3. In 2019, the Respondent funded a CCTV system, smoke alarm and gate intercom for the Applicant.[4]
4. In early 2024 the Applicant requested funding to replace the CCTV and gate intercom system and provided a quote in the sum of $10,285.18.[5]
5. On 17 September 2024, the Respondent provided a 12-month plan to the Applicant.[6] The plan included a statement of participation supports (SOPS) which specified supports funded in the sum of $6,691.92 (September 2024 SOPS) (original decision).
6. The Applicant sought an internal review of the original decision.
7. On 31 October 2024, a delegate affirmed the original decision under s 100 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) (NDIS Act).[7] The delegate decided that the following supports did not satisfy the requirements for NDIS funding.

(a) Security camera and gate intercom, because those items constitute standard home security. > > (b) High powered CIC hearing aids and spare CIC hearing aid, because hearing supports are provided through the Hearing Services Program (HSP).

8. In response to the Applicant's request for a five-year plan, the delegate stated:

It is expected that participant's circumstances are continuously changing and the Agency funds time limited supports in participant's plans to assist with building their functional capacity and to assist us with determining future funding. Therefore, I have decided that a longer plan duration is not suitable as the Agency must assess updated information regarding your situation and disability support needs before the end of the current plan period.[8]

1. On 31 October 2024, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the internal decision.[9] The Tribunal's jurisdiction is enlivened by the operation of s 103 of the NDIS Act and s 12 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act).
2. On 18 February 2025, the Respondent approved a plan for the Applicant for the period 18 February 2025 until 17 February 2026 (February plan).[10] The February plan indicates total funded supports are $11,191.92 comprising the following.

(a) Core supports funding of $1,800, being consumables or 'supports to assist with purchasing everyday use items', flexible support and self-managed. > > (b) Capacity building supports funding of $3,491.88, being funding for improved daily living skills specifically '18 hours support for occupational therapy to assess and provided strategies to increase [Assistive Technology] requirements'. > > (c) Capital support funding of $5,900.04, being $400 for maintenance and repair(s) of hearing aid and $5,500 for purchase of Spare Monaural Starkey Genesis 24 SP Completely-In-Canal (CIC) miniaturised hearing aid.

3. The Respondent included as part of the Applicant's approved supports access to high powered CIC hearing aids including a spare because the Respondent accepted that the Applicant does not qualify for fully subsidised advanced level hearing aids through the HSP.[11] The Respondent has approved funding for hearing aids for the Applicant, including a spare.[12]
4. By the operation of s 103(2) of the NDIS Act, the request for review before the Tribunal includes a request for a review of the Respondent's decision to approve the SOPS in the February plan.

1. On 25 June 2025, the Applicant emailed a 'preferred quote' to the Tribunal in the sum of $7,855.93, noting the 'gate intercom relay removed' (CCS quote).[13]
2. The items in the CCS quote, without the gate intercom relay, comprise the following, which I refer to as the requested supports.

1 x 850va power board style UPS/surge protector

1 x Hikvision 8 Channel NVR

6 x Hikvision 8MP turret cameras

1 x commissioning of the system

1 x remote viewing setup

Doorbird

1 x DoorBird D1101V Surface-mount IP video door station

1 x Door Bird A1061W WiFi/IP Door Chime, White Edition

1 x commissioning of system

1. The Applicant submits 'Technical set-up (including linking notifications, sound alerts, and WiFi functions) is beyond the applicant's capability and would require professional setup'.[14]

1. As the February plan included funding for high powered CIC hearing aids and spare CIC hearing aid, the issues remaining for determination by the Tribunal are:

(a) whether the requested supports are reasonable and necessary under s 34(1) of the NDIS Act, and in particular, whether the requested supports comprise an NDIS support for the purposes of s 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act; and > > (b) whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to approve a long-term plan for the Applicant. and if so, the length of the plan.

1. The application was heard on 25 June 2025 by MS Teams.

1. The Applicant raised concerns regarding procedural fairness, in that she received the Respondent's Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions six days before the hearing. The Applicant submitted that the late submission of the amended document 'significantly reduced [her] ability to properly consider, respond to, or seek advice on the newly raised contentions', and created disadvantage for her.
2. The Applicant declined the Tribunal's offer to adjourn the hearing so that she could consider the submissions and prepare for the hearing. The Applicant submitted that she wished to proceed.

