1. As I have indicated, the support in issue relates to ABA therapy. More specifically, the Applicant's parents are seeking funding for a program their son is attending, generally for 4 days each week, and which they consider has been very beneficial for him.
2. The Applicant first started participating in this program, provided by FACES, in February 2024 and by April 2025 he was attending FACES four days a week for five hours, 36 weeks per year.[6] On 18 July 2025, the Applicant began attending QUADRA after FACES ceased providing services. The program offering by QUADRA is similar and is offered between the hours of 10am and 3pm during the school term.[7] The Applicant has continued to attend that program 4 days each week, excluding Wednesdays.
3. Following some discussion toward the end of the hearing, I made an order pursuant to s 53 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 limiting the scope of this matter to consideration of the support described above. The Applicant's parents did not object to that order.

1. A participant in the NDIS is entitled to supports which are "reasonable and necessary" within the meaning of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (the NDIS Act) and the applicable Rules, which have legislative force.[8]

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 support:

(aa) the support is necessary to address needs of the participant arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements (see section 24) or the early intervention requirements (see section 25);

(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 a NDIS support for the participant.[9]

1. Section 34(2) provides that the NDIS rules may prescribe methods or criteria to be applied, or matters to which the CEO is to have regard, in deciding whether or not he or she is satisfied as mentioned in any of paragraphs (1)(aa) to (f).
2. Section 35 states that the NDIS rules may make provision in connection with the funding or provision of reasonable and necessary supports or general supports, including but not limited to prescribing:

(a) methods or criteria to be applied, or matters to which the CEO is to have regard, in deciding, the reasonable and necessary supports or general supports that will be funded or provided under the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and

(b) reasonable and necessary supports or general supports that will not be funded or provided under the National Disability insurance Scheme; and

(c) reasonable and necessary supports or general supports that will or will not be funded or provided under the National Disability Insurance Scheme for prescribed participants.

1. The National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Support Rules) are described as 'made for the purposes of sections 33 and 34 of the Act'.

1. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 (Amending Act) commenced on 3 October 2024. The Amending Act amended s 34 of the NDIS Act to include, amongst other things, s 34(1)(f), which requires that the CEO must be satisfied that the support 'is an NDIS support for the participant'.
2. Item 14 of Schedule 1 to the Amending Act amended s 10 of the NDIS Act which concerns the definition of an 'NDIS support'.
3. Section 10(1) states:

(1) Subject to subsections (4) and (9), a support is an NDIS support for a person who is a participant or prospective participant if the support is declared by National Disability Insurance Scheme rules made for the purposes of this subsection to be an NDIS support for :

(a) participants or prospective participants generally; or

(b) a class of participants or prospective participants that includes the person.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may declare that a support is not an NDIS support for:

(a) participants or prospective participants generally; or

(b) a class of participants or prospective participants.

1. Item 124(2) of Schedule 1 to the Amending Act provides that s 10 of the NDIS Act has effect as if a reference in that section to the NDIS rules were a reference to rules made under item 138 of Schedule 1 to the Amending Act.
2. Item 129(1) of Schedule 1 of the Amending Act provides that sections 33, 34 and 35 as in force on and after 3 October 2024 apply to a SOPS approved or varied on or after that date. Item 129(2) of Schedule 1 of the Amending Act provides that if a SOPS is varied on or after 3 October 2024, the amendments apply irrespective of whether the participant's plan came into effect before, or on or after commencement.
3. Item 138 of Schedule 1 to the Amending Act provides that Transitional Rules can be made and that such rules made before the end of the period of 12 months from 3 October 2024 may provide that provisions have effect with any modifications as prescribed by the rules.
4. The National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Transitional Rules) were made on 30 September 2024.
5. Section 5(1) of the Transitional Rules provides that a support covered in column 2 of an item in the table in clause 1 of Schedule 1, entitled Supports that are NDIS supports unless otherwise provided, is a NDIS support, subject to s 10(4) and s 10(9) of the NDIS Act, and s 5(2) of the Transitional Rules.
6. Section 5(2) of the Transitional Rules provides that for the purposes of s 10(4) of the NDIS Act, a support covered by column 2 of an item in the table in clause 1 of Schedule 2, entitled Supports that generally are not NDIS supports, is not an NDIS support for any participant, subject to s 10(6) of the NDIS Act.

1. The effect of s 10 read with the Rules is that, for a support to be a "NDIS support" within the meaning of s 34(1)(f), the requested support must:

(a) fall within one of the categories in Schedule 1; and > > (b) not fall within one of the categories in Schedule 2.

