Decision: The Tribunal pursuant to section 105(c)(ii) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), affirms the decision under review.

....................[SGD]..........................

NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME - participant supports - reasonable and necessary supports - schedule 2 - standard item - visual impairment - roller blinds - standard fixture or fitting - not an NDIS support.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)

National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS back on Track No. 1) Act 2024

National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024

National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Cth)

Brown and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 2029

Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency and Hyde (Guidance and Appeals Panel) [2025] ARTA 2597

Duse and National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 37

Johnson & National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ATRA 106

National Disability Insurance Agency, Our Guidelines - Reasonable and Necessary Supports

NDIS Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) Bill 2024 Second Reading speech on 27 March 2024

1. The issue before the Tribunal is whether the 14 block-out roller blinds at a cost of $3,563.76 requested by Mr Goerlach (the Applicant) are reasonable and necessary to be funded under section 34 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) (the NDIS Act).
2. Mr Goerlach lives with his wife and children and has a diagnosis of Usher Syndrome, experiencing both vision and hearing loss. With regard to his vision Mr Goerlach experiences no night vision, limited peripheral vision, poor depth perception and light sensitivity. With regard to his hearing, he wears bilateral hearing aids.[1]
3. Mr Goerlach's functional capacity is described as follows:

...glare sensitivity due to his eye condition, necessitating window modifications to enhance the perception of natural colours and shapes in his home environment by minimising glare. High contrast is essential for him to safely navigate and identify objects.[2]

1. On 9 September 2024 Mr Goerlach sought review of the original decision dated 4 July 2024, not to approve funding for the 14 block-out roller blinds. On 12 November 2024 a delegate of the Chief Executive Officer of the National Disability Insurance Agency (the Respondent) affirmed the original decision not to fund the blinds.
2. On 28 November 2024 Mr Goerlach lodged an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) for independent review. From 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.[3]
3. The matter was constituted to a Member of this Tribunal in July 2025 and the Tribunal confirmed that both parties consented to a hearing on the papers. Section 106(2) of the ART Act provides that the Tribunal can proceed to make a decision without a hearing if the parties consent to the proceeding being determined without a hearing and if it appears to the Tribunal that the issues for determination can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties.
4. The matter was not heard in July 2025 and subsequently on 4 September 2025 the Tribunal reconstituted the matter to me, listing a hearing to be done on the papers dated 11 September 2025. I am satisfied the issues for determination can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties.
5. In arriving at my decision, I have considered the various documents contained in the T Documents which were accepted into evidence, along with:

(a) Mr Goerlach's outline of position and response to the NDIA's position, dated 18 March 2025; and

(b) the Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 30 April 2025.

1. The Tribunal handed down a highly relevant decision on a similar issue in Brown and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 2029 on 9 October 2025, while this matter was being deliberated. The Respondent sought leave from the Tribunal to allow parties to provide written submissions dealing with the decision of the Tribunal in Brown.
2. The Tribunal has a discretion to allow a party to re-open their case and to adduce further evidence after it has reserved its decision.[4] This is reflected in the Common Procedures Practice Direction 2024 (Practice Direction), which provides that the Tribunal 'will not normally permit' the tender of any evidence which an opposing party has not been given advance notice of, and that permission to adduce evidence post-hearing must be sought from the Tribunal absent which such material will 'not usually be taken into account'.[5]
3. The Tribunal granted leave to the parties to provide their written submissions regarding Brown by 14 November 2025 and I will refer to these submissions along with the evidence that I consider is directly relevant to my determination of this matter.
4. On 5 December 2025 the Administrative Review Tribunal Guidance and Appeals Panel (GAP) published their decision in Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency and Hyde (Guidance and Appeals Panel) [2025] ARTA 2597 (5 December 2025). The decision involved the definition of what is a 'standard item'. Senior Members Bean and Shepherd found that the integrated home security system being sought under NDIS funding, was adapted and modified to address the participant's vision impairment. Senior Members Bean and Shepherd found it was adapted and modified through features like its customised gate operator, sensor beams, battery backup, and tailored configuration and therefore was not a "standard item" under the Transitional Rules. Deputy President Dordevic disagreed, finding that enabling built-in features or adding off-the-shelf components was customisation not modification or adaptation. In her stricter view, the support remained "standard home security" excluded by Schedule 2 from being funded by the NDIS. I will also have regard to this decision in my determination of this matter.