1. The Tribunal acknowledges the Applicant's submissions regarding a lack of consultation by the Respondent with her in the planning process. The Applicant made the following submissions.

(a) The revised plan that included only the spare hearing aid was issued without consultation. No opportunity was provided to understand or respond to the change.[15] > > (b) The failure to meaningfully engage with the Applicant's long-term plan request, or to explain the removal of a critical support previously deemed reasonable and necessary, breaches the statutory duty under s 31 of NDIS Act and the Operational Guidelines - Applying to the NDIS (1 February 2024**)** These Guidelines direct that planning should consider the participant's life context, long-term goals, and the stability of their disability. > > (c) Taken together, the plan evidence confirms that the NDIA failed to engage meaningfully with the Applicant's planning requests, did not justify the exclusion of previously funded supports, and disregarded key principles of procedural fairness, transparency, and person-centred planning mandated under the legislative framework.

CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency and Hyde (Guidance and Appeals Panel) 2025-002-240

1. On 3 September 2025 the Tribunal notified the parties that a decision had been referred to the Guidance and Appeals Panel (GAP) which concerned the interpretation of 'standard item' under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth). The Tribunal considered it was appropriate to await the GAP decision and then provide each party with an opportunity to make submissions, if any, about the decision.
2. On 8 December 2025, the Tribunal directed that the parties could make submissions addressing the decision in CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency and Hyde (Guidance and Appeals Panel) 2025-002-240 (GAP decision), which was delivered on 5 December 2025.
3. On 9 December 2025 and on 7 January 2026, the Applicant and Respondent respectively filed written submissions addressing the GAP decision. I have considered those submissions.
4. On 8 January 2026, the Applicant emailed the Tribunal with the stated purpose of assisting the Tribunal by explaining 'in practical and functional terms' how she uses the 'C_CTV and DoorBird gate intercom system_' specifically to compensate for her disability and why those supports function for her 'as assistive technology rather than as ordinary home security products'.
5. On 8 January 2026, the Respondent emailed the Tribunal stating the matters raised in the Applicant's email go beyond the scope of the Tribunal's direction made on 8 December 2025, and that the contents of the email should not be considered by the Tribunal, or in the alternative that the Respondent be provided with an opportunity to reply. In a later email of the same date, the Applicant stated that she was attempting to 'assist the Tribunal by clarifying the real-world operation and purpose of the supports in question...'.
6. I find that the information provided by the Applicant in her email dated 8 January 2026 may be characterised as evidence rather than submissions and goes beyond what was permitted by the Tribunal in its direction of 8 December 2025. However, I consider that the information in the email reflects the evidence already before the Tribunal or does not go beyond that evidence to any probative extent considering the issues before the Tribunal. In those circumstances, I do not consider it necessary to provide the Respondent with an opportunity to reply.

1. A participant in the NDIS is entitled to supports which are 'reasonable and necessary' within the meaning of the NDIS Act and the applicable Rules, which have legislative force.[16]

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_._[17]

1. Section 34(2) provides that the National Disability Insurance Scheme 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 National Disability Insurance Scheme 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 Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth) (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 to 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 to 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, 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 (Cth) (Transitional Rules) were made on 30 September 2024 and came into force on 3 October 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 an 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 Explanatory Statement (ES) to the Transitional Rules explains that the Transitional Rules provide a transitional definition of 'NDIS support' which is a key concept inserted into the NDIS Act by the Amending Act. The ES states that 'the definition of NDIS support clarifies what supports are provided through the [NDIS Scheme] in a manner that is consistent with the original intention of the Scheme'.[18]

The definition will provide greater clarity around the supports that can be funded by the NDIS and those that cannot. This approach is consistent with the original intention of the Scheme to provide supports to people with significant and permanent disability and people who are in need of early intervention supports. It is also consistent with the recommendations of the NDIS Review in that it focuses on the needs of a participant, rather than a diagnosis.

For the sake of consistency and simplicity across the entirety of the NDIS Act, the concept has been adopted in key areas, particularly where references to supports being appropriately funded by the NDIS already existed. Most critically, these include:

• section 34: This section deals with reasonable and necessary supports for old framework plans. A new requirement was inserted that a reasonable and necessary support must be an NDIS support.

