Whether 57 hours of 1:1 SIL will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for Mr Bugeja having regard to current good practice: s34(1)(d) of the NDIS Act.

1. The Respondent's position is the process of sharing supports should be done gradually, with careful and considered tenant matching undertaken over a prolonged period of 9 months.
2. Ms Dasgupta contends Mr Bugeja could not share supports for any part of the day. The Applicant states I should prefer Ms Dasgupta's evidence due to her more holistic and greater knowledge of Mr Bugeja's needs over Ms Ruskin, by virtue of the fact that Ms Dasgupta has been attending upon Mr Bugeja and consulting with his sister and his support workers since 2023.
3. Ms Dasgupta gave oral evidence that sharing support would lead to deterioration in his condition both in respect of his mental health but also in respect of his physical health. She based this opinion on her interactions with Mr Bugeja, the information provided about Mr Bugeja's time in group homes and on her experience as an occupational therapist.
4. Dr Fong expressed that Mr Bugeja would be at risk of decompensation should he share his supports. He was asked by Counsel for the Applicant as follows:

Mr Bilboe: In your opinion, having regard to the nature and severity of Mr Bugeja's symptoms, is Mr Bugeja's impairments compatible with the shared arrangement?

Dr Fong: It would place him at significant risk of deterioration and seizures worsening. The qualification of that statement is that it is a common phenomena when you change someone's living environment in this particular context of a developmental epileptic and psychology for those environmental changes or triggers to lead to exacerbation of seizure.

Dr Fong: So any change in this environment such as the additional participant for example, does have the risk of his care/seizure control being worsened.[17]

1. The Applicant states everything beyond Dr Fong's evidence is speculative and the Tribunal should not entertain speculation, as this places Mr Bugeja at risk of harm. The Applicant states the Tribunal cannot approve funding for a support that is likely to cause harm to the participant or pose a risk to others per Rule 5.1 of the Supports Rules.
2. The Respondent disagrees noting that Mr Bugeja's seizure triggers among others are reflex stimuli and physical contact, both being unavoidable activities and actions in his daily life. The Respondent asked Dr Fong the following in cross-examination:

Ms Bloc: But would you agree with me? Like any other human being, change is difficult. And that if, if that was done very slowly and very regulated, there's a, there's a, there's a probability that things could settle as well.

And that the seizure activity if it was increased to my, you know, for a short time while that change was happening and it could equally settle as it were once Ricky becomes accustomed to that that new situation?

Dr Fong: That phenomena or occurrence does happen you are correct.[18]

1. The Respondent contends therefore Dr Fong does not state that a shared occupancy arrangement is not possible, rather that any introduction of another resident would need to be highly regulated and structured.
2. Ms Ruskin's independent assessment is important in this context. Her final opinion in her January 2025 report is that 7.5 hours of Mr Bugeja's daytime support could be shared on a 1:2 basis. She defers to Dr Fong on the management of Mr Bugeja's epilepsy.
3. Ms Ruskin in her report dated 11 November 2024 stated that:

In my opinion, the request for sole occupancy is based on the evidence that Ricky appears to manage his behaviours better when living alone. From a functional perspective he appears to be functioning at his best, living alone in his current environment. It is reasonable however, that he has access to a one-bedroom SDA, he does not require a second bedroom for storage or any other disability related need.[19]

