (i) impose Agency-management; > > > > (ii) refuse to pay invoices from family members; and > > > > (iii) refuse to pay invoices for supports provided overseas. > > (b) These are reviewable decisions under the NDIS Act and the Agency is circumventing the AAT decision by re-imposing barriers aimed at preventing family participation. > > (c) The AAT set aside the Agency's previous decision meaning that this decision ceased to exist and cannot lawfully be revived or re-applied. > > (d) The Agency has misread paragraph 35 of the AAT decision as prohibiting paid family support. The Agency's implementation of the AAT decision is contrary to the order made. > > (e) The AAT did not order Agency-management, and the Agency adopted this model unilaterally. Agency-management is unsuitable because: > > > (i) the Applicant requires culturally and linguistically matched workers; > > > > (ii) most appropriate providers are unregistered; > > > > (iii) the Applicant cannot tolerate unfamiliar staff due to psychosis; > > > > (iv) overseas supports cannot be funded. > > (f) The decision in Deayton does not apply as it involved a narrow question about the timing of legislative amendments and did not consider: > > > (i) post-decision refusals of supports; > > > > (ii) re-imposition of previous restrictions; > > > > (iii) selective or individualised administrative conduct; or > > > > (iv) any attempt to diminish the effect of a Tribunal order.

Management of funding for supports is within jurisdiction

1. The Applicant has sought review of a decision that the supports in his plan would be Agency-managed. There is no doubt that this is a reviewable decision. Section 33(2)(d) of the NDIS Act requires that a SPS specify 'the management of the funding for supports under the plan'. Item 4, section 99 of the NDIS Act states that a decision made under section 33(2) is a reviewable decision.
2. An internal review decision was made by the Agency in respect of the Applicant's request to remove Agency management. I do not accept that this internal review decision was 'purported' to be made. It was actually made. An application was then made by the Applicant to the Tribunal to review the Agency's decision. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether Agency management is appropriate under section 103 of the NDIS Act and section 12 of the ART Act.
3. The AAT decision did not include any recommendations with regards to the management of funding for supports under the Applicant's plan. This was a decision taken by the Agency as part of implementing the Tribunal's decision. Management by the plan nominee or a register plan management provider were alternatives that the Agency might have put in place. Or the SPS could have included a clear statement that the Applicant's family were not approved to provide paid support from NDIS funds.
4. I do not accept the Agency's submission that approval of a new SPS was not itself a decision as it only related to the implementation of the AAT decision. The Agency has made a new decision to approve a SPS for the Applicant. The Tribunal is not reviewing its own decision. There may be circumstances where it is not appropriate for the Tribunal to revisit matter that it has recently determined. For example, there may be matters in which an applicant seeks to immediately re-agitate the same issues without any further evidence or submissions which demonstrate that the factual situation or applicable law has changed. It would be open for the Tribunal to dismiss such an application as being vexatious, having no reasonable prosects of success, or otherwise being an abuse of process.[5] I do not consider that this is the situation in the current matter.
5. I agree with the Applicant that the reasoning in Deayton does not apply. The decision in Deayton related the commencement of legislative amendments to the NDIS Act and specific saving and transitional provisions. In Deayton, the court was considering the temporal aspect as to when a decision should be considered to have been made, rather than whether or not a new decision had been made. This was in the context that the Agency had not actually made a subsequent decision which implemented the Tribunal's decision.
6. That the basis for the Applicant's request for removal of Agency management also includes other matters does not change that a reviewable decision was made. Whether it is more appropriate for the Applicant's plan nominee, registered plan manager, or the Agency to manage some or all of the funding the Applicant's SPS is a matter for the Tribunal to consider as constituted for the substantive hearing. For the purposes of considering the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, it is sufficient that a reviewable decision has been made and the Applicant has sought a review of this decision by the ART.