• section 46: This section was repealed and replaced so that NDIS amounts can only be spent on supports that are NDIS supports.

Defining NDIS supports will make it easier for participants and other members of the disability community to identify what is appropriately funded by the NDIS, and what NDIS funding can be used to purchase.

The general descriptions of the kinds of supports that are NDIS supports in the Instrument and in participant's plans will continue to provide participants with choice and control over how they spend their plan while also returning the NDIS to its original intent, consistent with the recommendations of the NDIS review.

In the current planning framework (now known as the 'old framework'), the definition of NDIS support clarifies the boundaries of what supports are reasonable and necessary under section 34 of the NDIS Act. This is an essential step to ensure that participants are able to continue receiving the supports they need as a result of their disability for many years to come.[19]

Section 10 of the NDIS Act allows the Minister to make NDIS rules declaring what supports are, and are not, NDIS supports. These rules are Category A NDIS rules made under section 209 of the NDIS Act. Items 124 and 138 of Schedule 1 to the Amending Act allow the Minister to make a transitional rule for the purposes of section 10.[20]

The Instrument also declares supports that are not NDIS supports. It is important to note that a support will not be an NDIS support if it is declared not to be, even if that support could otherwise fall within one of the categories of supports that are declared to be NDIS supports.[21]

standard item for a person means an item that is not modified or adapted to address the person's functional impairments. There are a number of items that are declared not to be NDIS supports because they are 'standard', meaning that they will not be funded by the NDIS because they are not modified or adapted to address a participant's functional impairments. The NDIS does not fund standard products that are the responsibility of any person to purchase for themselves.[22]

Subsection 5(1) is subject to subsections 10(4) and (9) of the NDIS Act and subsection 5(2) of the Instrument. This means that supports prescribed for the purpose of subsection 5(1) will not be NDIS supports if they are covered by subsection 10(4) or 10(9) of the NDIS Act or subsection 5(2) of the Instrument. Each of these provisions prescribes supports that are not NDIS supports.[23]

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.

In this case, I find the relevant part of Schedule 1 to be as follows.

Supports that are NDIS supports unless otherwise provided

Supports that design, change or modify a participant's home to help the participant live as independently as possible and to live safely at home.

(a) installing equipment or changing a building's structure, fixture or fittings;

Participants who have the support stated in their plan and prospective participants that are likely to have this support stated in their plan

Provision of assistive products for self-care activities and participation in self-care. This includes the following:

Day‑to‑day living costs - accommodation and household

(c) standard home security and maintenance costs, fencing, gates, and building repairs;

1. Section 4 of the Transitional Rules contains the following definition:

standard item for a participant or prospective participant means an item that has not been modified or adapted to address the functional impairments of the participant or prospective participant.

1. The Applicant submits that the Respondent's reliance on the Transitional Rules is misplaced because her request was submitted prior to the commencement of the Transitional Rules and the Respondent applied them retrospectively without notice. The Applicant submits that she was denied procedural fairness, with reference to SZBEL V MIMA [2006] HCA 63. The Applicant contends that because she had previously been approved for the supports, she had a legitimate expectation of continuity absent clear notice and reasons for their removal.[24]
2. I find that the result of the Amending Act, described above, for the Applicant is that Transitional Rules apply to a SOPS approved or varied after 3 October 2024, irrespective of whether her plan came into effect before, or on, or after the commencement of the Amending Act.
3. I am satisfied that the Tribunal must apply the Transitional Rules.

1. The Respondent submits that the requested support falls outside the reasonable and necessary criteria under 34 of the NDIS Act, and in particular s 34(1)(f) because the requested support is not an NDIS support.
2. The Respondent relies on the two-stage inquiry process identified in FSWN v NDIA [2025] ARTA 114 (FSWN) at [43].

Stage 1 Ascertain if the requested support is an "NDIS" Support as defined. This inquiry is focused on the support, not the participant.

Step 1: Determine if the requested support is of a character that falls within the scope of a category of support specified in column 1 of the Table to Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules by reference to the description of supports that fall within the scope of that category contained in column 2 of the Table. If the answer to that question is "yes", then stage 1 is complete. The requested support is not a NDIS Support and cannot be approved for inclusion in a SoPS because of s 34(1)(f)...