1. During cross-examination Ms Ruskin was taken to this potential inconsistency between her first and second reports. Her opinion in her first report dated 11 November 2024 was that Mr Bugeja would be best suited to living alone, with her supplementary report stating he could share supports for a specific part of his day.
2. Ms Ruskin agreed with the Applicant that participant's preferences and their choices in terms of their living arrangements should be considered in the context of the supports that are being provided. She went on to qualify that her observation of Mr Bugeja being well supported and happy in his current circumstances was the basis for her statement that Mr Bugeja was 'best suited to live alone'. She noted that her job as an independent occupational therapist is to observe functional capacity and pull apart the daily tasks to understand what support was required for each of those tasks, and to look at the participants living arrangements and provide an opinion on that.
3. Ms Ruskin explained that her opinions as an independent occupational therapist are based on the tasks to be undertaken, in the context of a participant's daily life and functional capacity. In her oral evidence she stated that it was plausible and entirely reasonable that within the specific part of the day when Mr Bugeja is at home, his support worker can be doing other things whilst aware of and providing oversight to Mr Bugeja.
4. I give greater weight to Ms Ruskin's first report dated November 2024, as it was more closely aligned with the observed evidence including that of Mr Bugeja's lived experience. I find that her January 2025 report regarding Mr Bugeja's capacity for shared supports hinged on a hypothetical compatible housemate and did not effectively engage with the probability of actualised risks and safety considerations to Mr Bugeja.
5. The Respondent states that the provision of 1:1 SIL support to facilitate living alone, where Mr Bugeja's functional capacity could otherwise be supported by 1:2 support, would not promote his independence. I am not persuaded by this as the 1:2 shared SIL arrangement will disrupt these current supports, may increase behavioural distress, and reduce his ability to exercise choice and control. I find Mr Bugeja's established routines, preferences, and established connections are integral to maintaining his stability and autonomy.
6. The evidence shows that Mr Bugeja's experiences with shared supports have resulted in injury, distress and self-harm. I find that while Ms Ruskin's final opinion was that Mr Bugeja could share supports, that she did defer to Dr Fong in relation to management of his epilepsy.
7. The legislation also requires that the SDA Rules be applied, including SDA Rule 16 which concerns various aspects of SDA residency including the importance of not placing Mr Bugeja at risk of harm (SDA Rule 16 (h)). I find based on the evidence of his sister and Dr Fong that Mr Bugeja would be at risk of his seizures worsening. I do also note the point Dr Fong made about the adjustment period and things settling, however I find this amounted to acknowledging that this common phenomena does happen. It did not provide evidence to satisfy me that seizure activity would settle for Mr Bugeja. This falls short of a reliable basis to support shared occupancy. I contrast this with Dr Fong's opinion on sharing support in that it would place him at significant risk of deterioration and seizures worsening.
8. The evidence provided by Dr Fong supports a finding that sharing occupancy would be a tangible risk likely to cause harm to Mr Bugeja or pose a risk to others such that they would be prohibited under Rule 5.1(a) of the Support Rules. Further the evidence of his sister that 1:1 SIL currently provides him with adequate supervision, mitigating his distress and any behavioural escalation satisfies me that 1:1 SIL is effective and beneficial having regard to Mr Bugeja's lived experience evidence. Section 34(1)(d) of the NDIS is satisfied.

Whether 1:1 SIL takes account of what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide: s34(1)(e) of the NDIS Act.

1. The evidence does not support that informal supports can or should provide for Mr Bugeja's 24/7 supports, manage his seizures or respond to his transfer, stoma and continence needs. This would expose his informal supports and Mr Bugeja to an unreasonable risk. I am satisfied that informal supports are not expected to undertake this level of care for Mr Bugeja. Section 34(1)(e) of the NDIS Act is met_._

Whether SIL is an NDIS support for Mr Bugeja: s34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act.

1. The parties agree that SIL is an NDIS support for Mr Bugeja. Having considered the evidence I am also satisfied that SIL is a NDIS Support for the purposes of section 10 of the NDIS Act. Having regard to items 14(a), 14(d), 15 (a), 15 (f) and 27(a) of Schedule 1 of the NDIS Supports Transitional Rules. I am also satisfied SIL is an NDIS support most appropriately funded by the NDIS for Mr Bugeja. Section 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act is met.

1. Mr Bugeja core support hours for 57 hours per week will be funded at the 1:1 ratio.

2. Mr Bugeja has current SDA approval for High Physical Support (HPS) 2 bedrooms, 2 residents. The evidence is that Mr Bugeja's SDA eligibility has always been set at 2 bedrooms, 2 residents SDA.
3. During the hearing Counsel for the Applicant explained that Mr Bugeja's SDA provider recently changed ownership. Counsel for the Respondent stated that Mr Bugeja's current SDA is tenanted as a 1 resident HPS apartment. The new SDA owner is seeking to tenant the property accordingly, to an NDIS participant eligible for 1 bedroom sole occupancy.
4. The Applicant's position is that Mr Bugeja requires funding for a one resident, two bedroom SDA. The purpose of the second bedroom being for storage of his disability related equipment and consumables. The second bedroom in Mr Bugeja's current apartment is described by Ms Dasgupta as being very small without a turning circle big enough for another wheelchair user to be able to pivot. His sister explained during her oral evidence the room is also contains a desk used by workers.
5. Section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act requires consideration of section 3.1 of the Support Rules and section 16(e) of the SDA Rules. Rule 16(e) replicates the requirements of section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act and section 3.1 of the Supports Rules, and requires the Tribunal to consider:

whether the building type represents value for money in that the costs would be reasonable, relative to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternatives.