Reimbursement for expenses prior to the AAT decision are beyond jurisdiction

1. To the extent that the Applicant is seeking re-imbursement for expenses incurred by family members (or other providers) prior to the AAT decision, such expenses are now outside of what the present Tribunal can consider. This is because the Tribunal's authority to make a decision with regards to any prior expenses ceased once it made its decision on 1 October 2024.
2. It is understandable that the Applicant continues to believe that the AAT decision did not prohibit the Applicant's family from being paid to provide support to him. The Applicant has provided a letter from Legal Aid Queensland which seeks reimbursement from the Agency for hours of support work provided by the Applicant's sister and mother between 9 May 2022 and 6 November 2024.
3. However, this request is made on the basis that the AAT decision recommended 12 hours of support worker assistance, and that during the above period the Applicant's sister and mother provided these hours of support. This is a different basis from what the Applicant now submits, which is that:

The Respondent misreads [paragraph 35 of the AAT decision] as prohibiting paid family support. This is incorrect. > > Paragraph [35] states only that all 12 hours of daily support should not be delivered exclusively by paid family members. It does not prohibit family involvement. > > The Tribunal expressly stated: > > "There will not be a direction that the Applicant ... cannot engage members of his family as providers of core supports" > > Read in full, the Tribunal's reasoning establishes that: > > (a) up to 12 hours per day of support is reasonable and necessary; > > (b) exclusive provision of all 12 hours by family is not appropriate; > > (c) family involvement remains permitted; > > (d) the earlier NDIA refusal was expressly extinguished.[6]

4. I acknowledge that the Applicant's father strongly believes that this is the correct interpretation of the AAT decision. However, in my view, his interpretation is clearly incorrect. Paragraph 35 of the AAT decision says that:

As referred to above, there is a recommendation that there be total core support up to 12 hours per day, during the Applicant's waking hours, as funded support. Regard has been had to the intensity and type of support that is required and whether it is appropriate for the Applicant's family to be providing that support. It was not submitted that any member of the Applicant's family is formally trained in the provision of support. The funding or provision of the total core support up to 12 hours per day to the Applicant "takes account of what is reasonable to expect the Applicant's family, carers, informal networks and the community to provide". It is not effective and beneficial for the Applicant, having regard to current good practice for the Applicant's family to be the Applicant's support worker/s, having regard to the evidence, as referred to above. There has been consideration of the extent of any risks to the long-term well-being of the Applicant's family, if the Applicant's family members were to solely provide support for the Applicant. The Applicant's family providing paid support is not most appropriately funded or provided through the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The recommendation made above as to total core supports including up to 12 hours per day of support worker funding, is not reasonable and necessary if that paid support work is to be performed wholly by the Applicant's family members. There will not be a direction that the "Applicant's statement of participant supports should not specify that the Applicant cannot engage members of his family as providers of core supports", as submitted by the Applicant.[7]

5. The Agency is correct that AAT decision did not approve the Applicant's family to be paid to provide support from NDIS funds. Paragraph 35 needs to be read alongside section 34 of the NDIS Act. All of the criteria in section 34 must be satisfied for a support to be found to be reasonable and necessary. At the time of the AAT decision, section 34 required that:

(1) For the purposes of specifying, in a statement of participant supports, the general supports that will be provided, and the reasonable and necessary supports that will be funded, the CEO must be satisfied of all of the following in relation to the funding or provision of each such support: > > (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 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: > > > (i) as part of a universal service obligation; or > > > > (ii) in accordance with reasonable adjustments required under a law dealing with discrimination on the basis of disability.