If the answer to that question is "no", then proceed to step 2 of stage 1:

Step 2: Determine if the requested support is of a character capable of falling within the scope of a category of support specified in column 1 of the Table of Schedule 1 of the Transitional Rules by reference to the description of supports that can fall within the scope of that category contained in column 2 of that Table.

If the answer to that question is "no", then the requested support will not be a NDIS Support that is capable of being approved for inclusion in a SoPS because of s 34(1)(f). If the answer to that question is "yes", then the requested support will be a NDIS Support that is capable of being approved for inclusion in a SoPS by operation of s 34(1)(f), and stage 2 of the enquiry is reached.

Stage 2: Ascertain if the requested support satisfies each of the other criteria specified in s 34(1)(aa) to (e) and the associated Supports Rules. There is some overlap of the stage 1 and 2 enquiries. However, in my opinion stage 2 is primarily a participant focused enquiry. That is, it seeks to establish the benefit of the support to the participant. To the extent that stage 2 also requires examination of the efficacy of the support per se it adds nothing to the outcome of the stage 1 enquiry in my opinion.

1. The Respondent submits that the Amendment Act's Explanatory Memorandum explains that s 10 of the NDIS Act was inserted to provide a head of power to define NDIS supports. The purpose of doing so was to 'narrow the scope' (limit) the supports that the NDIS will fund. The Respondent's position is that a purposive approach is to be adopted when construing the Transitional Rules in their context, and in doing so the purpose of the rule-making head of power is to constrain the decisional freedom of those charged with determining what is, and what is not, an NDIS support.
2. The Respondent relies on VPYC v NDIA [2025] ARTA 198 and DRVV v NDIA [2025] ARTA 158 for guidance in analysing 'standard item' and 'modified or adapted'.
3. The Respondent submits that the requested support falls within the meaning of 'standard home security' because nothing about the requested support has been 'modified or adapted' to address the Applicant's functional impairment. It is not in contention that the features of the requested support have the ability, as part of their ordinary use, to be of benefit to the Applicant.
4. The Respondent submits that the requested support is in the nature of a security system that is available to the broader public, and which has the ability to be configurable based on individual user needs. The customisable aspects of the requested support form part of their standard features, and are precisely the type of supports that fall within the exclusionary category at Schedule 2 Item 1(c) of the Transitional Rules. This results in the answer to stage 1 identified at [43] in FSWN at step 1 being - yes.

1. The Applicant has two children and is their sole provider. She works as an advisor for government.[26]
2. The Applicant submits that the components of requested support were clinically recommended due to her impairment. She submits that they are essential for environmental awareness, as she cannot detect auditory cues such as doorbells, knocking or emergency warnings.
3. The Applicant gave evidence that she has six cameras around her home, one at the front and one at the back of her home, one facing the veranda showing the front door, and one facing the front gate. The Applicant said that the cameras are connected wirelessly, and she receives alerts of any movement to her phone.
4. The Applicant gave evidence that she uses the cameras daily to allow her to see things in real time because she cannot rely on auditory cues. The Applicant gave an example of a day when she was working from home, the cameras allowed her to see that one of her children had jumped off the trampoline outside. The Applicant also gave evidence that the requested support creates a loud 'ding-dong' sound in her home when a visitor presses her doorbell and she also receives a notification on her watch and mobile telephone.
5. In her written response to the Respondent's Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions[27], the Applicant makes the following submissions.

(a) While the system may not be physically modified, its entire functional purpose is to substitute for missing auditory input.[28] > > (b) A support that is functionally adapted, even if not physically modified, may fall within the scope of the NDIS.[29] > > (c) To interpret 'standard item' rigidly and without regard to individual circumstances risks undermining the NDIS's person-centred design and statutory commitment to equity through functional support.[30]