6. Rule 3.1 states six considerations to have regard to when determining whether a second bedroom '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'.

Rule 3.1(a) of the Support Rules: whether there are comparable supports which would achieve the same outcome at a substantially lower cost.

1. The Applicant argues that the second bedroom is required because Mr Bugeja needs a place to store his assistive technology and consumables. The Applicant states the purpose of the second bedroom in sole occupancy is directly related to Mr Bugeja's disability support needs. The Applicant contends that his new ceiling hoist does not change the need for the second room for storing his other equipment and his consumables.
2. In consideration of the word 'outcome' is used in rule 3.1(a), I read this in context with whether 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'. It is benefits and costs that are weighed in section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act.
3. The Respondent has provided that there is a substantial cost difference between SDA 1 bedroom versus sole occupancy 2 bedrooms. The Respondent stated that shared occupancy would provide a comparable functional outcome relative to Mr Bugeja's disability related support needs at a cost of $111,470 across twelve months, $61,408 more than the SDA which the Respondent contends is reasonable and necessary.
4. There was evidence that the second bedroom held Mr Bugeja's portable hoist, along with other equipment that is no longer in use. The Respondent has now funded a ceiling hoist and submits there is no further storage space issues.
5. If I am to accept that relevant outcome being sought is adequate storage space, then I have not been satisfied on the evidence before me that no other comparable supports that would achieve these same results as sole occupancy of two bedrooms. I accept the Respondents position that as the ceiling hoist has been funded this does free up floor space.
6. Accordingly, the evidence is insufficient for me to conclude that a second bedroom is necessary for storage, and that his storage needs can only be achieved by funding the second bedroom.

Rule 3.1(c) of the Support Rules: whether funding or provision of the support is likely to reduce the cost of the funding of supports for Mr Bugeja 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).

1. The parties agree Mr Bugeja requires 24/7 supports, the ratios being the issue in dispute. The evidence before me does not suggest his need for formal supports funded by the NDIS is likely to decrease in the long term. A second bedroom will not reduce the cost of funding Mr Bugeja's supports in the long-term.

Rule 3.1(f) of the Support Rules: whether the support will increase the participant's independence and reduce the participant's need for other kinds of supports (for example, some home modifications may reduce a participant's need for home care)

1. In considering whether a second bedroom would increase Mr Bugeja's independence and reduce his need for other kinds of support the Applicant relies on Ms Dasgupta's evidence in her 12 July 2024 report as follows:

Presently, the following necessary equipment is stored in the second bedroom, rendering it unusable (Appendix N):

Shower Trolley: Ricky does not present use this item for showering, instead using a shower commode chair, however, should he experience a deterioration in ability, or incidence of pressure injury, this trolley will be useful to facilitate ongoing engagement in showering tasks.

Portable Hoist: This is presently the hoist used to complete Ricky's transfers. Regardless of the addition of a ceiling hoist, as has been recommended for Ricky, this hoist will be used on a daily basis to complete community access transfers in and out of a vehicle.

Over bed table: Ricky does not present use this item regularly, however, should he experience a deterioration in ability, rendering him bed bound, this table will be useful to facilitate ongoing engagement in tabletop tasks whilst he is in bed.

Support Worker desk and documents: a desk and chair are present in the bedroom so that Support Workers are able to sit and complete their note taking. Furthermore, there are some filing systems present, so that staff are able to store relevant medical documentation, and referred to it as needed, for example medication prescription schedules, and key phone numbers/contact information.

Wardrobe: the wardrobe in this bedroom is filled with hygiene and other necessary items for Ricky's care. This includes incontinence aids, masks, gloves, and other protection equipment for staff. Medical dressing and compression garments, and the equipment used to clean and replace Ricky's ostomy bag.[20]

1. The Respondent relies upon the opinion of Ms Ruskin who states in her 11 November 2024 report that Mr Bugeja does not have need for a shower trolley, and that trolley remains stored and unused in his second bedroom. She states that:

Ricky does not have a disability related need for a second bedroom.[21]

1. Having considered all the equipment and the current usage I do not accept it rises to a level that satisfies me his disability related storage needs require a second bedroom. The Respondent has since funded a ceiling hoist to free up the floor space previously taken up by the portable hoist. The other equipment currently being stored is not used, and the wardrobe is being used for his consumables. No evidence was adduced that these consumables could not be moved and stored elsewhere. I have not been satisfied that there are no lower cost alternatives for storage of his consumables, nor that this second bedroom would substantially improve his life stage outcomes or be of long-term benefit to Mr Bugeja.
2. In forming my view, I find the evidence in support of a second bedroom does not satisfy the value for money criteria per section 34(1)(c) or section 34(1)(d) of the NDIS Act. The funding of a second bedroom for Mr Bugeja is not a reasonable and necessary support for the purposes of section 34(1) of the NDIS Act and will not be included in Mr Bugeja's SOPS.

