1. The Act sets down the law that underpins the scheme.
2. Individuals who are granted access to the scheme are referred to as 'participants'.[7] The scheme is designed to provide individual plans to participants which fund certain specified supports.
3. Section 33 of the Act identifies the matters that must be included within a participant's plan. Subsection 33(2) requires that a plan include a statement of participant supports, which are prepared with the participant and approved by the CEO. Paragraphs 33(2)(a) to (e) of the Act specifies that these statement of participant supports must include general supports, reasonable and necessary supports, in addition to the date by which the Agency must reassess the plan, as well as information regarding management of other aspects of a plan.
4. Section 33(5) of the Act directs that when deciding whether to approve a statement of participant supports, the CEO (and this Tribunal upon review) must have regard 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.
5. The National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Transitional Rules) also came into force on 3 October 2024. The Transitional Rules modified the operation of section 34 of the Act, by expressly excluding certain supports from inclusion in a participant's statement of participant supports.
6. These legislative amendments and Transitional Rules must be applied by the Tribunal when a statement of participant supports is approved or varied on or after 3 October 2024, even if an applicant's plan came into effect before the commencement of the amendments.[8]
7. Section 34(1) of the Act now provides that when considering what 'reasonable and necessary' supports are to be funded, the decision maker must be satisfied that each limb outlined in paragraphs 34(1)(aa) to (f) are established:

(1) 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 such 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 an NDIS support for the participant.

(a) the time at which the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements need to be met is the time the CEO decides to approve the statement of participant supports; and

(b) a participant's disability support needs arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements may be affected by a variety of factors, including environmental factors or the impact of another impairment in relation to which the participant does not meet either of those requirements.

(2) 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).

1. Section 37 of the Act states that a new plan comes into effect when the CEO has received the participant's statement of goals and aspirations and has approved the statement of participant supports. Paragraph 37(3)(a) states that the previous plan ceases to have effect when the plan is replaced by another plan. Subsection 37(4) states that for the purposes of paragraph 37(3)(a), if a replacement plan comes into effect for a participant while another plan is in effect, the other plan is subsequently replaced by the replacement plan.
2. A person who is directly affected by a reviewable decision may request a review of the reviewable decision. Reviewable decisions under the Act include a decision to approve a statement of participant supports in a participant's plan, by operation of Item 4 in subsection 99(1).
3. The delegate of the CEO reviewing that decision can either confirm, vary or set aside the decision pursuant to subsection 100(6) of the Act.
4. Subsection 103(1) of the Act states that applications may be made to this Tribunal for review of a decision made under subsection 100(6) of the Act. Section 12 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act) states that a decision is a reviewable decision if an Act provides for an application to be made to the Tribunal for review of the decision.
5. Subsection 103(2) of the Act states that if an application is made to the Tribunal for review of a decision made under subsection 100(6) that relates to a statement of participant supports and, before the Tribunal makes its decision, the CEO varies the plan or a new plan comes into effect (including the statement of participant supports contained therein), then the application is also taken to be an application to vary or approve the statement of participant supports in the new plan.
6. Section 105 of the ART Act provides that in relation to a reviewable decision, the Tribunal must either affirm, vary or set aside the reviewable decision.
7. The rules relevant to SIL support sought in this application are contained in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Support Rules), providing guidance when undertaking an assessment of reasonable and necessary supports to be funded.
8. Part 4 of the Support Rules which sets out relevant criteria and considerations. These include 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 3.2 of the Support Rules relevantly 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).

Effective and beneficial and current good practice

3.2 In deciding whether the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial

for a participant, having regard to current good practice, the CEO is to consider

the available evidence of the effectiveness of the support for others in like

(a) published and refereed literature and any consensus of expert opinion;

(b) the lived experience of the participant or their carers; or

(c) anything the Agency has learnt through delivery of the NDIS.

3.3 In deciding whether the support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for a participant, having regard to current good practice, the CEO is to take into account, and if necessary seek, expert opinion.

1. In its Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 31 March 2025 the Agency submitted that the following supports meet the reasonable and necessary threshold:

ii. 1:3 SIL support at all other times (excluding periods during which Social, Economic and Community Participation (SECP) supports are funded);

i. 11 hours per week of 1:1 support at the weekday daytime rate;

ii. 24 hours per week of 1:3 support at the weekday daytime rate;

iii. Seven hours per week of 1:3 support at the Saturday rate; and

iv. Seven hours per week of 1:3 support at the Sunday rate.

1. The Applicant's reply to the Agency's Statement of Fact, Issues and Contentions indicated that the following supports remained in dispute and should be included in the Applicant's statement of participant supports:

(a) Funding for SIL comprising: > > i. 1:2 SIL support at all times (excluding SECP funded periods), with inactive overnight; > > ii. Standard intensity pricing. > > (b) Funding for SECP comprising: > > i. 4 hours per week of 1:1 ratio for transport; > > ii. 12 hours per week of 1:2 support at the weekday daytime rate; > > iii. 24 hours per week of 1:3 support at the weekday daytime rate; > > (c) Funding for speech therapy comprising 74 hours per annum to provide therapy, planning and reporting.

2. At the commencement of the hearing, the Respondent indicated that it accepted the Applicant's proposed supports for SECP and speech therapy were reasonable and necessary supports and had indicated its agreement to fund these supports to the Applicant prior to hearing.

1. The Applicant lives with an intellectual disability, which is sometimes described as moderate and at other times as profound. It is submitted on the Applicant's behalf that, whatever the label, she has significant developmental delay.
2. It is not in dispute that it is both reasonable and necessary to provide the Applicant with SIL support. The issue is the level of support provided to the Applicant during the day and overnight.
3. The uncontested history is that since 2023 the Applicant and her housemate have lived in a private rental. She and her housemate share many interests, primarily centred around shared sporting activities. It is for this reason that the current living arrangements are harmonious and successful, as their respective SIL and SECP funding can be shared between them both.
4. The Applicant asserts that the provision of 1:1 support for four hours per day is not required. Instead, it is more appropriate to be provided 1:2 support at all times in the home.

1. The submissions and oral testimony are summarised as follows.
2. The mother has provided various written statements. On 3 March 2025 she declared:[9]

