18. The mobility device that would safely manoeuvre my terrain is a Kymco. An all-terrain motorised wheelchair is a vehicle that as previously stated does not satisfy my personal safety requirements and my properties terrain.

4. Reference was made to an existing UTV. This it was submitted was a larger UTV which had come with the property and was fitted out for weed spraying. The Applicant submitted that this UTV was not suitable for her increasing personal mobility needs. Reference was also made to the Applicant's 'Whill' brand personal mobility device with the submission that it could only be used indoors or on hard surfaces like concrete. It could be used to access the community and within the home, but it was submitted as being not appropriate for access to the general property for the reasons outlined above.
5. Further submissions were made in response to earlier submission of the respondent. The Applicant submitted that contrary to the expressed views of the Respondent the proposed UTV would not be used for any farm work.
6. The Applicant contended that the UTV would assist with her goals. It was submitted that it was support her social interactions with the animals, was value for money comparted to alternatives, would allow her to access areas safely as either driver or passenger and would meet funding criteria as linked to funded disabilities.
7. A further submission noted that unless the support worker could be in the Applicant's immediate presence, then there was limited support that they could provide for the Applicant and this issue was magnified when outdoors on the property. The Applicant also put on submissions concerning the length of time that the process to approve funding for the UTV had taken.

1. The Respondent submitted that the UTV is not a NDIS funded support. They submitted that the Tribunal should go through the process as set out in FSWN and the National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 114 (FSWN) whereby the Tribunal outlined the nature and scope of the inquiry that is undertaken over two stages to determine whether a support is a reasonable and necessary support.
2. The respondent submitted that from FSWN step1 is to ascertain whether the support is a NDIS support as defined by determining if the support is identified in Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules, and if 'yes', then the support is not a NDIS Support and cannot be funded. If the answer is 'no' then moving to the second stage of step 1 the decision maker is to determine whether the support is of a character identified in Schedule 1 of the Transition Rules. If the answer to that question is 'no' then the support is not a NDIS support and cannot be funded.
3. The Respondent submitted that consistent with FSWN step 2 involves ascertaining whether the support satisfies each of the other criteria in paragraphs 34 (1) (aa) to (e) inclusive in the associated Rules. Following FSWN the Respondent submitted that it is not sufficient just to determine that a support is not excluded by Schedule 2, but that it is also included in Schedule 1.
4. The Respondent noted that the UTV was listed in Item 6 of Schedule 2 and not specifically included in Item 28 of Schedule 1. Item 28 referred to 'wheelchairs and motorised mobility devices.' The Respondent noted that while the Applicant utilised a powered wheelchair for access to the community and general outdoor mobility, being a support that falls within Schedule 1, the Kymco UTV was not personal mobility equipment.
5. The Respondent submitted that even if the UTV satisfied the criteria for being a NDIS Support, the requested support did not satisfy the s 34 criteria in the NDIS Act. This was because on the Applicant's own evidence the Respondent submitted that she would require the assistance of a support Worker to drive the UTV when the applicant was fatigued. Specific reference as made to s 34 (1) (d) of the NDIS Act.

(d) the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for the participant, having regard to current good practice;

6. The Respondent submitted that the support would not meet this criteria as the Applicant's own evidence that she would need to be driven in the UTV by a support worker does not provide evidence of greater independence and effective and beneficial in meeting her disability support needs having regard to current good practice.

1. I observe that even if the applicant intends to use the UTV for personal mobility, it is a piece of farm equipment designed specifically to perform and assist with the performance of various farm activities or functions that farmers and graziers undertake as part of the enterprise of farming. To distinguish them from quad bikes these UTV's are often marketed as 'Side by Sides'.
2. Whilst that piece of equipment may be well suited outside of the NDIS criteria to the Applicant achieving her various goals including the ability to effectively ingress and egress over the reach of the property, that does not mean that the NDIS will always provide the most appropriate or desirable options and outcomes for supporting a participant.
3. Many of the excluded items under Schedule 2 would understandably be of some benefit to a participant in appropriate circumstances. However, as the scheme has evolved over time changes sometimes characterised as restrictions and limitations have been placed on the Scheme to ensure that it is both sustainable and meeting its statutory objectives. It is not a Scheme that will provide a benefit by providing support in all circumstances. For example, during the life of the scheme to date motor vehicles (Cars) for participants are now excluded having been previously included.
4. I note that under s 34 of the NDIS Act reasonable and necessary supports must not only be beneficial for the participant and be linked to their disabilities as set out in s 34 (1) (aa) - (d) inclusive, but that also under subsection (f) the support is an NDIS support for the participant.
5. On a reading of the reference at Item 6 of Schedule 2 to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No 1) Act 2024 it is clear that 'all-terrain vehicles' are not NDIS supports. On this basis under s 34 (1) funding for such a support cannot be made in the participant's Plan as section 34 (1) (f) is not satisfied. This finding is made irrespective of the benefits and support that such a vehicle might provide the Applicant in both supporting her as a result of her disability, but also assisting her in reaching her goals.
6. Without making any further fundings I observe that the Applicant is supported by the provision of support worker hours in her Plan. If the Applicant obtained such a UTV out of private non-NDIS funding it would clearly be open to the Applicant to be transported in that vehicle and supported in a way that enables her to access the stated benefits it may provide her by other supports in her NDIS Plan. This might be achieved by drawing on assistance such as the use of an existing support worker.
7. I note that the matter was listed for a dismissal hearing concerning the whether the UTV is a NDIS funded support. The matter was initially listed on 29 July 2025 for a dismissal hearing, and I note that both sides had an opportunity to file and serve written submissions. Due to technical difficulties with the Applicant's telephone reception as well as a loss of time due to the Tribunal having out of date contact details the hearing could not proceed on the main issue and further directions were made. The matter was adjourned to 6 August 2025.
8. In addition to written submissions both parties made oral submissions at hearing and ran their respective cases articulately. I am satisfied that in these circumstances both parties were afforded procedural fairness including a reasonable opportunity to prepare for the hearing and be heard.
9. Having given the Applicant the opportunity to put on evidence and submissions about this matter, including an opportunity to be heard on the matter, I find that the support that Applicant seeks, funding for a UTV (Kymco Utility terrain / task vehicle - UTV) cannot be made as such a vehicle is not a NDIS support.
10. I also note that the only remaining issue in contention between the parties as of 6 August 2025 was the inclusion of funding for the UTV for the Applicant in her Participant Plan. I note the finding that I have made on that matter as set out at [41] and [45] above.
11. As such the application before the Tribunal has no reasonable prospects of success and in accordance with s 101 (1) (b) of the ART Act, the proceedings are dismissed.