1. SDA Rule 16 (a), requires that consideration is had to the preference of the participant. Mr Bugeja's preference by way of his plan goals, his sisters' evidence and his lived experience is to continue to live in his current accommodation with his current non-shared supports. Having regard to this preference alone is "not determinative" and I must consider the other sub sections of SDA Rule 16 including (h), which concerns the impact of the accommodation arrangement on the risk to Mr Bugeja and to others.
2. As already stated, Dr Fong's evidence was that a shared living arrangement would place Mr Bugeja at significant risk of deterioration with worsening seizures. His opinion was that if progressing with shared occupancy, this would need to be done in a highly regulated/cautious manner. Whereas the Respondent's position is that any shared occupancy funding should not happen before 9 months into a 12 month plan, providing a methodical approach being recommended by Dr Fong.

Whether sole occupancy is necessary to address the needs of Mr Bugeja arising from the impairments in relation to which he meets the disability requirements: s 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act.

1. The parties agree that sole occupancy is necessary to address needs of Mr Bugeja arising from his impairments of ABI and epilepsy in relation to which he meets the disability requirements. Having considered the evidence I am also satisfied that sole occupancy is necessary to address Mr Bugeja's functional needs arising from his impairments of ABI and epilepsy in relation to which he meets the disability requirements and that s 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act is met.

Whether sole occupancy will assist the participant to pursue the goals, objectives, and aspirations in the participant's statement of goals and aspirations: s 34(1)(a) of the NDIS Act

1. The evidence from Ms Xuerib is that continued sole occupancy will provide Mr Bugeja autonomy and the ability to live his life in a manner not contingent upon a co-resident in accordance with his statement of goals and aspirations. Section 34(1)(a) of the NDIS Act is satisfied.

Whether sole occupancy will assist Mr Bugeja to undertake activities, so as to facilitate his social and economic participation: s34 (1)(b) NDIS Act.

1. The Applicant relies on the evidence of Dr Fong that shared occupancy will place Mr Bugeja at significant risk of deterioration and seizures worsening. Further the Applicant contends that sole occupancy provides Mr Bugeja the opportunity to have autonomy over his living space and undertake his activities of interest when and where he wishes inside of his home.
2. On the evidence before me I find sole occupancy will assist Mr Bugeja to undertake activities so as to facilitate his social and economic participation. Section (1)(b) NDIS Act is satisfied.

Whether sole occupancy 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: s34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act.

1. The concept of 'value for money' under s 34(1)(c) is not a simple exercise in finding the lowest possible cost for a support. This requires a broader assessment of the costs of a support relative to the benefits achieved and the cost of alternative supports.
2. Ms Ruskin final view is that Mr Bugeja's functional impairments could be appropriately supported with a co-resident. She defers to Dr Fong on the management of his epilepsy.
3. Support Rule 3.1(c) requires consideration as to whether the provision of sole occupancy is likely to reduce the cost of the funding of the supports in the long term. The evidence from Ms Xuerib is that continued sole occupancy will provide Mr Bugeja with the ability to live his life in a manner not contingent upon a co-resident, with safety and continuity of routine reducing his risk of potential injury costs.
4. The Respondent states behaviour support in conjunction with the currently funded support, explored as an alternative to sole occupancy presents a comparable alternative per s34(1)(c) of the Act, and Rule 3.1(a)-(b) of the Supports Rules.
5. I note there is funding for 32.5 hours of behavioural support in Mr Bugeja's current plan. As at 28 October 2025 Mr Bugeja was funded $20,404.21 for behaviour support and had 76% of this funding available. His sister gave evidence that he only sees a behaviour support specialist once or twice per year since mobbing into his current accommodation.
6. The Respondent contends that Mr Bugeja's previous self-harm behaviours from his shared living days have not materialised in present day and that there is no contemporary evidence to demonstrate that this concern would repeat itself.
7. I accept that Mr Bugeja would experience a loss of privacy and control over his environment in shared accommodation. I don't agree with the Respondent' position that sharing SIL for 57 hours a week coupled with utilising behaviour supports, would be comparable to the 1:1 SIL that Mr Bugeja seeks.
8. This alternative carries its own costs including risk of significant behaviours as outlined by his sister and Ms Dasgupta, increase in seizure activity as outlined by Dr Fong, risk of injury, and the potential need for more restrictive interventions. Having regard to the evidence and when viewed in this proper context, the cost of funding 1:1 SIL to maintain Mr Bugeja's stable and safe current environment represents a sound and necessary investment.
9. Further I have considered Rule 5.1 that state supports that will not be funded are those that will be likely to cause harm to a participant. I am not persuaded by the Respondent's contention that there is no contemporary evidence to demonstrate that this concern would repeat itself. I am not persuaded by this given Mr Bugeja hasn't lived in shared circumstances since December 2022. I find that to accept the Respondent's position, would be likely to cause Mr Bugeja harm due to distress as well as increase his seizure activity as per Dr Fong's evidence.
10. In comparing the cost of sole occupancy with its benefits such as avoidance of likely harm and behavioural escalation that it 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. Section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act is satisfied.