1. Supports that provide training and development activities for participants or carers to increase a participant's ability to live as independently as possible (including as part of psychosocial recovery supports).
2. This includes increasing the participant's ability to independently undertake the following activities:
3. (a) shopping;
4. (b) meal preparation;
5. (c) managing finances;
6. (d) managing a participant's own personal care;
7. (e) travel and use public transport;
8. (f) engage in social activities;
9. (g) improve relationship and social skills

1. Supports that provide evidence‑based therapy to help participants improve or maintain their functional capacity in areas such as language and communication, personal care, mobility and movement, interpersonal interactions, functioning (including psychosocial functioning) and community living.
2. This includes an assessment by allied health professionals for support planning and review as required.

(a) fees or payments for outside school hours care, including before school, after school, student free days, vacation care and school holiday programs;

(b) education and tuition fees across all education settings;

(c) standard school uniforms, shoes, lunchboxes, drink bottles or other school equipment;

(d) personalised learning or supports for students that primarily relate to their educational attainment;

(e) aids and equipment for educational purposes, including modified computer hardware, education software, and braille textbooks;

(f) assistive products which are fixed or non‑transportable in schools that enable a student access to education, including hoists and specially adapted furniture;

(g) reasonable adjustments to education campuses, including capital works, including ramps, lifts, and hearing loops;

(h) services from a person employed by the participant's school or the relevant authority or Department of State for a State or Territory with responsibility for school education;

(i) textbooks and teaching aids, including in alternative formats;

(k) educational supports associated with home schooling;

(n) transport between school activities, including excursions and sporting carnivals;

(o) work experience generally provided as part of a school program.

1. As I understand the position, the Respondent does not dispute that the support in issue falls within Schedule 1. However, the Respondent contends it is excluded by item 16 of Schedule 2 on the basis that it constitutes "school education". The Respondent also contends that the support does not satisfy some of the other criteria in s 34, in particular s 34(1)(c) and (d).

1. I therefore propose to approach the matter on the basis that the issues for me are:

1. Does the requested support fall within Schedule 1? And, if so;
2. Is it excluded by Schedule 2? And, if not;
3. Does the support otherwise satisfy the applicable criteria set out in s34?

However, I will first discuss the relevant evidence before addressing those questions more directly.

1. Oral evidence was given at the hearing by each of the Applicant's parents and by two expert witnesses: Associate Professor Michael McDowell and Dr Cindy Smith.
2. I will discuss the expert evidence first.

1. A/P McDowell is a Developmental Paediatrician with more than 30 years' experience. He has provided a detailed written report dated 25 July 2025,[10] having met the Applicant and his family via video teleconference for the purpose of preparing that report. During his written and oral evidence, he expressed the following opinions and views of particular relevance to this matter:

(a) In addition to ASD, he considered that the Applicant was "a child with a severe intellectual impairment, even though this diagnosis has not been formalised".[11] He expressed the view that in most areas of development the Applicant was functioning at "an approximate 2-3 year age equivalent level", though his motor skills were more advanced;[12]

(b) He thought the next 12 months should be focussed on preparing the Applicant "functionally for adult life". He noted that seemingly "small gains (e.g. in mood, attention and behaviour regulation, learning safe behaviours, toileting, requesting) will make a major difference to the supports necessary for him in adult life, and their associated costs";[13]

(c) He commented that "education enabling support and life skills capacity building are fundamentally the same for DDDS. Intellectually his level falls at/ below kindergarten curriculum level. He can learn foundation literacy and numeracy, however this is at rote level and (to my understanding) is not accompanied by equivalent levels of comprehension (e.g. he does not understand the concept of 'quantity' which counting presupposes). This means that the proposition of enabling education has lost much of its meaning";[14]

(d) He considered separating the components of intervention and support required by the Applicant that were educational from those that were "NDIS" was "fundamentally irresolvable" for a child in the Applicant's developmental situation. However, he also indicated he thought it would be reasonable if a third of the QUADRA program was directed toward "educational preparation" and "the rest life skills";[15]

(e) He expressed qualified support for ABA and the QUADRA program, stating "I would like to think of ABA for DDDS as continuous, ecologically constructed behaviourally based learning for intellectual impairment, rather than as a specialist methodology for ASD. DDDS learns through behaviourally incentivised repetition. Constructed this way, I believe ABA would optimise his learning over time".[16]