6. Paragraph 35 also need to be read alongside the Support Rules[8] which are quoted in paragraph 34 if the AAT decision. Once paragraph 35 is put into context with the provisions of the NDIS Act and Support Rules (as was done in the AAT decision) it is clear that AAT found that sections 34(1)(d), (e) and (f) of the NDIS Act were not satisfied. In finding that section 34(1)(e) was not satisfied the AAT also applied rule 3.4 of the Support Rules. The AAT did not find that it was reasonable and necessary for the Applicant's family to be paid to provide supports. The AAT left open the possibly that the Agency could include a statement specifying that the Applicant cannot engage his family to provide paid supports.
7. This conclusion also means that the ART does not now have jurisdiction to determine whether the Applicant's family can be reimbursed for services provided prior to the AAT decision. The letter from Legal Aid Queensland refers to the following authorities with regards to reimbursement:
   • YHCQ and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 267;
   • VXVL and National Disability Insurance Agency [2024] AATA 29;
   • Hill and National Disability Insurance Agency [2023] AATA 3626;
   • PBZB and National Disability Insurance Agency [2023] AATA 3385;
   • RTRH and National Disability Insurance Agency [2022] AATA 205;
   • Williamson and National Disability insurance Agency [2019] AATA 2944;
   • FFVQ and National Disability Insurance Agency [2018] AATA 196; and
   • FJKH and National Disability Insurance Agency [2018] AATA 1294.
8. I note that YHCQ is a decision that I made. I have also considered the issue of reimbursement in other matters such as Darmanin and National Disability Insurance Agency [2024] AATA 1202. Consistent with the above decisions, in order for the Applicant's family to be eligible for reimbursement for supports provided prior to the AAT decision, the AAT would need to have made two findings. First, the AAT would need to have found that it was reasonable and necessary for the Applicant's family to be paid to provide support to the Applicant. As set above, the AAT did not make this finding and instead found that this would not be reasonable and necessary. Second, the AAT would need to have stated that the Applicant's family being paid support was reasonable and necessary from a point-in-time prior to the AAT decision. The AAT also did not make the second finding.
9. This is in contrast to my decision in YHCQ in which I found that it was reasonable and necessary for that Applicant's family to be paid to provide support for a 6 month period following the decision, and that, subject to the provision of adequate records, the family should be reimbursement for some hours of support provided prior to the decision.
10. For completeness, I will also address the Applicant's submission that the AAT set aside the Agency's previous decision and that this means that the decision ceased to exist and cannot lawfully be revived or re-applied. With respect, this submission is also misconceived. The AAT set aside the decision under review and remitted the matter for reconsideration in accordance with recommendations made. In implementing this decision, the Agency did not revive or reapply their previous decision. The Agency made a new decision in accordance with their understanding of the recommendations of the AAT.
11. The AAT decision finalised the issue of whether the Applicant's family should be paid to provide supports to him and concluded that they should not. The ART does not have jurisdiction to revisit whether the Applicant's family is eligible for reimbursement for any supports provided prior to the AAT decision on 1 October 2024.

Final scope to be determined by the member hearing the matter

1. I have decided that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether Agency management is appropriate. I have also decided that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with any reimbursement for supports provided prior to 1 October 2024.
2. I will however decline to provide any commentary on some of the other matters raised by the Applicant, such as payment for supports while overseas. I consider that is it more appropriate for the member who is hearing the substantive matter to determine the scope of the final issues to be decided. Further evidence and submissions from the parties may be relevant to the determination of this scope.

1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the decision of the Respondent dated 11 March 2025, being that supports in the Applicant's plan would be Agency-managed.
2. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider reimbursement for any supports provided prior to the decision in Al-Dabbagh and National Disability Insurance Agency [2024] AATA 3494 made on 1 October 2024.

[1] Respondent's Statement of Issues, 22 August 2025.

[2] Al-Dabbagh and National Disability Insurance Agency [2024] AATA 3494.

[3] Tribunal Documents, (T-Documents), T1C, page 50. Headings in original.

[4] National Disability Insurance Agency v Deayton [2025] FCA 562.

[6] Applicant's Submissions in Reply, 12 December 2025, paragraph's 10 to 13. Emphasis in original. Footnotes omitted.

[7] Al-Dabbagh and National Disability Insurance Agency [2024] AATA 3494, [35]. Emphasis in original. Footnotes omitted.

[8] National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013.