3. [The Applicant] lives in a share house in [Suburb] with one housemate, who is a close friend and shares many of her interests. Together, they navigate their daily lives with the support of their carers, engaging in a variety of programs and activities that enrich their experiences. > > 4. [The Applicant]'s housemate is actively involved in many of her activities, which allows them to share support services effectively. By participating in some social pursuits together, they can access the community with a level of support that ensures their safety and engagement. A timetable of [the Applicant]'s activities outside her home is provided as an Appendix. > > 5. Their shared involvement in soccer, touch football, cricket, and basketball means that their support staff can accompany both of them simultaneously, fostering a sense of independence while ensuring their needs are met. The support staff actively engage in these activities rather than simply supervise, making the experience more immersive for [the Applicant] and her housemate. > > 6. Their shared support model also allows flexibility. When [the Applicant] attends activities without her housemate such as nippers, her housemate may go on independent outings or personal activities. This balance ensures that both individuals can enjoy a full and meaningful life without being restricted to a rigid schedule that limits their choices > > 7. Throughout the week, [the Applicant] follows a structured routine that facilitates her to be able to safely engage with her community and participate in activities she enjoys. > > Daily and Weekly Routine at Home - SIL > > 8. [The Applicant]'s day begins and ends with assistance. She needs help tracking time such as being reminded to get out of bed and constant prompting throughout her morning routine, such as dressing, eating breakfast, and preparing for her activities. Simple tasks, like putting on socks, can take her 20 minutes without support. Physical and emotional prompts are essential, as her anxiety often hinders her ability to stay on task. In the evenings, she requires personal care assistance such as showering and grooming, meal prep, eating dinner and cleaning up. Even after prompting, she requires redirecting, and further prompting to stay on track and complete a task. Sometimes the support needs to be given hand-on-hand to assist her to focus on learning what needs to be done. > > Day Programs SECP > > 9. From Monday to Friday, [the Applicant] attends structured Supported Employment and Community Participation (SECP) programs: > > a. Mondays and Tuesdays, she participates in an SECP program run by [SECP Program A] in [Suburb] from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM, supported at a 1 :2 ratio. She receives 1:1 transport support for her one-hour commute to and from [Suburb]. > > b. Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays, she attends an SECP program with [SECP Program B] in [Suburb], from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM, supported at a 1 :3 ratio. Transport support, to and from [Suburb] is provided by her family, usually myself, one hour each way. > > 10. One of the key considerations for [the Applicant]'s care is the level of support she needs. The environment provided by [SECP Program B] for example, is structured to allow for flexibility when [the Applicant] needs more intensive support, such as when she required a worker to sit with her for 50 minutes while she waited for transport. [SECP Program B] is set up to cater to many individual participants who require varied support levels. This results in a large pool of support workers who are available to flex as needs arise. In contrast, her other SECP program, supported at 1 :2 by [SECP Program A], is a small group setting and less able to flex staff support. > > Therapy/ Capacity building > > 11. In addition to her structured day programs, [the Applicant] has speech and behavioural support > > therapy sessions at home. > > a. Speech therapy every alternate Monday from 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM. > > b. Behavioural support therapy on the other Mondays from 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM. > > Daily and Weekly Routine Outside Home - SIL > > 12. [The Applicant] participates in a variety of community-based activities, providing a social life outside her day programs. All the community activities [the Applicant] is involved in, are all run and managed by non-profit organisations who rely on volunteers to assist. > > a. Every Wednesday, she attends touch football training at [Suburb] in the [Local Club] All Abilities division from 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM. I take her to training, where she meets her house support worker and housemate, who also participates. After training, the house support worker ensures both housemates return home safely. > > b. On Fridays, [the Applicant] and her housemate take part in inclusive tennis lessons at [Suburb] from 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM, a program run by Special Olympics. Their house support worker provides transport and support during the lessons. > > c. On weekends, [the Applicant] and her housemate engage in a combination of community activities depending on the time of the year. > > Summer activities: > > i. They both play cricket on Saturday afternoons in an All Abilities team at [Suburb], run by community volunteers. > > ii. On Sunday mornings in summer, [the Applicant] participates in an All Abilities nippers program at [Suburb], run by local Surf Life Saving Club volunteers. Her > > housemate does not join in this. Instead, he may accompany her for the trip and > > engage in his own activities, such as swimming. > > Winter activities: > > iii. They play netball at [suburb] in the All Abilities division of the [Suburb] > > Netball Club. > > iv. Sunday mornings, both [the Applicant] and her housemate play soccer at [Suburb] in an All Abilities division of the [Local] Soccer Club. > > d. Every Sunday afternoon year-round, they play basketball at [Suburb] with Special > > Olympics. > > ... > > APPENDIX > > [The Applicant]'s weekly schedule outside of home

1. The Tribunal had the benefit of oral testimony from the Applicant's mother. Her evidence is summarised as follows. The Applicant grew up in a busy home. Her immediate and extended family are very involved in her life. She is softly spoken, very polite and friendly. She can miss social cues, resulting in her talking over others and asking a lot of questions; when she becomes aware of not conforming to social cues she will apologise profusely as she thinks she may be in trouble. It is difficult to sustain conversations with her. She struggles to make and maintain friendships. She generally enjoys attending her community activities. She can easily become flustered or distracted and physical movement is a way to calm her. She demands 1:1 attention often, which means that she takes support worker time away from her housemate. However, her housemate is less demanding and so her living arrangements are working at the moment. Whether a 1:3 ratio would work would depend on the third housemate's needs as well as the skills and experience of SIL staff.
2. The Applicant has always enjoyed sports and her gross motor skills are one of her strengths. Her engagement in social activities is also a good social outlet for her. Some of the sporting events she attends have volunteers who can assist the Applicant to engage; other sporting activities require assistance provided by her support workers to ensure the engagement and safety of the Applicant. There can be issues when another participant's behaviours are not well managed and the Applicant becomes distressed.
3. The Applicant struggles with daily tasks, particularly those requiring fine motor skills such as putting on socks or tying shoelaces. She cannot read or write but has a good visual memory and so she can learn public transport routes or identify objects whilst shopping. She can also telephone her mother or text her. She will usually contact a family member by telephone when using public transport to manage her anxiety. She cannot manage her money but understands the need to tap on and off public transport. To manage her vulnerability to financial exploitation, her debit card only has limited funds and the Applicant has learnt to always ask for a receipt. She is vulnerable to harassment when accessing public transport and it is assumed she is avoidant of school children on public transport because of instances of bullying. She requires supervision in the home as she does not have the ability to screen or deny entry to unknown persons.
4. The Applicant had always wanted to move out of home. Once her brothers moved out, it became her focus. She moved into a home where her current housemate and one other had been living for some time. It did not work out, primarily as the Applicant's needs could not be met for various reasons. It was a very busy household, including support staff and the other residents' family and extended family visiting which was overwhelming for the Applicant. They had concerns about the staffing as well; they learnt that a male staff member was helping the Applicant shower. The Applicant began retreating to her bedroom and was no longer engaging in activities. Her independent living skills deteriorated as she did not have the opportunity for practice. As a family they learnt many things from this living arrangement, including the need to ensure that they communicate the Applicant's requirements, establish good working relationships with the other housemates' parents and takes steps to prevent one resident becoming the main focus of support staff.
5. The Applicant's current living arrangements are much more suitable. Less staff are required and the Applicant and her housemate have many shared interests, which makes compromising on which activities they will undertake easier.
6. The mother confirmed the Applicant's current activities as outlined at [36]. Apart from the listed activities the house manager "runs a tight schedule"; the Applicant and her housemate are expected to undertake chores such as cleaning and gardening, as well as shopping for groceries. She explained that the Applicant's housemate participates in all the same sporting activities, with the exception of nippers and cricket, though he is considering enrolling in summer cricket. On summer Sundays either the housemate will go along to nippers with her, or the Applicant will not attend. As to the staffing ratio whilst the Applicant attends speech therapy or behavioural support therapy the mother explained that the staff are usually close by and will have a handover with the therapist at the end of the session.
7. I note the reports provided by Ms Analise Bauchinger, senior occupational therapist dated 25 March 2024[10] and 4 April 2025[11] in addition to her oral testimony at hearing.
8. In her report dated 25 March 2024 Ms Bauchinger advocates a continuation of the Applicant's current living arrangements:[12]