1. The principles on which the NDIS are based are contained in section 4 of the NDIS Act and should be stated in full, and I do so below:

(1) People with disability have the same right as other members of Australian society to realise their potential for physical, social, emotional and intellectual development.

(2) People with disability should be supported to participate in and contribute to social and economic life.

(3) People with disability and their families and carers should have certainty that people with disability will receive the care and support they need over their lifetime.

(4) People with disability should be supported to exercise choice, including in relation to taking reasonable risks, in the pursuit of their goals and the planning and delivery of their supports.

(5) People with disability should be supported to receive reasonable and necessary supports, including early intervention supports.

(6) People with disability have the same right as other members of Australian society to respect for their worth and dignity and to live free from abuse, neglect and exploitation.

(7) People with disability have the same right as other members of Australian society to pursue any grievance.

(8) People with disability have the same right as other members of Australian society to be able to determine their own best interests, including the right to exercise choice and control, and to engage as equal partners in decisions that will affect their lives.

(9) People with disability should be supported in all their dealings and communications with the Agency and the Commission so that their capacity to exercise choice and control is maximised in a way that is appropriate to their circumstances and cultural needs.

(9A) People with disability are central to the National Disability Insurance Scheme and should be included in a co-design capacity.

(10) People with disability should have their privacy and dignity respected.

(11) Reasonable and necessary supports for people with disability should:

(a) support people with disability to pursue their goals and maximise their independence; and

(b) `support people with disability to live independently and to be included in the community as fully participating citizens; and

(c) develop and support the capacity of people with disability to undertake activities that enable them to participate in the community and in employment.

(12) The role of families, carers and other significant persons in the lives of people with disability is to be acknowledged and respected.

(12A) The relationship between people with disability and their families and carers is to be recognised and respected.

(13) The role of advocacy in representing the interests of people with disability is to be acknowledged and respected, recognising that advocacy supports people with disability by:

(a) promoting their independence and social and economic participation; and

(b) promoting choice and control in the pursuit of their goals and the planning and delivery of their supports; and

(c) maximising independent lifestyles of people with disability and their full inclusion in the community.

(14) People with disability should be supported to receive supports outside the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and be assisted to coordinate these supports with the supports provided under the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

(15) In exercising their right to choice and control, people with disability require access to a diverse and sustainable market for disability supports in which innovation, quality, continuous improvement, contemporary best practice and effectiveness in the provision of those supports is promoted.

(16) Positive personal and social development of people with disability, including children and young people, is to be promoted.

(17) It is the intention of the Parliament that the Ministerial Council, the Minister, the Board, the CEO, the Commissioner and any other person or body is to perform functions and exercise powers under this Act in accordance with these principles, having regard to the need to ensure the financial sustainability of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