6. In her written reply, the Applicant makes the following submissions.

(a) The requested support is not a standard household item but operates as visual and tactile alerting system essential to mitigate her permanent hearing impairment. > > (b) The requested support is not sought for ordinary property protection, but as a visual and tactile alerting system compensating for her permanent hearing impairment, and provide notifications, watch and phone alerts, loud chimes, that substitute for auditory information. This disability-specific function distinguishes it from ordinary household security devices. > > (c) Her system has been configured to mitigate hearing loss through real-time visual alerts, vibration-based notifications, and linked smart-device outputs. These adaptations transform it from a consumer product into an assistive device. > > (d) The relevant test is not market availability but whether the features are applied to meet a functional impairment. > > (e) The requested support is analogous to visual smoke alarms with strobe lights or vibration pads. The Applicant submits that the existence of similar features in consumer devices does not make them 'standard', what matters is their application to compensate for lost auditory capacity. > > (f) The components of the requested support cannot properly be characterised as 'standard home security' because they have been adapted to address her functional impairment and fall within the category of supports capable of NDIS funding. The Applicant submits that this conclusion is reinforced by Schedule 1, Item 9(i). > > (g) In FSWN, the Tribunal at [45] emphasised that both Schedules must be read together and each given work to do. On a proper construction, where an item has been adapted or applied to mitigate functional impairment, it is no longer 'standard' under Schedule 2 and instead falls within Schedule 1, Item 9(i). > > (h) The Respondent's reliance on VPYC and DRVV is misplaced. The Applicant submits that in those cases, the items were ordinary consumer goods with no functional substitution for a lost sense. By contrast, the requested support is configured to substitute for auditory awareness through real-time visual and tactile alerts. That is precisely the kind of adaptation contemplated by s 4 of the Transitional Rules. To characterise such supports as 'standard' would collapse the distinction between ordinary consumer goods and disability-specific adaptation. > > (i) Schedule 1, Item 9(i) expressly includes 'visual and tactile alerting systems'. That category is broad and not confined to products manufactured solely for disability markets. The key question is their function in addressing impairment, not their retail origin. On this basis, the Applicant's system, providing real-time visual notifications, vibration alerts, and chimes, squarely falls within its scope. The Respondent's claim that such supports must be 'specifically designed' for disability imposes a limitation not found in the legislation. It conflicts with the plain text of the Transitional Rules and the beneficial intent of the NDIS Act to provide reasonable and necessary supports that mitigate disability. A narrow reading would frustrate that purpose and exclude supports Parliament intended to cover. > > (j) When read as a whole, the Transitional Rules show the requested support is not excluded under Schedule 2 but included under Schedule 1 as a visual and tactile alerting system. The Respondent's construction, which would confine Item 9(i) to products manufactured solely for the disability market, would render it practically redundant and is inconsistent with both the text and beneficial purpose of the NDIS Act. Properly construed, once an item is adapted to address impairment it is no longer 'standard' under Schedule 2 and instead falls within Item 9(i). > > (k) The requested support has been configured to mitigate hearing loss through real-time visual alerts, vibration-based notifications, and linked smart-device outputs. These adaptations transform it from a consumer produce into an assistive device.[31] > > (l) To exclude them as 'standard household items' would elevate form over substance and undermine both the statutory objects in s 3 and the guiding principles in s 4. Those principles emphasise that: people with disability should be supported to participate in and contribute to social and economic life to the full extent of their ability (s 4(8)); that they should be involved in decision-making about their supports (s 4(9)); and that they should have certainty that appropriate supports will be provided (s 4(17)). Properly characterised, the requested support is not ordinary consumer goods but visual and tactile alerting systems essential to the Applicant's daily functioning, independence, and inclusion.

1. On 16 November 2024, Dr Matthew Calloway, Senior Audiologist, produced a report which included the following information.[32]

As you have only one functional ear, it is essential that you have on hand always a spare equivalent hearing aid. In the chance that your main hearing needs service or repair, the spare is essential to ensure you remain able to work, communicate, and safely look after your young family.

As per previous reports, it is imperative that you have appropriate, current, operational visual warning systems in your house, including security and fire alarms, and door-bell warnings. Without your hearing aid in (at night), your only form of safe warning is through visual alert. This is undeniably essential for your well-being and that of your children.

Fully automated, deep canal technology can be used in any work environment. They integrate automatically with other listening devices including the telephone and are protected in the canal from sweat and moisture, which is often an issue for over the ear devices.

Without an appropriately fitted hearing aid, you will no longer be able to work in your current role, and indeed, most likely, work at all, as your hearing loss otherwise precludes you from communicating in the work environment without a clinically appropriate hearing aid.