[The Applicant] requires a 1:2 ratio of support to partake actively in structured, disability-specific living skills, day option, and supported employment programmes. The support she requires consists of a combination of physical (hand-over-hand) assistance and task modelling (demonstration), stand-by assistance, continuous verbal prompts and reassurance to ensure she remains on task and completes each task to an adequate standard, organisational support to assist her to adhere to sequential tasks and adhere to a time-bound schedule, support to manage money, support to manage safety and risk when utilising tools, electricals, and appliances, as well as close support when interacting > > with other participants and members of the community. > > ... > > [The Applicant] attends individualised, supported sporting programmes on Tuesday, Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday. These occur within mainstream settings. She requires direct support on a 1:1 basis to access and navigate sporting locations (including crowds), time management support, and support to ensure she is in the correct location (organisational support). She requires assistance to navigate social interactions with other participants and members of the community, manage any escalations in [behaviours of concern] in response to anxiety, physical assistance with dressing (i.e., managing her uniform and shoes), assistance to manage her possessions and ensure her safety when accessing the community. > > ... > > [The Applicant] demonstrates maladaptive coping strategies in response to feelings of anxiety. She relies on reassurance and support to coregulate from others when faced with high-stress or unfamiliar situations and interactions. When [the Applicant] engages in [behaviours of concern] or becomes anxious, she relies on the direct support from another to manage her dysregulation (i.e., redirection, verbal prompting, reassurance, and assistance to another to exit an activity or environment).

9. In her report dated 4 April 2025 Ms Bauchinger opined:

... > > Based on an hourly breakdown of data related to [the Applicant]'s level and duration of support needed for her to be an active participant across all aspects of her BADL and IADL routines, as well as those related to her supported employment/ day programme; a 1:2 ratio of support represents value for money. > > ... > > Person-to-person support is needed to extend [the Applicant]'s skills using an errorless learning approach for all tasks which comprise her supported employment and day programmes. At day programme/ supported employment, data indicates that [the Applicant] requires direct (person-to-person) support for a period of 30-60 minutes per each 60-minute time period. It should be noted that during day programme hours from 09:00-15:00, [the Applicant] is on-task partaking in functional activities which are cognitively and physically demanding. She requires access to direct support to participate actively, ensure her safety, and to successfully complete (follow-through with) each step of the task at-hand. > > [The Applicant]'s demand for person-to-person support at times exceeds what is available at a 1:2 (shared) ratio with supports being divided equally between both participants. Support being provided at a 1:2 ratio therein provides additional benefits to [the Applicant] in terms of meeting her support needs and promoting her skill development, while representing value for money, when compared to support developed at a 1:1 ratio. > > A 1:2 ratio of support thereby represents better value for money, when compared to 1:1 direct > > support which may facilitate [the Applicant]'s goal attainment. Providing [the Applicant] with the recommended level of skilled, person-to-person support is needed to progress her NDIS goals so that skill-development and support strategies recommended by her Allied Health professionals can be implemented, which is a necessary step toward building her functional capacity and managing behaviours of concern. > > In summary, support delivered at a 1:2 ratio ensures that [the Applicant] has sufficient opportunities to access the duration of direct assistance she requires (i.e., that must be delivered on a person-to-person basis), and meets the type (level) of support that she requires which comprises of a combination of physical assistance (hand-over-hand support), cognitive support, verbal prompting/ reassurance, close (line-of-sight) supervision, active behaviour management support/ redirection, and set-up assistance. > > ... > > Due to [the Applicant]'s level and type of support needs, opportunities to progress [the Applicant]'s functional capacity and daily living skills are limited when she receives support at a 1:3 ratio. Although SIL and programme staff are familiar with [the Applicant]'s capacity and her limitations; they cannot meet her requests for assistance (including physical assistance), respond promptly to her needs, or providing reassurance and redirection as appropriate during periods when support is shared with two other participants. > > Moreover, support delivered at a 1:3 ratio limits [the Applicant]'s ability to be independent and to develop her functional capacity and skills for daily living. Access to support shared at a 1:2 ratio reflects the need and appropriateness of her support requirements at this stage of her life. > > The availability of support at a 1:2 ratio will increase [the Applicant]'s opportunities to progress her functional capacity and skills for independent living at home, in the community, and at day programme, as she will have opportunities to access the level of support needed to facilitate new learning and engage in activities that extend her cognitive, physical, and communication skills. > > In summary, [the Applicant]'s needs for a 1:2 ratio of support when in her home, at day programme, and when accessing the community has been documented throughout this correspondence. The recommended ratio of 1:2 support is beneficial as it enables [the Applicant] to engage in activities that are meaningful, purposeful, goal-directed, and relevant to her current life stage. This allows [the Applicant] to engage in a wider range of functional activities that align with her skill development goals, experience a variety of mainstream environments and interactions with support, while remaining safe and being appropriately supported despite her vulnerabilities and functional deficits related to her disabilities.