1. A/P McDowell's oral evidence was consistent with his report. He confirmed that in his view the Applicant has a severe intellectual impairment and is operating at the functional level of a 2-3-year-old. His evidence was to the effect that this was the Applicant's primary impairment, and his supports needed to be directed toward this impairment. He explained that an intellectual impairment carried a different window of opportunity and implied a different trajectory compared with a diagnosis of ASD alone. In the Applicant's case there was a clear ceiling to the level of abstraction he had capacity for, which affected his ability to learn. Even with good support, he was doubtful that the Applicant would reach a stage at which he could engage with the mainstream school curriculum. In effect, he considered the Applicant was operating at a kindergarten or preschool level and this was unlikely to change significantly.
2. With respect to the QUARDRA program, A/P McDowell accepted that this was therapeutic and beneficial for the Applicant and was a good option for him overall. A/P McDowell indicated he was aware of some high schools in Australia that provided excellent programs for children such as the Applicant, consisting of a Life Skills curriculum with very high levels of support. He had seen this provided within mainstream schools as well as specialist schools. However, he also said there was immense variability between schools as to what they offered for children such as the Applicant, and he had no knowledge of relevant schools in Perth where the Applicant lives. Based on his experience of high schools who offered excellent Life Skills programs, he said the content of this would be very similar to what QUADRA is currently doing with the Applicant. He said to his knowledge these type of programs were not available in primary schools.
3. As to whether the QUADRA program was education or disability support, he said he found this an impossible question to answer, as these amounted to the "same thing" for the Applicant. He considered the QUADRA program suitable for the Applicant and what QUADRA were doing with him was "pretty good". He considered it could be improved with the involvement of a developmental psychologist who could offer more insight into the Applicant's cognition and how he learned. He explained that behavioural approaches such as ABA were suitable for ASD, but less so for intellectual impairment where different interventions and approaches from a range of professionals may be more effective. He said medication may also be effective in improving the Applicant's ability to learn, as a large part of what was affecting him was biological. One of his few criticisms of the QUADRA program for the Applicant was that it was somewhat narrow and "separatist" in its approach. He said a developmental psychologist with the skills to conduct a detailed assessment of the Applicant's cognition would also be well placed to guide and supervise his supports.
4. Having said that, he was broadly supportive of the QUADRA program for the Applicant and described his suggested changes as "tweaks" to the program rather than fundamental changes. He thought the QUADRA program was focussing on the things which were most important for the Applicant now, namely life skills designed to support his functioning and independence in the long term rather than "education" in the academic sense.

1. Dr Cindy Smith is an Educational Consultant with a doctorate in Special Education and Educational Psychology. She is currently a Director and Behavioural Consultant at QUADRA and was previously employed by FACES as a Behavioural Consultant**.**
2. As well as giving oral evidence, Dr Smith has provided a report dated 29 January 2025.[17]
3. In her report, Dr Smith indicated it was her understanding the Applicant was receiving "therapeutic supports only, not educational supports" from FACES.[18] She also commented that DDD's "multiple failed school placements, resulting in loss of employment for his parents, are substantial evidence that he does not currently have the skills to benefit from mainstream education and community environments.".[19]
4. Together with her report, Dr Smith also provided a Therapy Plan, setting out the Applicant's current goals in the areas of self-management, verbal behaviour foundations, listening skills, speaking skills, and pre-cursor skills, together with activities designed with these domains in mind.[20]
5. Dr Smith has also provided a document entitled "FACES Methodology and Approach" which indicates that FACES provided services to children with developmental disabilities, including Autism and Intellectual Disabilities. In addition to ABA based therapeutic strategies, this document indicates that FACES supported children to develop social skills "though a range of interactive learning experiences".[21]
6. In her oral evidence, Dr Smith confirmed that she was currently a Director of QUADRA, as well as a consultant. This is in addition to her full-time employment with Curtin University as a Senior Lecturer in Educational Psychology and Special Education. Her current role with QUADRA is similar to her previous role with FACES.
7. She also confirmed that the current focus of the Applicant's program with QUADRA is on building was she referred to as "foundational skills", such as the ability to follow instructions and interact with his peers and instructors. She said these foundational skills were a necessary perquisite for him to access education, keep safe and attain a reasonable quality of life. QUADRA's focus currently was on building his capacity for self-care, decision-making and self-directed activities.
8. Dr Smith indicated the Applicant had shown some improvement as a result of his attendance at QUADRA and FACES, but progress was very slow, and they were beginning from a very "low base". The Applicant was showing some ability to follow instructions and was currently working on being able to follow two step instructions. He was more aware of his peers and was more likely to interact than when he first started attending FACES. However, he still required one to one instruction for most of the day and, in her opinion, would have "almost zero" ability to engage in a school environment. She said the Applicant did not yet have the foundational skills to engage in an educational setting. She also did not consider full-time home schooling a viable option for the Applicant as this would require at least one of his parents to give up their employment and undergo training to be able to attempt to replicate the intense one on one instruction provided by QUADRA. In addition, the Applicant did not currently have the capacity to engage in the mainstream school curriculum in any event. She indicated that one of the challenges at present was that the Applicant would only engage with therapists he was familiar with. If confronted with a therapist he had not worked with previously, he generally would not respond to them or follow their instructions.
9. Dr Smith acknowledged that there was what could be considered an educational component to the QUADRA program, including some literacy and numeracy. However, the main purpose of this was to assist the Applicant in developing basic life skills such as being able to cook, read signs, work out the right change when shopping and understand and respond to others. She said in the longer term these capacities would be crucial to his safety, independence and quality of life.
10. Dr Smith was questioned about a document entitled "NDIS Progress Report" covering the period July 2025-September 2025, of which she was a signatory. That report stated:

"Mainstream and specialist schools in Western Australia are not equipped to provide the level of intensive, one-to-one behavioural intervention [the Applicant] requires to succeed. While schools are mandated to deliver curriculum-based education, [DDDS's] needs are habilitative: building foundational communication, safety, and self-care skills before academic curriculum can be accessed in any meaningful way".[22]

Dr Smith's oral evidence was entirely consistent with this statement. 11. As to whether the Applicant was likely to be able to attend a mainstream school in the future, Dr Smith indicated it was possible that at some point he may be able to attend a mainstream school for perhaps an hour a day. However, in her opinion this was still 2-3 years away. She also added that the only purpose of this would be social. Currently, she said the Applicant was part of a community at QUADRA in which he was being supported to develop his social skills. 12. Dr Smith stated that currently, the Applicant is unable to learn in a group setting and requires one to one tuition. For that reason, it would not be feasible for him to attend even a specialist school, as that would still require him to engage and learn in a small group, which was currently beyond him.

1. The Applicant's mother also gave oral evidence at the hearing. She explained the Applicant's current weekly schedule, which includes attending QUADRA from 10am to 3pm Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday and typing/reading with his parents for up to an hour each evening. She explained that this hour in the evenings effectively comprised the Applicant's current "home schooling" and this was the maximum time the Applicant was able to tolerate sitting and learning. During this hour, the maximum time the Applicant could sit and learn for was 5 minutes before he would need to get up and have a short break. The Applicant's parents use an egg timer for this purpose so the Applicant can see when he'll be able to have a break.
2. As the Applicant is not able to hold a pen or pencil, his parents are teaching him to type as well as reading with him. The Applicant has a very short attention span which makes teaching him difficult. Currently, the Applicant's parents are going over 10 words per day with him, with 3 of these words being new to him. In addition, the Applicant's parents constantly look for opportunities to teach the Applicant during their daily life. For example, when they are cooking with him they will encourage the Applicant to count eggs or other ingredients, when they catch a bus the Applicant's mother will direct his attention to the bus timetable, etc.
3. The Applicant's mother also indicated during her evidence that the Applicant is currently on the waiting list to see a paediatrician. She understood the waiting time in Western Australia is currently 3 years and she has been waiting one year for an appointment so far.

1. The Applicant's father also gave relatively brief oral evidence. He said the current focus of his son's program with QUADRA was on self-care, independence and capacity building generally rather than education in the usual sense. He said his son can speak in very short sentences of no more than 3 words at a time. He also calls his sister and the family dog by their names but does not have names for his mother or father. He enjoys physical activities such as skateboarding but prefers to be solitary and does not engage with other children. He is also enjoys playing with devices, such as smart phones, but doesn't focus long enough to be open to instruction in using these. He also likes stacking DVDs and playing with grass, straws or other long items.
2. Under questioning from Mr Lentenmeiyer for the Agency, the Applicant's father confirmed that the staff at QUADRA would discuss techniques and strategies with he and his wife to ensure that these were consistent between when the Applicant was at home and when he was at QUADRA. He said one of the main strategies he uses with his son is re-direction, as asking or telling his son directly what to do tended not to be effective. He acknowledged his son can count objects to a limited extent, and his parents look for opportunities to encourage this, such as counting eggs when cooking. He also had the impression that his son could recognise some written words, though this was not entirely clear as his son does not actually say the words as he reads them.
3. I will next address each of the issues identified above.

DOES THE REQUESTED SUPPORT FALL WITHIN SCHEDULE 1?

