Does the Applicant meet the early intervention requirements?

1. For the reasons outlined above in relation to ss 24(1)(a) and 24(1)(b), I accept that Ms Fox's physical impairment is, or is likely to be, permanent. Accordingly, the requirement in s 25(1)(a) of the NDIS Act is met.
2. The NDIS Access Guideline states that:

Early intervention is usually early access to support, to help reduce the functional impacts of your impairment. Early intervention can be for both children or adults and may only be needed for a short time. You won't need these supports for your lifetime, so your treating professional or your early childhood partner will tell us how early intervention support could benefit you or your child.

1. Section 25(1)(b) requires that I must be satisfied that the provision of early intervention supports for Ms Fox are likely to benefit her by reducing her future need for supports in relation to her physical impairment. Rule 6.9 of the Access Rules states I must consider:
   • the likely trajectory and impact of her impairments over time
   • the potential benefits of early intervention on the impact of the impairments on her functional capacity and in reducing future needs for supports
   • evidence from a range of sources, such as information provided by family members or carers.
2. There is no evidence before me from any of the medical practitioners that provision of early intervention supports would be likely to reduce Ms Fox's future support needs. I refer to Rheumatologist Prof Nicholls in his Response to Targeted Questions report dated 29 May 2025 states, in response to the question:

Question 10 Are there any early intervention supports that would be likely mitigate or alleviate the impact of the Applicant's impairments on her functional capacity and reduce the Applicant's support needs in the future?

1. In the Supporting Evidence Access Request Form filled out by Dr Clare, under the domain mobility he wrote that Ms Fox has an ongoing need for therapy support for her degenerative disease.[67]
2. Ms Fox gave candid evidence at the hearing that she didn't think that early intervention would be likely to reduce her needs given her condition's degenerative nature.
3. There has been no evidence provided as to any type of early intervention support that could be considered for Ms Fox. There were no early intervention supports identified in the evidence, therefore the various considerations referred to in s 25(3) cannot be properly assessed per NDIA v Jones [2025] FCA 77 at 24.
4. Ms Fox's husband noted in his Carer Impact Statement that services offered by NDIS will greatly enhance her wellbeing, such as:

heating our pool, taps that push open rather than turn, self-cleaning oven, cleaning assistance around the house and a bed that assists her get in and out without the indignity of constantly needing my help to name a few.

1. I have considered Ms Fox's evidence along with the impact statements written by her husband and daughter-in-law. These statements show their deep concern and love for Ms Fox however they do not contain the suggestion that Ms Fox would benefit from early intervention supports nor that early intervention would mitigate or alleviate the impact of her impairment. I find that the supports referred to by her family, such as the modifications to her kitchen are not early intervention supports in their nature.
2. The Respondent states that there is no suggestion in the evidence that early intervention supports will mitigate or alleviate the impact of the impairment, prevent the deterioration of functional capacity, or improve functional capacity as required by s 25(1)(c) of the NDIS Act.
3. I accept the Respondent's submission. There has been no evidence adduced of any early intervention supports nor that early intervention support is likely to reduce future need for supports regarding Ms Fox's physical impairments. I am not satisfied that the early intervention requirements in s 25(1)(b) of the NDIS Act are met. It follows that Ms Fox does not meet the early intervention requirements in s 25 of the NDIS Act.

1. Ms Fox does not currently meet the access criteria on the basis of either the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements of the NDIS Act. She may reapply with further supporting evidence for access to the NDIS, up until she turns 65 years of age.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review pursuant to paragraph 105(a) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth).

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

[3] Mulligan v National Disability Insurance Agency [2015] FCA 544 (Mulligan).

[5] National Disability Insurance Agency v Foster [2023] FCAFC 11 (Foster) at [64].

[12] National Disability Insurance Agency v Davis [2022] FCA 1002 (Davis).

[21] [2021] AATA 3523 at [22].

[24] Madelaine and National Disability Insurance Agency [2020] AATA 4025 at [109].

[25] Timofticiuc and National Disability Insurance Agency [2021] AATA 3015 at [96].

[26] National Disability Insurance Agency v Foster [2023] FCAFC 11 (Foster) at [64].

[28] Burrows and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 607 (Burrows), [73]-[95].

[38] Access Guideline, 9; Burrows, [87].

[40 ]Madelaine and National Disability Insurance Agency [2020] AATA 4025.

[42] [2017] AATA 186 at 18.