10. Attached to this report was data collected by the Applicant's SECP provider that indicated the duration of 1:1 support she received: Monday 4 hours 45 minutes, Tuesday 5 hours, Wednesday 4 hours and 20 minutes, Thursday 5 hours and 5 minutes and Friday 4 hours and 25 minutes.[13] Data evidencing the need to provide 1:1 support was also collected on a Saturday, which indicated that the Applicant required 11 hours and 20 minutes 1:1 support, noting that 5 of these hours were transporting and attending cricket and the movies.[14]
11. At hearing Ms Bauchinger reported that she conducted a functional capacity assessment in 2021 (when the Applicant was living in the three housemate home) and then completed another on 25 March 2024. This report included interrogation of the 93 SIL shift notes made available, clinical observations in the SIL, interviews with support staff and the data provided was validated by standardised assessments.
12. Due to her executive functioning deficits, Ms Bauchinger is of the view that the Applicant does require 24/7 support to complete basic and instrumental activities of daily living. Her assessment is that the Applicant requires direction to complete basic and instrumental tasks correctly.
13. Ms Bauchinger reported that the during an assessment the Applicant demonstrated an understanding of boundaries and spaces in the home but had deficits in the areas of fire and stranger danger. After completion of the Home Alone Assessment Tool, Ms Bauchinger had safety concerns about the Applicant's capacity to stay alone in the home safely. This assessment has not changed since the Applicant was granted SIL funding. Ms Bauchinger testified that the totality of the evidence demonstrates that the Applicant requires 24/7 supervision and cannot be left in her home unattended. When it was put to her whether she was aware if there were any safety or behaviour concerns during the 45 minute period that the Applicant and her housemate are unsupervised each weekday afternoon she answered in the negative. She did recall a situation where the Applicant sought inappropriate assistance from her housemate but was not certain whether staff were present on that occasion. She went on to stress that the Applicant's housemate has a greater level of functioning, and that the Applicant could not be left alone, or with a person with similar level of functioning to her.
14. Ms Bauchinger spoke to her letter dated 4 April 2025, written in response to the Agency's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions.[15] Ms Bauchinger stated that she recommended that the Applicant receive 1:2 support whilst participating in her day programs, based on the data provided to her by those programs that indicated she required at least 20 minutes each hour of 1:1 support to complete required tasks, which is greater than the 1:3 ratio that she is funded for. In response to questioning about the veracity of the data collected by the SECP providers[16] Ms Bauchinger stated that the data is not inconsistent with the Applicant's deficits.
15. When invited to comment on the Agency's position that 1:3 support whilst participating in a SECP program is sufficient to meet the Applicant's needs, Ms Bauchinger responded stating that it is contingent on the activities she is completing, her familiarity with those tasks and the other participants.
16. In response to the Agency's proposal of 1:3 support, apart from 1:1 support for four hours per day, Ms Bauchinger stated that the Applicant's need for 1:2 support to participate in active activities or her daily routines, and her need for this level of support "does not start and end within a two hour block". Further, a ratio of 1:3 during the day in addition with two, two hour blocks of 1:1 support would mean that the Applicant could not undertake her individualised community activities.
17. Ms Bauchinger went on to state that if the Applicant were not provided with sufficient support, she would need to withdraw from community activities. In the absence of direct support, she would only be able to undertake passive activities, such as sitting in front of a screen. Her knowledge of the Applicant is that she would still seek out reassurance and engagement with staff. Further, this would not progress the Applicant's goals.
18. In response to questioning regarding the independent functional capacity assessment undertaken by Mr Stretton, Ms Bauchinger stated that the report generally aligns with her own observations. However, she does take issue with Mr Stretton's report in that he does not explicitly state, when referring to activities of self-care and daily living, what these entail and the reason he limited this to a two hour duration. In her view, the Applicant requires direct support when she is engaging in all activities of daily living, self-care activities and home based activities, asserting that Mr Stretton's report did not explicitly address the support she requires for daily living activities. Her view is that when the Applicant is awake and participating in activities of daily living, she requires 1:2 ratio of support.
19. When questioned about whether Mr Stretton's report should be preferred, as he is independent, Ms Bauchinger stated that she too is independent and receives no benefit from recommending a 1:2 ratio of support. Her recommendations are based on her clinical observations from 2021 to 2025; she is more familiar with the Applicant's needs.
20. In respect to overnight inactive support, Ms Bauchinger stated that her understanding of the provision of such support in a SIL environment, means that a staff member completes a "sleepover" and they are required to provide either three instances of active care or two hours of being awake, before it is classified as an active shift. This includes welfare checks during the shift. She explained that there have been instances overnight when a smoke alarm has activated where the Applicant put on headphones and closed her bedroom door. She understands that the Applicant may need overnight assistance to get a drink, receive reassurance or someone to assist her if she is unwell.
21. During cross-examination Ms Bauchinger was questioned as to why she did not readminister the standardised testing prior to her 4 April 2025 report. She explained that whilst it is not clinically inappropriate to conduct an assessment again, particularly if there is a big change in a person's presentation, capacity or routine, such testing is not usually undertaken more than once annually as it is presumed that the results will not change significantly in that period. She went on to state that the Applicant's disability is not degenerative and her baseline has been stable for some years. She confirmed that she had not observed the Applicant since March 2024 as she does not provide regular sessions of occupational therapy. She conceded that she could not confirm that the Applicant's functional capacity in April 2025 was the same as in March 2024.
22. Ms Bauchinger was invited to state what factors she takes into account when determining the ratio of support. Ms Bauchinger replied she would look at each hour of assistance provided and the level of direct engagement required to complete activities of daily living, whether this be physical assistance, redirection, visual supports, reassurance (which is more in line with the Applicant's requirements) as opposed to a person who requires line of sight support, intermittent reassurance and observation.
23. Ms Bauchinger agreed that the level of support required by the Applicant is dependent on the activities she undertakes. She was of the view that basic recreational activities including watching television, spending time on her phone and listening to music are all passive activities. Activities such as playing a game could require less support; it simply depends on the cognitive complexity of the game, however she would seek continual reassurance and validation because of her executive functioning. Ms Bauchinger accepts that the Applicant could take a walk in the evening at a 1:3 ratio.
24. Ms Bauchinger was questioned about her assessment that the Applicant does not have capacity to travel in the community independently. Ms Bauchinger's assessment in 2024 was that the Applicant she was able to access only one or two familiar routes. She was unable to problem solve her way through any delays or disruptions, resulting in her wandering, or getting on the wrong train or bus. Whilst she has her mobile phone, her ability to judge if she needs assistance is not reliable. Also, answering her mobile is not always entirely consistent. Ms Bauchinger refuted the suggestion that the Applicant does not require constant monitoring when in the community. She agreed that it was not necessary to always have a line of sight, but there must be a degree of surveillance going on.
25. When invited to speak to the Agency's position regarding support ratios, Ms Bauchinger accepted the proposition that the Applicant's needs vary throughout the day, and that there are certain parts of the day when she has higher needs, depending on her activities. In her view instrumental activities such as household chores, planning for the next day, reviewing transport routes and financial budget, meal planning, tidying her own spaces, dinner and personal care routines all require supervision, direction and physical assistance to some degree, noting that the support workers are more drawn to providing assistance to the Applicant than her housemate.
26. Ms Bauchinger conceded that when undertaking activities such as food shopping, 1:3 support may be sufficient. Again, she stressed that it depends on the context. For example, if it was online, she would require direct support as opposed to a physical grocery store which could require 1:2 or 1:3 support, again depending on the Applicant's anxiety and whether she is given active responsibility to engage in the task and problem-solve, as well as whether the shop was busy. However, 1:3 support would be sufficient as a passive activity where she simply follows the group and retrieves and put items in a basket, again this depending on the dynamic of the group.
27. Ms Bauchinger stated that her observations of the Applicant is that she is an active person, usually on the move and so prefers physical activities rather than passive activities, such as watching a screen. She noted that over the weekend, if support was provided at 1:3 ratio it would result in either the Applicant possibly having to miss out on her current sporting activities to ensure that her housemates could attend their own. Ms Bauchinger stated that irrespective of the funding source (that is, SIL or SECP), provision of a 1:3 support ratio would impact on the Applicant's ability to engage with her sporting activities.
28. Ms Bauchinger stated that she was not aware of the Applicant experiencing sleep disturbances or requiring support overnight recently, as she has not been provided recent data. However, she was aware that historically the Applicant experiences sleep disturbances if experiencing heightened anxiety, or requires assistance with getting a drink, or when she is sick. However, she is not aware that the Applicant needs regular support overnight; rather it is more sporadic. Ms Bauchinger stated that she recommends an overnight support ratio of 1:2 overnight because it aligns with the Applicant's support requirements during the day; logistically a third person could not be brought into the home to sleep only. She confirmed that the Applicant requires passive overnight support at a shared ratio in a SIL context.
29. There is in evidence two reports authored by Ms Helen Amos, behaviour support practitioner, T3 Interaction dated March 2023 (day unspecified) and 13 September 2023.[17]
30. In the March 2023 report Ms Amos recommended, based on her observations from her individual sessions with the Applicant, and in consultation with her SECP providers and occupational therapist (amongst others), that the Applicant be provided SIL at a ratio of 1:2 support:[18]

... [The Applicant] is much better suited to A 1:2 ratio as when [the Applicant] is heightened or anxious, she requires complete support from staff to assist with managing her symptoms. [The Applicant] and [her housemate] currently receive sleepover support from SIL C staff, with [the Applicant]'s supports taking up a considerable amount of this support time. > > ... > > An Accommodation Needs Assessment has been requested by [the Applicant]'s Support Coordinator to assist the appeal which is being lodged with the NDIA around [the Applicant]'s level of self funding this plan. It is important to note that this Accommodation Needs Report should be read in conjunction with [the Applicant]'s Behaviour Assessment Report (March 2022). This report includes comprehensive details of [the Applicant]'s support needs as well as the assessment and intervention work which has been completed to date. This document provides the foundation work for this Report and will be made available to the NDIA. > > ...