1. Kim Faehse, Occupational Therapist, provided a report dated 31 May 2025.[33] Ms Faehse reports the following.

(a) Even when the Applicant has her hearing aid in, she still has significant hearing loss which results in difficulties with communication on a daily basis. > > (b) The Applicant's hearing loss affects both her home and working life. > > (c) The Applicant's hearing aid has Bluetooth and transmits phones calls and other audio through it. While phone calls or other audio is being transmitted through the hearing aid, she cannot hear anything else, including a person speaking behind her. > > (d) The gate intercom is used primarily for the purpose of communication and situational awareness, rather than security. The gate intercom is connected to the Applicant's smartphone and the Applicant receives visual and auditory notifications. > > (e) The security cameras are not used for traditional security purposes, but as a functional aid for communications and supervision.

1. Takudzwa Kabike provided a report dated 27 November 2024[34] and reported the following.

(a) The Applicant is a 46-year-old woman who lives independently at home with her children. She is the primary care giver to 2 children and manages the household on a daily basis. > > (b) The Applicant is diagnosed with hearing loss, which is moderate to severe in the left ear, of sensorineural of sensorineural nature, and severe to profound in the right ear, being also sensorineural that significantly impacts her hearing and therefore making it difficult for her to rely on her hearing for safety and judgment. > > (c) A home network video recorder system with mobile device interaction via an application is reasonable and necessary technology for the Applicant to access. This technology will significantly improve safety at home for the Applicant. She will be able to use the phone to receive notifications when there is someone at the door. The Applicant is hearing impaired, and loss of hearing hinders her from hearing the doorbell or knock on the door. It is necessary to consider home safety for the Applicant and her family. > > (d) The Applicant is not able to hear if there are intruders in the house or on the property. This is a significant concern for the Applicant whose role as a mother is to protect her children. She reports that without a camera system and warning strategies she will not be able to feel safe in her house therefore impacting her mental health due to anxiousness of not knowing what is happening in her surroundings.

1. I consider that, in determining whether or not the requested supports are an NDIS support, it is necessary to determine whether the requested supports are of a character that fall within the scope of a category of support specified in column 1 of the table to Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules by reference to the description of the supports that fall within the scope of the category contained in column 2 of the table.
2. I find that the requested supports may be characterised as 'home security'.
3. To be caught by item 1, column 1 of Schedule 2, being 'Day-to-day living costs - accommodation and household' and under column 2 '(c) standard home security and maintenance costs, fencing, gates, and building repairs', the requested supports must be 'standard home security'.

...it is abundantly clear from the Transitional Rules, in particular the definition of 'standard item' in section 4, that a support which is potentially a 'standard item' will only fall within that description and be excluded by Schedule 2 if it has not been modified or adapted to address the functional impairments of the relevant participant. It follows that to determine whether the support is caught by Schedule 2, it is necessary to determine whether the support sought has been modified or adapted to address the functional impairments of the participant. If it has been, it will be excluded from the operation of Schedule 2.[35]

2. I adopt the findings of the majority in the GAP decision as to the meaning of 'modified or adapted',

We note the Macquarie dictionary definition of 'modify' is to change somewhat the form or qualities of, alter somewhat. > > Dictionary definitions of 'adapted' include 'to make suitable to requirements; adjust or modify fittingly'; 'to make (something) suitable for a new use or purpose; modify' or 'changed slightly for a particular purpose or use'. > > In our view, the inclusion of both 'modified' and 'adapted' is significant. ...we consider the word 'modified' is apt to describe changing or altering something. As 'adapted' would be redundant if it meant the same thing, we consider it likely that 'adapted' has a slightly different and wider meaning. We consider it is intended to capture the concept of 'fitting' or making something suitable to a particular use or purpose without necessarily altering it. We note that synonyms for 'adapted' include 'tailored' and 'customised', which is consistent with this usage.

Have the requested supports been modified or adapted to address the Applicant's impairment?