1. The NDIS provides participants with individualised plans that fund reasonable and necessary supports (NDIS supports). Section 33 of the Act outlines what must be included in a participant's plan. Subsection 33(2) requires that a plan must include a statement of participant supports prepared with the participant and approved by the CEO. Paragraphs 33(2)(a) to (e) of the Act dictate that it must include general, reasonable and necessary supports as well as the date or circumstances in which the Agency must reassess the plan, in addition to the management of other aspects of the plan.
2. Subsection 33(5) of the Act states that when deciding to approve a statement of participant supports, regard must be had to the participant's statement of goals and aspirations, relevant assessments, the principle that a participant should manage their plan to the extent that they wish, the operation and effectiveness of previous plans and compliance with spending in addition to being satisfied the supports are reasonable and necessary and the NDIS rules are applied.[6] NDIS Rules are legislative instruments, binding on this Tribunal.[7]
3. On 3 October 2024 the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 came into force. It introduced the concept of a NDIS support[8] and amended paragraph 34(1)(f) to require that a decision-maker be satisfied that the support is a NDIS support.
4. The amendments to the legislation must be applied when a SOPS is approved or varied on or after 3 October 2024, even though Mr Goerlach's request for the roller blinds and plan came into effect before commencement of the amendments.[9]
5. Subsection 34(1) of the Act provides that when considering what 'reasonable and necessary supports' are to be funded the decision maker must be satisfied that all criteria under paragraphs 34(1)(aa) to (f) are established.
6. Subsection 34(2) of the Act states that the NDIS Rules may prescribe methods or criteria to be applied, or matters to which the CEO must have regard, in deciding whether they are satisfied criteria under subsection 34(1) are met in respect of a requested support.
7. The Rules relevant are the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (the Supports Rules), providing guidance when undertaking an assessment of reasonable and necessary supports to be funded.
8. When determining if reasonable and necessary supports should be funded, the decision-maker is to have regard to Part 4 of the Support Rules. Part 4 sets out considerations including value for money, whether the support is effective and beneficial, what is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide by way of informal supports and whether the support is appropriately funded under the NDIS.
9. Subsections 3.1 and 3.4 of the Support Rules state:

3.1 In deciding whether the support represents value for money in that the costs of the support are reasonable, relative to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternative support, the CEO is to consider the following matters:

(a) whether there are comparable supports which would achieve the same outcome at a substantially lower cost;

(b) whether there is evidence that the support will substantially improve the life stage outcomes for, and be of long-term benefit to, the participant;

(c) whether funding or provision of the support is likely to reduce the cost of the funding of supports for the participant in the long term (for example, some early intervention supports may be value for money given their potential to avoid or delay reliance on more costly supports);

(d) for supports that involve the provision of equipment or modifications:

(i) the comparative cost of purchasing or leasing the equipment or modifications; and

(ii) whether there are any expected changes in technology or the participant's circumstances in the short term that would make it inappropriate to fund the equipment or modifications;

(e) whether the cost of the support is comparable to the cost of supports of the same kind that are provided in the area in which the participant resides;

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

1. The National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (the Transitional Rules) modified the operation of section 34 of the Act and has the effect of excluding certain supports from inclusion in SOPS via Schedule 2 to the Transitional Rules.

(a) 14 block-out roller blinds at a cost of $3,563.76.

2. In making my decision and pursuant to s33(5)(a) of the NDIS Act I have considered Mr Goerlach's plan goals as follows:
   1. I would like to access the community safely so I can explore current interests and new opportunities and participate in community activities.
   2. I would like to gain access to funding to purchase assistive technology related to my vision and hearing disabilities.
   3. I would like to stay mentally strong so I can maintain my health and wellbeing and continue to look after myself and keep my employment.
   4. I would like home modifications that will reduce long term reliance on Core funding supports for daily living tasks which will increase my independence in my home.
   5. I would like to sufficiently improve accessibility within my home to increase my independence.
   6. I need an accessible and modified home that will allow me independently to fulfill my role as a father of three young children which significantly reduces the risks of harm to my children as I am unable to navigate safely in my own home to support them and will decrease the need of disability supports in my home.
   7. I would like to have Capacity Building funding for AT and assessments as my condition does decline.
   8. I would like to be independent in my own home to help improve my wife's mental health as she is unable to continue completing all my daily living tasks, which will allow her to return to work to support our family financially.

1. In his application for external review to the Tribunal dated 28 November 2024 Mr Goerlach under the question 'Why do you claim the decision is wrong?' contends:

I am seeking a review of the decision made by the S100 reviewer to decline funding for window blinds. I believe this decision is inconsistent with the evidence provided and does not align with the principles of reasonable and necessary supports under the NDIS Act.

1. Inconsistency in Application of R&N Criteria:

• The rationale provided in my participant statement, carer impact statement, and occupational therapist report for the window blinds is identical to the rationale previously accepted by the Planner for approving funding for the installation of lights in all internal areas of my home.