• [the Applicant]'s co-resident is currently able to tolerate [the Applicant]'s requirement for high levels of emotional support from staff at times.

• [the Applicant] engages in anxiety related behaviours of concern that disrupt and impede her ability to participate freely in regular social activities and achieving her goals. She requires intensive support from her staff to implement intervention strategies around her symptoms.
• 1:2 staff support is currently required due to [the Applicant]'s support needs.
• ...
• [the Applicant] requires an elevated level of emotional support and availability of staff.
• [the Applicant] is heavily reliant on her support staff on a regular basis seeking reassurance and confirmation of her daily activities and routines

1. In her 13 September 2023 report Ms Amos reported that she had provided 21 face-to-face individual behaviour support consultations in the 2023 calendar year.[19] She went on to state:[20]

... > > [When living in her previous 1:3 SIL home] During this time, her Accommodation service (SILC) and her parents reported concerns of [the Applicant]'s increased anxiety and behaviours. Both [the Applicant]'s behaviours and her support needs demonstrated that she was finding her new living situation very challenging. The staff who worked with [the Applicant] at the time reported that she required a higher level of support than her co-residents, which made it difficult for them to provide adequate support to all participants in the home on a day to day basis. This resulted in [the Applicant] and [her housemate] moving in to Accommodation together in January 2023 at a 1:2 ratio. > > [The Applicant] has a diagnosis of Moderate Intellectual Disability. Her most recent cognitive assessment was conducted in 2018 which confirmed her diagnosis with her results in cognitive areas assessment being consistent with earlier reports. As a result of her diagnosis, [the Applicant] has poor receptive and expressive language. [The Applicant]'s intellectual functioning being in the moderate range is also reflected in her adaptive functioning, with deficits in conceptual, social and practical skill areas. As part of this, [the Applicant] experiences symptoms associated with Generalised Anxiety Disorder which can greatly impact her day to day living experiences. At times [the Applicant]'s quality of life can be limited by the intensity of her anxiety symptoms in certain situations, especially social situations. > > When [the Applicant] is feeling overwhelmed or in a triggering environment, physical or social, she is reported to breakdown emotionally which will often result in [the Applicant] being considerably upset and crying. It has also been reported that at times, [the Applicant]'s emotional outburst may result in her showing her frustration by not listening to instructions or physically hitting a hard surface, such as the inside of a car door when tired on the way home from a late-night activity. [The Applicant]'s emotional outburst behaviour can be predictable but may also be unpredictable when in unfamiliar environments, in particular loud or noisy environments. This can happen one to four times a month, and is often problematic for staff to adequately support both [the Applicant] and her co-resident, given that they are often accessing the community together due to their funding structure. > > ... > > ... [The Applicant] may engage in emotional outbursts potentially as part of being overstimulated and needing to attend to her sensory needs around this, such as removing herself from the overwhelming environment or situation. It is also demonstrated that [the Applicant] responds in this way due to deficits in problem solving skills to help herself regulate emotions and responses when in overwhelming or overstimulating environments. For example, when [the Applicant] is supported to attend social activities, she can soon become overwhelmed with the environment and the noise. [The Applicant] describes these occasions as "having a meltdown" where she will begin to fidget, cry, hyperventilate, and ask to leave. Due to funding restrictions, being able to support [the Applicant] through these incidents is difficult for her staff, while still being required to provide support to her co-resident simultaneously. > > Over the course of the engagement with both Claudia Masina and myself, [the Applicant] has continued to work on skill building in these areas to increase her abilities and related self-confidence to reduce the impact of her anxiety on her day to day living. While providing face to face sessions with [the Applicant], my observations have been that she requires constant reassurance from the people in her life, including her staff, her housemate [Name], and other Allied Health providers. [The Applicant]'s disabilities have made it challenging for her at times to cope with certain types of interactions within both her accommodation environment and in the community. Findings from her Functional Behaviour Assessment are consistent with deficits [the Applicant] experiences as part of her diagnosis and will require ongoing supports.

2. Ms Amos concluded her report by recommending that the Applicant continue to be provided SIL at a ratio of 1:2 to enable staff to provide her adequate support in both her day to day living and in social interactions.[21]
3. Ms Amos was not called by the Applicant as a witness.
4. The Tribunal had the benefit of written reports dated 12 February 2024,[22] 30 May 2024[23] and 16 April 2025[24] and oral evidence from Mr Liam Jones, behaviour support practitioner, T3 Interaction. He recommended that the Applicant continue to be provided SIL funding at the 1:2 ratio to engage the provision of adequate supports to meet the Applicant's activities of daily living and social interaction:[25]

Impact Statement: [the Applicant]'s emotional outbursts cause her significant stress and anxiety that result in decreased processing of events following an incident. As a result of [the Applicant]'s inability to consistently self-regulate, [the Applicant]'s emotional outburst places a great strain on staff, as [the Applicant] relies on staff to co-regulate and assist her to returning to a calm state. This may result in carer burnout in the long term. [the Applicant]'s emotional outburst often involve her physically hitting at hard surface which puts her at risk of serious injury. It is also important to note that these outbursts may damage [the Applicant]'s relationships with staff, friends and family and affect her ability to interact with others positively when in anxiety/stress inducing situations. > > ... > > Interaction At the time of this report, [the Applicant] still requires both physical assistance and prompting to complete daily tasks such as cooking, cleaning, and travelling. [The Applicant] also presents with high levels of anxiety, specifically when having to complete a difficult task independently, when faced with activities she does not understand, or when she perceives that she is not capable of completing a task. This can result in her behaviours of concern increasing in prevalence; hence it is recommended that [the Applicant] continues to receive a 1:2 ratio of support as well as passive overnight support in her accommodation to help assist her with daily living tasks and emotional regulation.

5. In his May 2024 report Mr Jones stated that the Applicant remains heavily reliant on support staff for prompting and assistance in activities of daily living, as well as reassurance and assistance to rest.[26]
6. In his April 2025 report Mr Jones noted that the Applicant requires ongoing reassurance from support staff.[27] He went on to state:[28]

... > > [The Applicant]'s frequent anxious behaviours and need for consistent staff support of up to 90-120 minutes a day indicates that she requires more individualised attention. A 1:2 support ratio ensures that staff can provide the necessary time and care to better manage her behavioural presentation and overall wellbeing. > > ... > > As per [the Applicant]'s Accommodation Needs Assessment written by her previous behaviour support clinician Helen Amos in March of 2023, following her move to from a 1:3 to 1:2 support ratio: "[The Applicant] is much better suited to a 1:2 ratio as when [the Applicant] is heightened or anxious, she requires complete support from staff to assist with managing her symptoms. [the Applicant] and (housemate) currently receive sleepover support from SILC staff, with [the Applicant]'s supports taking up a considerable amount of this support time." "Only one co-resident is recommended at this point in time and a lot of collaborative support is required if [the Applicant] is to remain stable in her placement." > > It is hypothesised that a 1:3 ratio would place significant stress on house staff due to the amount of time needed to assist [the Applicant] in co-regulating when she experiences high levels of anxiety. This may lead to carer burnout and/or leave [the Applicant] unsupported, resulting in her escalating to her behaviours of concern placing her at risk of significant emotional stress.