1. I make the following factual findings based on the evidence before the Tribunal.

(a) The Applicant's functional impairment is her hearing impairment as described above. > > (b) Even when the Applicant has her hearing aid in, she still has significant hearing loss which results in difficulties with communication. > > (c) The requested supports would be connected to the Applicant's wireless devices or smart devices, including her watch and phone, and configured so that the Applicant is notified by vibration alerts, loud chimes and visually. > > (d) The Applicant reliance on and use of the requested supports in combination with her wireless or smart devices is primarily because of, and to compensate for, her hearing impairment. > > (e) The Applicant would use the requested supports both for security purposes and as a functional aid for communication. > > (f) Without her hearing aid at night, the Applicant relies on visual alerts. > > (g) The Applicant's hearing aid has Bluetooth and transmits phones calls and other audio through it, which means that during those times, she cannot hear anything else, including a person speaking behind her and so she can only rely on visual or tactile alerts. > > (h) The requested supports are recommended for the Applicant by her treating practitioners.

2. I find that the requested supports, used in combination with the Applicant's watch and phone, offer functionality utilised by the Applicant to address her impairment and compensate for her hearing loss. I am satisfied that the requested supports provide enormous benefit to the Applicant and are arguably necessary for the Applicant in her day-to-day life. I accept that the requested supports, used in combination with the Applicant's wireless or smart devices, might be characterised assistive visual and tactile alert devices for the Applicant.
3. However, I do not accept the Applicant's submission that what matters is the application of the requested supports to compensate for her lost auditory capacity. It is necessary for the Tribunal to determine whether the requested supports fall under Schedule 2. If so, then the requested supports are not an NDIS support, even if included in the table under Schedule 1. Considerations such as whether an item is necessary or beneficial for a participant are addressed under s 34(1)(aa) to (e) of the NDIS Act.
4. I find that utilisation and configuration of functions available through the requested supports and the Applicant's wireless or smart devices does not amount to the requested supports being adapted or modified to address the Applicant's impairment. The requested supports are identical to items which would be installed by a person without the Applicant's impairment. I acknowledge that a person without the Applicant's impairment would not rely on, or benefit from, the requested supports used in combination with wireless devices in the same way as the Applicant; and may not configure their devices in the same way.
5. I am not satisfied that the requested supports are modified or adapted to address the Applicant's functional impairments, and I find the requested supports constitute 'standard home security' and fall within the category at Schedule 2 Item 1(c) of the Transitional Rules. I do not consider it necessary to make any findings as regards Schedule 1 of the Transitional Rules.
6. I find that the requested supports are not an NDIS support because s 34(1)(f) is not met. Consequently, the requested supports are not reasonable and necessary supports for the purposes of s 34(1) of the NDIS Act. It is unnecessary for the Tribunal to proceed to consider any of the other provisions under s 34(1).

1. The Applicant seeks a long-term plan to 'provide certainty and reduce administrative burden due to the permanent and stable nature of her disability'.[36] This will avoid her having to continually request funding for a hearing aid when a replacement is required. The Applicant submits that it is lawful and appropriate for the Tribunal to recognise a five-year replacement cycle.
2. The Applicant's evidence is that the hearing aids generally last for about five years in the Northern Territory, and a few months may be required to order a new hearing aid, and then have it programmed correctly.[37]
3. Relevantly, on 3 April 2025, the Respondent offered to extend the Applicant's plan to a 4-year and 11-month duration, with the contents of the plan remaining unchanged.[38]

1. The Respondent submits that the duration of the plan is distinct from a funding period for approved supports.
2. Section 33 outlines various matters that must be included as part of a participant's plan. These include that such a plan must: (a) specify when each funding period starts and ends (see section 33(2C)(b) of the Act); and (b) be for a funding period no more than 12 months (see section 33(2D)(a) of the Act).
3. It is the Respondent's submission that to provide for a funding period that is more than 12 months, as is sought by the Applicant, is outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction by virtue of section 33(2D)(a) of the Act, and so the Applicant's request for approval of hearing aids on an indefinite basis or on a five year basis must be declined.