1. This question was not squarely addressed by the Respondent's submissions, which focussed on whether the support was excluded by Schedule 2. However, in my view, it is appropriate to first consider whether the support falls within Schedule 1 before turning to Schedule 2.
2. I note that item 15 of Schedule 1 is described as follows:

1. Supports that provide training and development activities for participants or carers to increase a participant's ability to live as independently as possible (including as part of psychosocial recovery supports).
2. This includes increasing the participant's ability to independently undertake the following activities:
3. (a) shopping;
4. (b) meal preparation;
5. (c) managing finances;
6. (d) managing a participant's own personal care;
7. (e) travel and use public transport;
8. (f) engage in social activities;
9. (g) improve relationship and social skills

1. In my view, the QUADRA program clearly falls within this item, as it is focussed on helping the Applicant to develop life skills, including relationship and social skills, and increasing his degree of independence.
2. Item 34 of Schedule 1 is described as follows:

1. Supports that provide evidence‑based therapy to help participants improve or maintain their functional capacity in areas such as language and communication, personal care, mobility and movement, interpersonal interactions, functioning (including psychosocial functioning) and community living.
2. This includes an assessment by allied health professionals for support planning and review as required.

1. In my view the QUADRA program also falls clearly within the parameters of this item, as it consists of evidence-based therapy provided in a structured setting and directed toward helping the Applicant to improve his functional capacity in numerous areas including language and communication, and interpersonal interactions.
2. It is therefore clear in my view that the requested support falls with Schedule 1. However. the next question is whether it is excluded by Schedule 2.

1. The Respondent contends that the support is excluded by Schedule 2 as it falls within item 16, which relates to "school education". In particular, the Respondent argues that the support is caught by item 16(b) relating to "education and tuition fees", item 16(d), being "personalised learning or supports for students that primarily relate to their educational attainment" and/or item 16(k), being "educational supports associated with home schooling".
2. The Respondent also relies upon 7.13-14 of the Supports Rules, which provide as follows:

7.13 The NDIS will be responsible for supports that a student requires that are associated with the functional impact of the student's disability on their activities of daily living (that is, those not primarily relating to education or training attainment), such as personal care and support, transport to and from school and specialist supports for transition from school education to further education, training or employment that are required because of the student's disability. Any supports funded by the NDIS will recognise the operational requirements and educational objectives of schools.

7.14 The NDIS will not be responsible for personalising either learning or supports for students that primarily relate to their educational attainment (including teaching, learning assistance and aids, school building modifications and transport between school activities).

1. In addition, the Respondent relies upon the Explanatory Statement which accompanied the Transitional Rules, which stated at p 35:

This category captures tuition fees as well as any supports that schools are responsible for providing for children. This includes making reasonable adjustments to personalise learning and support for students that primarily relate to their educational attainment (including teaching, learning assistance and aids, school building modifications and transport between school activities).

1. The Respondent also relies on the West Australian School Education Act 1999, which specifies that a child must be enrolled in an educational program for each year of their compulsory education period, though this can be satisfied by a parent of the child registering as a home educator under s 48, as the Applicant's mother has done. Section 11 of this Act also provides that a child may be exempted from education if it is in the best interests of the child. I note the Applicant's mother's evidence that she believed this was likely to occur with respect to the Applicant, although she was still waiting for an appointment with a paediatrician to obtain the appropriate supporting evidence.
2. The Respondent also directed my attention to the fact that State schools have obligations to make reasonable adjustments for students with disabilities.
3. In this context, the Respondent contends that item 16 encompasses the full range of schooling options provided by State and Territory governments including specialist education,[23] and that "where a program includes a literacy and numeracy program that will be a strong indicator...that a course or program is school education".[24]
4. Accordingly, the Respondent contends that the program provided to the Applicant by QUADRA constitutes "school education" within the meaning of column 1 of item 16. The Respondent further contends that it constitutes "personalised learning or supports for students that primarily relate to their educational attainment" (Item 16(d)), "educational supports associated with home schooling" (Item 16(k)) and/or "tuition fees" (item 16(b)).
5. As a support is only excluded by Schedule 2 if it meets one of the descriptors in column 2, I consider the Respondent's contentions as to the proper scope of the phrase "school education" of limited assistance. The real issue for me is whether the support falls within one of the descriptors in column 2.
6. I will address the application of each of these descriptors in turn.