7. The report indicates that it was informed by data collected from SIL support workers via MS Forms collected daily over the period 25 March to 9 April 2025. The workers recorded anxiety indicators and the frequency of anxiety experienced by the Applicant. During the reporting period the Applicant typically spent 30-60 minutes per day engaging in reassurance seeking from staff (ranging in time from 15 to 120 minutes). Further, she typically spent about 30-60 minutes per day engaged in repetitive questioning, with two days during the period of 0-15 minutes, five days of between 15-30 minutes, one day of 60-90 minutes and one day of over 120 minutes engaged in repetitive questioning. She engaged in rumination ("...involves fixation on negative events such as other being sick and worries of the future...") for typically 30-60 minutes per day. Mr Jones opined that reassurance seeking required immediate 1:1 support to be provided to ease her anxiety. As to her hair pulling, it was noted that it did not occur at all in 9 of the days of the 16 day reporting period. However, when hair pulling occurred on the 7 remaining days, episodes were for a duration of between 0-15 minutes and on one day it was for a duration of 90-120 minutes. During the reporting period restlessness and fidgeting were also recorded.
8. Based on this data Mr Jones recommended that the Applicant continue to receive 1:2 support, not only in her accommodation but also in her day program settings. He suggested that any reduction in support would result in serious risks, "including emotional dysregulation, physical harm including hair loss, regression in adaptive functioning, increased behaviours of concern and the potential for long-term disruption to her stability and quality of life".[29] He was of the view that provision of 1:3 support to the Applicant would present a significant risk for her wellbeing, having an impact on her behaviours of concern, her relationships within the home, on her social participation and deterioration in her ability to engage in day to day activities and functioning.[30]
9. Mr Jones's oral testimony is summarised as follows. His role is primarily focused on decreasing the Applicant's behaviours of concern, including crying or banging on hard surfaces. Despite their work to date, these remain behaviours of concern. The most successful strategy with the Applicant is co-regulation with a staff member (such as engaging in deep breathing). If staff recognise early signs that she is becoming dysregulated and can engage appropriate strategies this often means that the Applicant's behaviours can be effectively managed. This is not always possible and sometimes the situation escalates and the Applicant can become distressed and engage in hairpulling, crying and banging.
10. Mr Jones stated that his recommendation that the Applicant be provided with 1:2 support, rather than 1:3 support was based, in part, on daily data collected from support workers (as outlined at [55]. He formed the view that given the Applicant's behaviours of concern and functional deficits, 1:2 support was more suitable to ensure that she had adequate supports.
11. Mr Jones also stated that in the last month the Applicant was experiencing heightened anxiety when independently travelling to and from the Wednesday to Friday SECP program, which is believed to then trigger emotional outbursts evidencing significant distress upon arriving at the program; he conceded that the most recent incident reports (of which he estimated there were at least four) were not before the Tribunal. He confirmed that the Applicant has limited outbursts in the home, going on to state that the staff have been trained to anticipate her anxiety indicators and use strategies to assist with self-regulation. He reiterated that the Applicant does not have the ability to self-regulate and relies on others to self-regulate.
12. Under cross-examination, Mr Jones conceded that the data did not indicate the time of day that the recorded incidents occurred, though from his discussions with staff these usually occur in the afternoon or early evening, sometimes in the mornings when preparing to leave for her SECP activities (if she feels as though she is running late or forgetting something) and when she experienced acid reflux. Mr Jones stated that when in a heightened state, the Applicant requires, and is provided, 1:1 support. In response to questions about whether the provision of 1:1 support in the morning and evening would adequately address the Applicant's needs, Mr Jones stated that if this is provided by her current staff this would be suitable but he was of the view that 1:1 is "reactive" rather than "proactive". He stated that the provision of four hours per day of 1:1 support would not necessarily be during the periods she would require co-regulation which is usually between 3.30 to 8.00 pm, a longer period than the 1:1 support proposed by the Agency.
13. Mr Jones stated that four hours of 1:1 support on Saturdays and Sundays in a context of 1:3 support overall would not be adequate to meet the Applicant's needs, though it could depend on whether she was engaging in stimulating activities.
14. It was put to Mr Jones that it was incongruent that the Applicant would require 1:2 support in the home, when she received 1:3 outside the home. Mr Jones replied that his recommendation is also that the Applicant receive 1:2 support when outside the home, to enable provision of 1:1 support to assist with co-regulation when necessary.
15. I also had regard to the statement of Ms Melanie Midgley dated 28 April 2025[31] and her oral testimony. Ms Midgley declared that she has been working with the Applicant for three years and is responsible for the operation of the home in which the Applicant lives, as well as providing direct support. She works with the Applicant and her housemate for 25 hours per week and that overall, there is a team of eight support workers that provide care.
16. Ms Midgely stated that she was a support worker when the Applicant was living with two other housemates. She described the Applicant in that accommodation as less confident and so requiring a lot of prompting and reassurance. She explained that it takes the Applicant time to find her words, and this is exacerbated in a busy environment. There were also limited choices in the previous living arrangement, as the needs and interests of all three housemates had to be taken into account. Therefore, the Applicant would often retreat into her room.
17. Ms Midgely provided the following evidence regarding the provision of SIL in the home:

1. Ms Midgely was invited to outline the Applicant's routines. She explained that usually morning staff wake the Applicant and monitor the timely completion of her grooming (staff must brush her hair and tie it up, as she cannot) and dressing. She explained that there is a lot of repetition in the Applicant's routine. By way of example, she will rewash her dishes several times or repeatedly brush her teeth, rinse her toothbrush for a long time and then undertake prolonged rinsing. Her capacity to complete tasks is greater than her capacity to move on from a task. She would be unable to complete the tasks in a timely manner without prompting from staff. Staff adhere to a routine and use visual prompts to assist the Applicant in completing all necessary tasks. It is important to keep the routine as calm as possible to ensure that she does not leave the house in a heightened state. Depending on her daily activity, staff can walk her to public transport or ensure that she is collected.
2. In the afternoon both the Applicant and her housemate return to the home and have about 30-45 minutes of unsupervised time. The staff reinforce that whilst no staff are present in the home, she is not to cook, use knives or heaters, or have a shower. The evening staff have routines, depending on the night of the week. This includes liaison with the Applicant's day program workers. On Mondays the Applicant participates in either speech or behaviour support therapy. The Applicant attends sporting activities usually on a Wednesday and Friday evening. During the evening shift support workers assist the Applicant in completing laundry, preparing lunch and packing the Applicant's bag for the next day, cooking and showering. On Friday nights the support worker will meet the Applicant at her touch football game. This is also the evening that the Applicant has decided she wants to change her bedclothes.
3. On weekends, the staff provide support throughout the day. Apart from attending organised sports activities, staff assist with the cleaning of the Applicant's room and the rest of the home occurs, as well as shopping. The Applicant and her housemate sometimes play cricket in the garden or might attend a social gathering or go on an outing. As for overnight support, she is not aware of any instances where staff have had to attend to the Applicant. Instead, staff are present in case of an emergency. Ms Midgely opined that the Applicant would not be able to evacuate the home in an emergency without assistance.
4. Ms Midgely was asked to explain how staff organise activities between the Applicant and her housemate, given support is provided currently at a 1:2 ratio. She explained that it is difficult logistically and involves compromise. One must "sacrifice" their needs for the other. By way of example, if her housemate wants to go to a friend's home, the Applicant must also come in the car and drop him off and return to collect him. If both want to attend different activities, it sometimes means that one cannot go, unless a family member can support the transport. She stressed that fortunately, the Applicant and her current housemate share many sporting interests. Her experience when there was a third housemate living with the Applicant and her housemate meant that their preferences and choices were limited. She is concerned that should the Applicant transition to a three-person household, her social skills and independent living skills would regress. She is of the view that the Applicant would not be able to have her needs met, or work towards her current goals, in a home with a third housemate with similar needs, noting that this was difficult to do in the previous home where there was a staff ratio of 2:3. She explained that the reality is that it is very difficult to provide a high level of support and consistency when there are more housemates and extended family members coming and going from the home with different expectations for their children and parental styles.
5. Ms Midgely is of the opinion that, if the decision was that the Applicant live in a three-person household, it would need to be with someone who is very compatible and can cope with a comprehensive daily routine and has no behaviours of concern. Nevertheless, she stressed that even with the most "perfect" person, a third person brings a different dynamic to the household and will limit choices and options available to all three housemates.
6. Ms Midgely explained that when the Applicant catches public transport to and from her Wednesday to Friday SECP activities she is very anxious and often becomes distressed. She will frequently call her mother seeking reassurance. They had to delete support worker mobile numbers from the Applicant's mobile, given the frequency of calls from her when accessing public transport. Further, the Wednesday to Friday SECP provides 1:3 support and the Applicant often becomes anxious, upset and overwhelmed during the day and requires 1:1 support to become emotionally regulated. Ms Midgely explained that the Applicant is much more regulated within the home, which is a calm environment in which she feels safe. Having said that, it is important that the Applicant knows the household routines and who is visiting with advanced notice in order to manage her anxiety symptoms.
7. Ms Midgely stated that the current provision of support in the household weighs in favour of the Applicant. It is well recognised by staff that her housemate does not get equal support worker attention and the Applicant often receives 1:1 support; the housemate is generally not as demanding as the Applicant. Having said that, there are times when they simply explain to the Applicant that it is her housemate's turn (whether this be for an activity or even participating in a conversation) and she must wait.
8. Ms Midgely is of the view that it is sufficient to have 1:2 support (as opposed to 1:1 support) each morning and evening whilst the Applicant completes her self-care tasks. Ms Midgely confirmed that the Applicant requires more attention to complete her self-care tasks than her housemate, who usually waits patiently whilst this occurs. The Applicant requires a support worker to be present when she showers, as she requires prompting to confidently complete hair-washing. Whilst her housemate showers and receives support worker attention there is a "toolbox" in the Applicant's room which has activities that she can engage in whilst she is waiting. These activities are calming and assist in regulating her mood.
9. The Tribunal also had the benefit of a report authored by Ms Leah Smith, Head of Operations, Support Independence Living Co-operative dated 24 June 2024.[32] Ms Smith opined that the Applicant has high support needs, including a combination of 1:1 and 1:2 support ratio in her current accommodation.[33] This is necessary because she requires supervision to ensure her safety and assistance with problem-solving as well as requiring regular behavioural support from staff to manage her anxiety and related behaviours. This level of support also permits her to engage with community activities and build social interaction. [34]
10. In an undated report, author unknown, from the Support Independence Living Co-operative, which operates the Wednesday to Friday SECP program, various behavioural observations of the Applicant were noted.[35] It was recommended that the support being provided to the Applicant be increased from a ratio of 1:3 to 1:2 in the next planning period.[36]
11. In a statement dated 4 March 2025[37] Mr Peter Chan, micro-enterprise co-ordinator Warrah Disability Services, which operates the Monday to Tuesday SECP program, advised that when attending the day program:[38]

[The Applicant] faces significant challenges in regulating her anxiety and in managing her > > refusal. [The Applicant] needs significant prompting, modelling and positive > > reinforcement for her to stay on task. If staff do not provide her with adequate > > attention she will often disassociate from the group and refuse to participate in > > activities that she has been doing. [The Applicant]' current expansion of her microenterprise > > and her work on the farm is only possible because she is supported at 1:2 > > and paired with a participant who does not have significant behaviours. > > ... > > Whenever [the Applicant] presents with a behaviour in the community or on site, her > > group has to stop as staff need to redirect their full attention to [the Applicant], ensuring > > that they can motivate her and keep her from completely withdrawing from the > > activity and from the rest of her group. This can pose a significant safety risk when > > the group is making deliveries alongside a busy road or out on work on the farm > > where they use hand tools and machinery. > > The existing 1:2 ratio provides [the Applicant] with the dedicated support she requires, > > ensuring her emotional regulation is managed effectively and allowing her to fully > > participate in her chosen activities without compromising the safety and support > > available to her peers.

12. In a statement dated 21 March 2025[39] Ms Bonnie Hemsworth, markets team co-ordinator Fighting Chance Australia, advised that when attending the Wednesday to Friday SECP the Applicant is funded to receive support at a 1:3 ratio. It was noted that the goals for the next plan period included:[40]
    • In the next plan period, [SECP] will continue to work with [the Applicant] to overcome anxieties by ensuring she is prepared and confident before doing tasks. It has been noted that [the Applicant] will ask repetitive questions when displaying anxiety thus deeming 1:2 support reasonable and necessary.
    • [The Applicant] requires close support and re-direction to maintain clear structure within her day. [SECP] will continue to provide [the Applicant] reassurance surrounding decision making, for example, helping with healthy food choices.
    • Without on-going 1:2 support, [the Applicant] is at risk of regression in her confidence and less opportunity for skill development surrounding her goal of increased independence in living skills_._
13. An undated report (noting that it was authored sometime after 18 September 2025) from Fighting Chance proposed that the Applicant's current support ratio in the next plan period be increased to 1:2 ratio.[41] It recounted six behavioural observations from 21 March to 18 September 2025 whereby the Applicant required 1:1 support to manage her anxiety and associated symptoms.
14. The Respondent contends that the Applicant will receive sufficient support if a SIL ratio of 1:3 (including inactive overnight) is provided, with certain exceptions outlined in the table below. They rely on the independent assessment undertaken by Mr Gary Stretton, occupational therapist, dated 21 October 2024, who provided the following breakdown of support ratios for the Applicant over a 24-hour period whilst she is in her home:[42]

Home-based activity, community access (when not participating in day program)

Personal care, meal preparation and evening routine

Support required for unforeseen or emergency event.