1. The Applicant submits that s 33(2D) limits the funding period of a plan to no more than 12 months, but it does not restrict the Tribunal's authority to find that a support is ongoing, permanent, and reasonable and necessary. The provision regulates plan administration, not the substantive character of supports. The Applicant submits that the Respondent's interpretation would make permanent supports like hearing aids precarious, requiring constant re-approval despite the unchanging nature of the disability. She submits that such an outcome is inconsistent with the scheme and objects of the NDIS Act, which are designed to ensure continuity, certainty, and fairness for participants with permanent impairments.
2. The Applicant submits that the Respondent itself previously offered the Applicant a plan of 4 years and 11 months. This concession demonstrates two matters: first, that the Respondent accepts the Applicant's need for hearing aids is permanent and recurring; and second, that there is no legal impediment to recognising such supports on a replacement cycle consistent with their established five-year timeframe. It is inconsistent and unfair for the Respondent now to contend that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to do what the Respondent has already proposed.
3. The Applicant submits that the Tribunal should recognise that hearing aids are a permanent, recurring support for the Applicant's lifelong disability. While funding may be allocated through successive 12-month plans, a finding that hearing aids are required on a five-year replacement cycle provides certainty and reduces unnecessary administrative burden.
4. In her written response to the Respondent's Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, the Applicant submits that failure to consider a participant's request for long-term planning may constitute a failure to take relevant considerations into account.[39] The Tribunal is satisfied that a failure to consider a request for long-term planning may constitute a failure to consider an integer of an applicant's claim, or a failure to take a relevant consideration into account depending on the circumstances.

1. In this case, the reviewable decision before the Tribunal concerns a decision to approve the Applicant's SOPS. Section 33(2) of the NDIS Act requires that a SOPS specify, amongst other things, the date by which or the circumstances in which, the Respondent must reassess the plan under Division 4.
2. I refer to the date between the plan commencing and the date by which the Respondent must reassess the plan as the 'plan duration'.
3. I find that a plan duration is distinct to a funding period provided for by s 33(2A) and (2C) of the NDIS Act. A funding period must be no more than 12 months: s 33(2D). The NDIS website explains that 'funding periods don't change the total amount of funding in a participant's plan, only when the funding become available.[40]
4. The NDIS Creating your plan guideline states:

Everyone has different goals, living situations, and circumstances. So, we'll work with you to decide how long it will be before we create your next plan. This will be based on your individual situation. We think about how long you want your plan to go for. We'll try to make the plan length what you want, where we can. If you don't tell us what plan length you want and your living and support needs are stable, your plan will usually go for:

5 years is the longest time a plan can go for before we do a plan reassessment.[41]

1. I accept that the replacement cycle for the Applicant's hearing aid, and spare hearing aid, is once every five years. I find that because of the Applicant's location, it can take a few months for a new hearing aid to be ordered for the Applicant and for the hearing aid to be programmed correctly.
2. Contrary to the delegate's finding, on the evidence before the Tribunal I do not find that the Applicant's circumstances in respect of her hearing impairment are continuously changing or expected to be continuously changing.
3. The evidence before the Tribunal is that the Respondent offered to increase the length of the Applicant's plan to four years and 11 months. I am satisfied that, as reflected in the current guideline referred to above, a plan may be of five years duration for a participant over nine years of age.
4. However, approval of a five-year plan duration for the Applicant will not prevent or limit variations to the Applicant's plan pursuant to Division 4, Part 2 of the NDIS Act (s 47 - s 50).

1. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the matter for reconsideration in accordance with an order that the Applicant's SOPS include, as the date by which the Respondent must reassess the Applicant's plan under Division 4 of the NDIS Act, a date five years from the date of notification of this decision. The decision under review is otherwise affirmed.

I certify that the preceding ninety-two (92) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision of Senior Member C Shepherd.

[1] Applicant's written response to Respondent's Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, p 10-11.

[11] Respondent's Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions.

[12] Respondent's closing written submissions, [12].

[13] Email from Applicant to Tribunal and Respondent, 25 June 2025, reference CCSNT 2025; Applicant's written response to Respondent's Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, p 14-15.

[14] Applicant's response to Respondent's Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, p 14-15.

[15] Applicant's written submissions, provided to Tribunal on 25 June 2025, p 2.

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

[24] Applicant's written reply submission, [8] and [9].

[25] Respondent's written closing submissions.

[26] A39, p 139. Applicant's impact statement.

[27] Provided ot Tribunal on 25 June 2025.

[34] Email to Tribunal and Respondent, 19 June 2025.

[36] Applicant's response to amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions.

[37] Applicant's oral evidence, and R3, p

[40] Changes to NDIS funding periods | NDIS.

[41] Creating your plan, guidelines, 23 June 2025, p 31: Creating your plan | NDIS.