1. In my view this question is best answered by focussing on whether the QUADRA program "primarily" relates to the Applicant's educational attainment.
2. It is clear on the evidence in my view that the main focus of the QUADRA program is on developing basic life skills and making small gains in the Applicant's behaviour, emotional regulation, communication and interpersonal skills. Very basic literacy and numeracy skills are a component of the program, largely because these are essential life skills which are critical to any degree of independence. However, in my view, the fact the program involves some basic literacy and numeracy does not transform it from a therapeutic program primarily directed toward life skills into a program primarily directed to educational attainment.
3. I am therefore not satisfied that the QUADRA program is caught by item 16(d).

1. As noted above, this item applies to "educational supports associated with home schooling".
2. There is no doubt the Applicant is currently undertaking home schooling. In February 2024, the Applicant's mother applied to be registered a home educator under the School Education Act 1999 (WA),[25] which was granted from 5 March 2024.[26] The West Australian Department of Education carried out an evaluation of the Applicant's home school educational program on 17 June 2024, which was found to be satisfactory.[27]
3. The evaluation report of June 2024 noted that the Applicant attended FACES 4 days a week, where he was learning "self-management and literacy skills".[28]
4. A further evaluation was undertaken in May 2025. This report recorded "Related health and well-being supports and strategies provided by the "educator", included "Attending FACES 4 days a week - addresses anxiety and challenging behaviours such as toileting issues, elopements and improvement in social skills".[29] Other supports included tuition in maths and literacy, cooking and sensory play, gym exercise, weekly swimming lessons and horse-riding lessons.[30] The report also noted that through his sessions at FACES the Applicant had demonstrated new skills including participating in group work, following instructions, playing with toys he would not engage with previously and self-management skills such as washing hands and decreasing toileting issues.[31] This evaluation was also satisfactory, and the Applicant's mother's registration was extended for a further 12 months.
5. As to the content and timing of the Applicant's home-schooling program, as I have already recorded, the Applicant's mother explained at the hearing that this consisted of about an hour or each evening after dinner in which she would read with the Applicant and also work with him on learning to type.
6. As I have already indicated, although it contains some literacy and numeracy elements, I consider the QUADRA program is primarily directed toward developing basic life skills including self-regulation, self-management, social interaction and basic communication. In view of this, one of the issues for me is whether the program can properly be considered an "educational support", as opposed to a therapeutic report which is complementary to the Applicant's home schooling.
7. I have little doubt the Applicant's private tuition in maths and literacy can properly be described as an "educational support" associated with home schooling. However, as the home-schooling evaluation reports have identified, the focus of the QUADRA program is on basic life skills which would ordinarily be acquired before a child started school.
8. For example, the FACES report of 10 March 2024 identifies self-management goals including remaining safely in his environment without direct adult proximity, using the toilet with a verbal prompt from an adult, and completing an independent activity. Other objectives included imitating novel one-stop gestures, following one step instructions, making requests, filling in familiar sentences and verbally labelling items.[32] In the area of "academic literacy" the goal identified for the Applicant was to copy letters of the alphabet presented to him onto a whiteboard.[33]
9. Given the nature of these supports, I am not satisfied they can be accurately described as "educational supports". I accept that they are a beneficial and necessary adjunct to the Applicant's home-schooling program while he remains engaged in home schooling. However, in my view they are better characterised as therapeutic supports directed toward improving the Applicant's functional capacity, separately from and independent of any educational activities. In fact, on the evidence before me I consider it quite likely that the Applicant will ultimately be exempted from schooling altogether but will continue engaging with supports of the kind offered by QUADRA, with a view to optimising his functional capacity and improving his quality of life.[34]
10. As I am not persuaded that the QUADRA program consists of "educational supports", I do not consider it falls within item 16(k) of Schedule 2.

1. I note this item relates to "education and tuition fees".
2. As I have already indicated, while I accept that the QUADRA program contains some elements which could be described as tuition in literacy and numeracy, it is at a very basic level, more equivalent to activities which might be undertaken in a preschool than in a school environment. Further, the focus of the QUADRA program is on supporting the Applicant to develop very basic life skills (which include use of language and basic numeracy), rather than on providing him with an education, or even preparing him for attending school, which appears unrealistic for him at this stage.
3. As such, in my view the QUADRA program is properly characterised as a therapeutic support directed at improving the Applicant's functional capacity, rather than "education" or "tuition". If follows I am not satisfied the fees associated with the QUADRA program can properly be described as "education" or "tuition" fees. Therefore, in my view they do not fall within item 16(b) of Schedule 2.

DOES THE SUPPORT MEET THE OTHER CRITERIA SPECIFIED IN S 34(1) OF THE NDIS ACT?