Whether sole occupancy will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for Mr Bugeja having regard to current good practice: s34(1)(d) of the NDIS Act.

1. In respect of his epilepsy, Dr Fong gave objective and comprehensive evidence of triggers that can cause Mr Bugeja to experience seizures. These triggers range from reflex stimuli, physical transfers, physical touch, to various emotional contexts.
2. Dr Fong gave evidence that was reiterated by Mr Bugeja's sister in that his Epilepsy Management Plan is working well and has kept him out of hospital for epilepsy since it commenced. Dr Fong did not recommend any changes to his current Epilepsy Management Plan. I am satisfied that Dr Fong's Epilepsy Management Plan is clearly documented and an effective measure to manage his epilepsy.
3. While Dr Fong agreed with the Respondent's proposition that rises in seizure activity from a new co-resident could equally settle being 'a common phenomena', I am not satisfied that placing Mr Bugeja at risk of deterioration and seizures worsening in the interim meets the effective and beneficial criteria: r 5.1(a) Supports Rules.
4. While I note that Dr Fong agreed during his oral evidence that there may be potential benefits to sharing, including some components of socialisation I find this doesn't mitigate or diminish his evidence that shared support will place Mr Bugeja at significant risk of deterioration and seizures worsening. I am satisfied that sole occupancy will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for Mr Bugeja having regard to current good practice: s34(1)(d) of the NDIS Act.

Whether sole occupancy takes account of what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide: s34(1)(e) of the NDIS Act.

1. I am satisfied that Mr Bugeja and his sister share a close and loving relationship, and that the level of support he requires with sole occupancy is beyond the reasonable limit of what can be expected from his family. Section 34(1)(e) of the NDIS Act is satisfied.

Whether sole occupancy is an NDIS support for Mr Bugeja: s34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act.

1. The parties agree that sole occupancy is an NDIS support for Mr Bugeja. Having considered the evidence I am also satisfied that sole occupancy is an NDIS support for Mr Bugeja and that s 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act is met.