• If the same R&N criteria had been consistently applied to the window blinds, they would also have been approved, given the evidence and rationale submitted.

2. Provision of Updated Evidence Prior to Legislative Changes:

• As part of the S100 review request, a new OT assessment and quote were submitted to the appropriate team on September 19, 2024.

• This submission date is prior to the new NDIS legislation changes that came into effect on October 3, 2024. The decision to apply the new legislation to my request is therefore inappropriate, as the review should have been assessed under the legislative framework in place at the time of submission.

• The new NDIS legislation outlines categories of supports and items that are "generally" not funded. However, the term "generally" lacks clear definition, leaving room for discretionary interpretation.

• As my submission included detailed evidence demonstrating the specific need for suitable window blinds in my situation, the broad application of the term "generally" should not have overridden the specific and individualized assessment of my needs.

• In 2022, funding for window blinds was approved for me at a previous property. This indicates prior acknowledgment of the R&N nature of this support in meeting my disability-related needs.[10]

1. On the evidence before me I am satisfied that Mr Goerlach experiences vision and hearing impairments as a result of Usher Syndrome, and the black-out blinds are necessary to address the sensory impairments for which he has met NDIS access: s34(1)(aa) NDIS Act.
2. I have also considered the Carer Impact Statement of Mr Goerlach's wife dated 4 July 2024 which describes:

Insufficient lighting inside and outside the house prohibits Jonathan from living independently and this is significantly impacting his ability to parent independently. Jonathan's eyes do not function and operate at full capacity, he requires additional lighting to help him see...

Jonathan is an incredible dad and is highly involved in helping me with the children but I have to guide him with everything we do with the children because the lights inside and outside are not bright enough for his eyes...It is beyond disheartening to watch his vision deteriorate and not being able to stop the deterioration.[11]

1. From 3 October 2024 the new legislation states that participants can only use their NDIS funding for items that are considered to be NDIS Supports. The Transitional Rules lists what are NDIS Supports and what are not NDIS Supports.
2. Among the changes brought in by these new amendments are that the NDIS cannot fund standard items. Section 4 of the Explanatory Memorandum explains that the term 'standard item' means as follows:

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.

1. As Member Williams describes in Duse and National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 37 at 156-157, there is no requirement in these new Transitional Rules:

that links the requested support to a participant's disability support needs.

... if a support is listed in schedule 2 as 'not an NDIS support', it is irrelevant that it is related either directly or indirectly to a participant's support needs.

1. The Complex Home Modifications Assessment for the roller blinds was completed by Mr D Ncube Occupational Therapist, on 20 January 2024 for motorised roller blinds rather than the manually operated blinds under consideration before me.[12] The quotation provided from Budget Curtains & Blinds dated 22 August 2024 shows the total cost of the 14 roller blinds as $3,563.76.[13]
2. The Respondent's Statements of Issues, Facts and Contentions dated 30 April 2025, is that the 14 block-out roller blinds are 'standard items' and therefore cannot be an NDIS support. The Respondent also further contends the blinds do not represent value for money.
3. Under the heading 'Day-to-day living costs accommodation and household', Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules provides that the following are not NDIS Supports:

(i) standard household (including garden) items, appliances, tools and products;

1. In relation to the recent decision in Brown and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 2029 dated 9 October 2025, Mr Goerlach states:

Consistent with Brown, the correct classification is that my blinds - including motorisation - are modified household items with accessibility features, not "standard fixtures/fittings."

Motorisation is not a luxury; it is a functional adaptation that allows safe, independent, and efficient light control throughout the home. This is particularly essential given my dual sensory disability, multiple young children, and upcoming newborn. The NDIA's reliance on physical capacity to pull a cord overlooks the visual, environmental, and parenting realities that make automated control necessary.