1. There is no dispute between the parties that the support meets the criteria contained in ss 34(1)(a), (b) and (e) of the Act and I am also satisfied it meets those criteria. However there is some complexity surrounding whether the support meets s 34(1)(aa) and the Agency contends it does not meet the criteria in s 34(1)(c) of (d).

Section 34(1)(aa) - needs arising from a relevant impairment

1. The Agency accepts that the requested support satisfies this criterion and provided very helpful submissions explaining the reasons for this concession.[35]
2. These reasons included that:

(a) the evidence suggests the nature of the Applicant's impairments has remained the same since he was granted access to the NDIS in 2018;[36]

(b) even if it was assumed that the impairments from the suspected intellectual disability were distinct from the impairments upon which he was granted access to the Scheme, the impairments on the basis of which the Applicant was granted access to the Scheme are "affected" by the intellectual impairments;[37]

(c) the requested support "deals with" the Applicant's needs arising from his intellectual disability.[38]

1. I accept this concession was properly made for the reasons explained by the Agency, and that s 34(1)(aa) is met.

1. Although he had some reservations about the QUADRA program, the effect of A/P McDowell's evidence, taken as a whole, was that he considered the QUADRA program suitable, therapeutic and beneficial for the Applicant. He also acknowledged that, unless there was a better alternative available such as a school offering a life skills curriculum, it was probably the best option for the Applicant. A/P McDowell indicated he had no knowledge of schools in Perth and there is no other evidence before me to indicate there is any better option available for the Applicant.
2. Further while he indicated in his report that 3 days was sufficient, he did not repeat this in his oral evidence and appeared supportive of the Applicant attending QUADRA 4 days per week. He recommended more professionals be involved in supporting the Applicant and directing his activities and program, in particular a paediatrician or developmental psychologist. However, he described his recommendations as "tweaking" the Applicant's current supports. It was not apparent that these recommendations were incompatible with the Applicant attending QUADRA 4 days per week, at least for the duration of his current plan.
3. I note all of the other evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of the QUADRA program, and to the effect that it had been enormously beneficial for the Applicant, who is showing clear improvements since commencing his program with FACES/QUADRA.
4. I accept the QUADRA program is expensive and costs approximately $11,000 for a 9 week block.[39] However, it is delivering services to the Applicant which are critical to his longer-term independence and quality of life. On the evidence before me, there is no equivalent alternative available to the Applicant which would deliver comparable benefits. In these circumstances, I am satisfied the FACES/QUADRA program represents value for money within the meaning of s 34(1)(c). I am also satisfied it is appropriate for the Applicant to attend QUADRA 4 days per week, at least pending any adjustments to his current program recommended by professionals of the kind recommended by A/P McDowell.

1. For similar reasons, I am also satisfied that the FACES/QUADRA program has been and is likely to remain effective and beneficial for the Applicant. All the evidence before me is to the effect that the program is supporting the Applicant to develop skills and capacities that will be critical to his longer-term functioning, independence and quality of life. In addition, they hold the promise of reducing the cost of supports required by the Applicant in the longer term.
2. A/P McDowell considered the Applicant would benefit from the introduction of professionals with an approach based on a detailed understanding of the Applicant's cognitive capacity, potentially leading to less reliance on behavioural strategies. However, he nevertheless considered the current program to be therapeutic and beneficial for the Applicant and acknowledged he had shown improvements since attending FACES/QUADRA.
3. I have therefore concluded that the FACES/QUADRA program also meets s 24(1)(d).

1. After the hearing had been completed, the Applicant's mother provided a further report, together with some submissions in relation to the report, including a link to an ABC news article. The report provided was entitled "Intellectual Disability Assessment Report". It was prepared by a psychologist, Ms Rebecca Lewien and based on an assessment undertaken on 5 November 2025.
2. In her report, Ms Lewien indicated that her assessment of the Applicant revealed a "severe impairment in overall intellectual functioning". She also stated that, by reason of this impairment, the Applicant would require "a high level of support to meet his basic needs" and made recommendations with respect to a variety of supports.
3. With respect to "Life Skills, Educational and Vocational Skills" she stated:

"Educational programming should be individualised, focusing on functional academics,

- Encourage the development of pre-vocational and adaptive routines through hands on,

- Incorporate life-skills training into his program, including basic hygiene, food

- Participation in structured community activities, swimming, or adapted recreation

programs is recommended to build routine tolerance and social familiarity.