1. SDA sole occupancy is a reasonable and necessary support to be funded under Mr Bugeja's SOPS.

1. Mr Bugeja currently receives 4 hours of 2:1 support worker assistance every day for his dressing, showering and transfers. The request by the Applicant is for 5.5 hours of 2:1 support worker assistance per day.
2. The Applicant states these 5.5 hours of 2:1 support equates to 38.5 hours a week broken down into 28 hours per week for assistance with self-care, 3.5 hours per week for social participation and 7 hours per week for household tasks. The Respondent's position is that the current 2:1 support of 4 hours a day is reasonable and necessary.
3. Ms Dasgupta stated in her oral evidence that the purpose of further 2:1 hours as she recommended initially was for his hoist transfers into the old wheelchair that often broke down. The evidence demonstrates Mr Bugeja now has a new powerchair and therefore the need for the additional 2:1 hoist support is not required. Ms Dasgupta agreed with this contention in cross-examination acknowledging the extra 2:1 ratio for this express purpose was not necessary.
4. After conceding this point Ms Dasgupta explained she recommended 2:1 for all community access vehicle travel as she was concerned about Mr Bugeja travelling with one support person driving the vehicle. Her concern was that in having only one support worker focussed on driving, there was no other support worker who could attend to Mr Bugeja in the situation of epileptic seizure monitoring and support purposes.
5. In contrast Mr Bugeja's sister gave oral evidence confirming that the 1:1 support for community access is working well. She gave unprompted oral evidence that currently a support worker will drive Mr Bugeja to visit her home, taking approximately 50 minutes by car. She also explained a support worker will take Mr Bugeja to go to the supermarket, to the park, to the local club all at the current 1:1 ratio, and these current circumstances were working well for Mr Bugeja.
6. The basis for evidence requesting further community access 2:1 supports were from Ms Dasgupta's concern around his risk of seizures when travelling in vehicles being driven by a support worker, without a second support worker to monitor him.
7. Ms Dasgupta stated in cross examination that she would defer to Doctor Fong on epilepsy matters. I find that Dr Fong's evidence was clear in that he considered 1:1 support for community access appropriate in relation to his epilepsy, he had no reasons for concern about this ratio of support. For this reason, I prefer the opinion of Dr Fong in that 1:1 support for community access is appropriate in regard to Mr Bugeja's epilepsy management.
8. Having regard to the further 2:1 supports for daily living activities, Mr Bugeja is currently funded for 4 hours per day of 2:1 support. The position between the parties on the matter of support for self-care and household tasks differs by 1 hour per day at the 2:1 ratio of supports.
9. The Applicant relies on the evidence of Ms Dasgupta in that this extra hour of 2:1 support is required in the home for personal care, and the safe completion of household tasks. Ms Dasgupta in her report dated 12 July 2024 stated that Mr Bugeja was at risk of:

a. muscle strain during transfers, due to a rushed transfer or inadequate support for positioning;

b. seizure during showering, due to inadequate physical support to hold his body whilst being washed;

c. improper stoma bag hygiene due to inadequate time to clean his ostomy pouch, stoma, and inspect the stoma;

d. developing pressure injuries due to insufficient time for support workers to properly dry the Participant's body and apply lotion to him; and

e. compression garments being improperly worn due to inadequate time to manoeuvre; and

f. muscle atrophy due to inadequate time to assist with physiotherapy exercises.[22]

1. The Respondent disagrees and relies on Ms Ruskin's opinion that Mr Bugeja requires 2:1 support for all his tasks that require manual handling, these being dressing, showering and all his transfers. In her opinion these activities equate to 4 hours per day as per his current funding level.
2. Dr Fong provided oral evidence that his focal seizures have no triggers, whereas his tonic seizures are triggered by transfers, stimulation and environmental factors. He stated that when Mr Bugeja has a tonic clonic seizure, the response of support workers is first to remove any hazardous material or agents from his general surroundings, then position him in a relative recovery position, noting that being in his wheelchair has some physical limitations.
3. Dr Fong agreed with the Respondent's proposition that a support worker does not need to have Mr Bugeja in their line of sight continuously, workers can use the bathroom, or move to another room briefly. Dr Fong agreed with the Respondent's contention that no further 2:1 supports were required for Mr Bugeja's self-care or activities of daily living in relation to his epilepsy.

1. I am persuaded on the totality of the evidence that the current 2:1 supports meets Mr Bugeja's functional needs with his dressing, showering and all transfers. Therefore I find that 2:1 supports for more than 4 hours per day does not represent value for money in that the costs of the support are reasonable relative to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternative support: s 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act. It follows that the additional 2:1 funding sought on review is not reasonable and necessary and cannot be funded in Mr Bugeja's SOPS.

1. I am satisfied that Mr Bugeja's 2:1 SIL continues to be funded for 4 hours each day.

1. The Reviewable Decision should be set aside, with the matter remitted to the Respondent for reconsideration with a direction that:

(a) The Applicant's Statement of Participant Supports specifies: > > > (i) 24 hours per week of 1:1 SECP support at weekday daytime rates; > > > > (ii) 3 hours per week of 1:1 SECP support at Saturday rates; > > > > (iii) 28 hours per week of 2:1 SIL support; > > > > (iv) 56 hours per week of 1:1 SIL active overnight support; and > > > > (v) 57 hours per week of 1:1 SIL support. > > (b) SDA eligibility for a one bedroom, one resident SDA apartment in the High Physical Support design category.

[2] Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT.

[7] Subitem 129(2) of Schedule 1 to National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS back on Track No. 1) Act 2024.

[11]Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 635.

[12]SDA Guidelines dated 30 September 2025.

[15] Beezley v Repatriation Commission [2015] FCAFC 165 at [68] per North, Tracey and Mortimer JJ.