Brown correctly applies this principle: motorised, fit-to-frame block-out blinds are not "standard fixtures", because their functional value lies in their role in mitigating light sensitivity and supporting independence.[14]

1. The Respondent states the decision in Brown is incorrect as the Tribunal's decision departs from the legislative requirement that an item be modified or adapted to address the participant's functional impairments, before it ceases to be a "standard" item.
2. The Respondent draws the Tribunal's attention to the Second Reading Speech of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 delivered by the Honourable Mr Bill Shorten MP on 27 March 2024 where he stated that:

[W]e need to have an honest conversation about the scheme. It cannot keep growing at the same rate that it is now. It can keep growing, but it just can't keep growing at 16 per cent annually, as it has in the past few years. The Disability Reform Ministerial Council is on record as saying:

Without timely action to improve outcomes for people with disability, the NDIS is projected to grow more than 1 million participants and cost up to $100 billion a year by 2023.

Costs continue to grow without fairness, rigour and control over this critical investment by the Australian people. We simply have to take steps to get it back on track, and that's what we're doing with this bill.

1. The Respondent contends that Parliament's express concern that the scheme was growing at unsustainable rates demonstrates that the amendments, including the clarification of what constitutes "standard furniture, fixtures or fittings", were designed to narrow the scope of NDIS supports. The Respondent contends the interpretation adopted in Brown is inconsistent with that legislative purpose and undermines the object of the principal Act to ensure the financial sustainability of the Scheme.[15]
2. The Respondent submits that block-out blinds are standard items for the following reasons: Blockout blinds are regularly obtained by Australians to improve their homes and to block out excess sunlight for reasons unrelated to a disability therefore blockout blinds are themselves a standard fixture, fitting or home improvement. The Respondent submits the additional features of the blockout blinds (i.e. fit to frame and motorised), when compared with blinds generally, do not constitute modifications or adaptions to a standard fixture or fitting for the purpose of addressing the Applicant's functional impairments.
3. The Respondent contends that in the absence of modifications or adaptions to address Mr Goerlach's functional impairments, the proposed blinds are not NDIS supports pursuant to the Transitional Rules, and not an NDIS support for the purposes of s 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act.
4. On the evidence before me, the roller blinds have not been modified or adapted to address the functional impairments of Mr Goerlach. They do not require adaption and are not adapted and therefore are a 'standard item', consistent with the Hyde majority interpretation.
5. Because the black-out blinds do not require any modification or adaption to address Mr Goerlach's impairments, I find the blinds are captured within the definition of 'standard item' and/or 'standard fixtures or fittings' in Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules.
6. It follows that under item (1)(i) and/or (1)(j) of Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules, the black-out roller blinds cannot be NDIS supports within the meaning of s 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act.
7. In reference to Mr Goerlach's contention that the use of the term 'generally' allows for some discretionary interpretation, I agree with Member Toohey's reasoning in Johnson & National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ATRA 106 that:

At first glance, the headings in Schedule 2 which say 'generally are not NDIS supports' do seem to imply that there could be circumstances in which supports that are not generally NDIS supports could however be a support for a specific participant. However, the meaning of 'generally' in this context is informed by the rule-making provision in section 10(4) which states:

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.

When read together with section 10(4), it is clear to that the term 'generally' is used in the sense of applying to all participants as compared to a class of participants, rather than in the sense of applying in 'most circumstances' or similar. Rule 5(2) of the Transitional Rule underscores this interpretation, stating that:

(2) For the purposes of subsection 10(4) of the NDIS Act, a support covered by column 2 of an item in the table in clause 1 of Schedule 2 to this instrument is not an NDIS support for any participant (subject to subsection 10(6) of the NDIS Act) or prospective participant.[16] [emphasis added]

1. As the 14 block-out roller blinds fall within the definition of a standard item, I must conclude that pursuant to paragraph 34(1)(f) of the Act the roller blinds are not an NDIS support and cannot be funded under the NDIS.

1. For these reasons pursuant to section 105(c)(ii) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), the decision under review is affirmed.

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

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

[14] Applicant email dated 14 November 2025.

[15] Respondent's Submission in relation to Brown dated 14 November 2025, page 4

[16] Member Toohey in Johnson & National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ATRA 106 at 27- 29.