- Safety training should remain a core focus, including personalised strategies for elopement prevention, road safety, and emergency responses."[40]

1. Ms Lewien also indicated in her report that "Ongoing one-to-one supervision is required at all times due to elopement risk and limited safety awareness"[41]. With respect to the long-term outlook, she considered that with "stable routines, trusted relationships, and structured therapy, gradual progress in communication and daily living skills is achievable"[42].
2. The Respondent was invited to provide further submissions in response to this report and provided Supplementary Closing submissions dated 3 December 2025. The Respondent acknowledged the results of the assessment but reiterated that the Applicant's intellectual impairment was not in dispute. The Respondent also submitted that the news article provided did not constitute conclusive evidence that intensive and specialist support was not available in West Australian schools, and I accept that contention. The Agency then essentially reiterated its previous submissions to the effect that even if the West Australian government was failing to provide the necessary supports and accommodations for children with disabilities, that did not mean it was the Agency's responsibility to fund such supports.
3. Broadly speaking, I consider Ms Lewien's report to be consistent with the other evidence before me. Although it does not directly address the appropriateness of the QUADRA program, Ms Lewien's assessment and recommendations appear to be compatible with the goals, structure and content of the program. While the report suggests the QUADRA program could be augmented by other supports, there is nothing in the report which suggests the program is not suitable or beneficial for the Applicant, or that what the Applicant requires could feasibly be provided within a school environment.
4. Accordingly, this report has not changed my conclusions based on the other evidence.

1. The evidence before me is to the effect that the Applicant's parents have borne and are continuing to bear the cost of the FACES/QUADRA program, which has put them under considerable strain.
2. There is no dispute between the parties that the Tribunal cannot make an order requiring the Agency to reimburse a participant for expenses met by them. However, it is open me to vary the Applicant's current and past SOPSs so as to include the FACES/QUADRA program. As I understand it, this will provide a basis for the Applicant's parents to seek reimbursement from the Agency for expenses incurred by them in funding a reasonable and necessary support for the Applicant. I would expect the Agency will then reimburse them accordingly, subject to provision of evidence of attendance and relevant receipts.

1. Consistently with the ordinary principles of statutory interpretation and administrative law, I consider the Respondent bears a practical onus of positively establishing that the support sought by the Applicant falls within item 16 and is therefore excluded by Schedule 2.[43] For the reasons I have explained, I am not positively satisfied that the FACES/QUADRA program falls within any of the descriptors in column 2 of item 16.

1. On the evidence before me, I have concluded that the FACES/QUADRA program is and was a therapeutic support for the Applicant, directed toward ameliorating the functional impact of his impairments on his activities of daily living, not a program which relates to his education or educational attainment. As A/P McDowell pointed out, given the severity of the Applicant's intellectual impairment, the concept of "education" in his case has lost much of its meaning. Of necessity, the focus of his supports much be on improving his functional capacity with respect to the ordinary activities of daily living, with a view to improving his longer-term independence and quality of life. On the evidence, this is precisely what the QUADRA program is providing, and the FACES program was previously providing.
2. I have therefore also concluded that the FACES/QUADRA support does not fall within any of the descriptors in column 2 of item 16. I have also concluded that it does fall within Schedule 1 and satisfies all of the other s 34(1) criteria. It follows that the program is a reasonable and necessary support which is not excluded by Schedule 2. I have therefore decided to vary both the Applicant's SOPS to include the FACES/QUADRA program.

1. The reviewable decision of 9 October 2024 is set aside and in substitution for that decision the Applicant's statement of participant supports dated 21 August 2024 (varied on 4 April 2025) is varied to include attendances at the FACES/QUADRA program for up to 5 hours per day, 4 days per week, 36 weeks per year on the basis that this is and was a reasonable and necessary support for the Applicant.
2. The Applicant's SOPS of 12 June 2025 is also varied to include attendance at the QUADRA program for the same number of hours, on the basis that this is a reasonable and necessary support for the Applicant.

Mr Christopher Murphy for and on behalf of Moray and Agnew Lawyers

[4] Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SOFIC) at [16].

[9] Section 34 was amended by the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 by insertion of '(aa)' and '(f)'.

[23] Respondent's Written Closing, at [60] (c).

[25] Supplementary Hearing Book (SHB) pp 19-24.

[34] I note the Applicant was exempted from schooling in the Australian Capital Territory before moving to Western Australia.

[35] Respondent's Written Closing, at [63]-[77].

[36] Respondent's Written Closing, at [72].

[37] Respondent's Written Closing at [65], note 2 to s 34(1).

[38] Respondent's Written Closing, at [76].

[43] Beezley v Repatriation Commission [2015] FCAFC 165 at [68].