In the body of his report, Mr Stretton opined that, in addition to the above, the Applicant requires 1:2 support with shopping on a weekly basis for 4 hours, another 6 hours per week of 1:1 support for activities of daily living[43], and 1:2 ratio of support per day with eating meals for a total of 1.5 hours per day.[44] Mr Stretton noted that the Applicant does not require any support when attending supported employment and day programs and does require 1:1 support for transport to and from sporting activities.[45]

1. Mr Stretton went on to state that the main support the Applicant requires is "reassurance to manage anxiety",[46] though when attending to personal care or instrumental activities of daily living she requires prompting to initiate, redirection and ongoing prompting to complete the tasks. It is for this reason that she requires 1:1 support at these times of the day.[47]
2. Mr Stretton also noted that the Applicant is routine focused and relies on assistance to solve even minor problems when unforeseen changes and events occur and routines are disrupted.[48] Mr Stretton also stated that the Applicant's current shared supported living arrangement was working well and he did not perceive any risks to the sharing of supports with compatible roommates and that cohabitating with others provides socialisation benefits.[49] It was noted that the Applicant is left at home unattended each weekday afternoon, which is working well. However, he went on to state that it would be "inadvisable" to leave the Applicant unattended for any other time due to safety concerns.[50]
3. The Tribunal had the benefit of Mr Stretton's oral testimony.
4. Mr Stretton confirmed that his recommendations as outlined in his report: 4 hours per day of 1:1 support ratio to undertake activities involving self-care, 1.5 hours per day of 1:2 support when eating meals, 4 hours per week of 1:2 support with shopping and meal planning, 6 hours per week of 1:2 support to engage with instrumental activities of daily living. Otherwise, the provision of 1:3 support for the Applicant is sufficient to ensure her needs and safety. He also assumed that all sporting activities would require 1:1 support. However, if the Applicant's housemates were also participating in the same activities, he is of the view that 1:3 support is sufficient.
5. Mr Stretton confirmed that he was not concerned with the high volume of structured activities in the Applicant's weekly timetable, stating that he accepted the evidence from Ms Midgely that the Applicant was better regulated when she had structured activities. He also confirmed that he undertook the assessment in the Applicant's home when her housemate was not present. He had no concerns about the Applicant's needs being met if she resided in a three person share household, assuming a compatible housemates.
6. At hearing Mr Stretton confirmed that he had reviewed the reports authored by Ms Bauchinger, occupational therapist, who advocates for 1:2 support. In his view, a ratio of 1:3 will not prevent skill and capacity building as it has been demonstrated that the Applicant can learn tasks by repetition. Further, providing increased support during the transition period to 1:3 support in the home, such as a 2:3 ratio, should be sufficient to ensure a successful transition.

1. I am satisfied that the provision of SIL at a ratio of 1:2 is necessary to address the needs of the Applicant arising from her impairments in which she met the disability requirements for the following reasons.
2. The Applicant's impairments are not in dispute. As reported by Ms Tadros, the Applicant's general intellectual ability falls within the extremely low range. She faces challenges in various cognitive domains, including verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory and processing speed, expressive and receptive language skills, manifesting in difficulties in problem-solving, decision-making, learning new information and adapting to novel situations.
3. I also accept, noting no objection from the Respondent, Ms Tadros's assessment[51] that the Applicant experiences a significant level of anxiety-related symptoms across various domains, including feelings of nervousness, physical symptoms including palpitations and difficulties breathing, as well as cognitive symptoms of fear of losing control or dying and seeking reassurance. This, together with her intellectual disability, further complicates her level of functioning.[52]
4. In reaching my conclusion I have given no weight to the Applicant's preference for her current living arrangements, nor to the fact that a change to a 1:3 ratio would require the Applicant and her current housemate to find alternative accommodation to accommodate a third resident. These are not relevant considerations. Instead, I simply had regard to subsection 34(1) of the Act in reaching my conclusion. I am simply not persuaded given the evidence before me that a support ratio of 1:3 is sufficient to meet the needs of the Applicant arising from her impairments, even in a harmonious environment with two other well-matched individuals.
5. I accept the Respondent's submissions that the Applicant is a busy young woman who spends limited time at her SIL accommodation and, of the time she spends in her home, a significant portion of this is when she sleeps.
6. Ms Bauchinger gave her evidence in a frank and forthright manner and never gave the appearance of advocacy. I am not persuaded, as the Respondent contends, that it is only Mr Stretton's evidence that is independent.
7. I accept that Ms Bauchinger's assessment was based on her clinical observations over time, notwithstanding the fact that she does not provide frequent therapy to the Applicant. I gave significant weight to Ms Bauchinger's assessment that the Applicant requires a high degree of prompting and cognitive support with undertaking basic and instrumental activities of daily living, requiring standby assistance from support workers to complete tasks and ensure her safety.[53] I also accept that the Applicant also requires support to navigate social interactions with others due to her anxiety and intellectual disability, which results in maladaptive coping skills (including trichotillomania, excoriation disorder, emotional outbursts, inconsolable crying, raised voice and banging objects) and other behaviours of concern.[54] Ms Bauchinger's assessment is consistent with the evidence provided by Ms Midgely and Mr Jones, as well and was corroborated by the SECP providers, who also noted that the Applicant is provided more support than the respective funding ratios of 1:2 and 1:3 acknowledges. It is also consistent with Ms Tadros's assessment the Applicant "thrives on 1:1 support"[55] and she would benefit from 1:2 support ratio in the home.[56]
8. I found the mother to be a compelling witness; she gave her evidence in a candid manner and did not appear to overstate the Applicant's impairments and support needs. I accept her description of the Applicant's needs and how she interacts with others to have those needs met.
9. I placed weight on the data collected by Mr Jones regarding the frequency of the Applicant exhibiting behaviours of concern, notwithstanding that the data was collected for only 16 days. I note that the Agency did not dispute the veracity of the data collected.
10. I also found Mr Stretton a compelling witness. His functional capacity assessment is the most contemporary evidence available. I accept his clinical observations, though I have come to a different conclusion as to the ratio of support required. Ms Midgely was present throughout most of Mr Stretton's assessment and Mr Stretton noted that the Applicant frequently sought reassurance and assistance from her to complete tasks and respond to questioning. He also noted that the Applicant demonstrated cognitive fatigue at the conclusion of the assessment. I gave greater weight to the observations and data provided by Ms Midgely, Mr Jones and the SECP providers than the observations made by Mr Stretton over his time-limited assessment, during which the Applicant received 1:1 support from Ms Midgely for most of its duration.
11. I see the difficulty in the Agency's position to be that the evidence regarding the Applicant's requirement for 1:1 support (such as when she seeks reassurance and co-regulation) do not occur at discrete two-hour periods in the mornings and evenings, which is when they propose to fund a support worker at a ratio of 1:1.
12. I accept Ms Midgely's testimony that the current provision of 1:2 support in the morning and evenings to assist the Applicant undertake her routines and personal care tasks is sufficient, and therefore 1:1 support at these times is not necessary. I am not satisfied that the provision of SIL at a ratio of 1:1 for four hours per day, seven days a week is necessary to address the Applicant's needs arising from her impairments. The evidence before me indicates that this would constitute an over-servicing to the Applicant. In reaching this conclusion, I accept the evidence of Ms Midgely that the ratio of support provided between the Applicant and her housemate weighs heavily in favour of the Applicant. In this regard, it is a fortunate pairing.
13. The Respondent states that the provision of SECP 1:3 support on Wednesdays to Fridays indicates that the Applicant is capable of sharing supports at this ratio, with there being no evidence of any risks arising from the provision of support at this level. It is evident that whilst there may be no risk to her safety, there is evidence from both SECP providers that the Applicant in fact receives a greater ratio of support than the funding suggests.
14. Having said that, there are obviously times when the Applicant will not require 1:2 support when in the home. There are occasions when the Applicant is engaged in passive activities (such as screen time or listening to music) where 1:3 support in the home is more than sufficient. Further, a ratio of 1:3 would be sufficient overnight. There is only anecdotal evidence that the Applicant requires support overnight, and any assistance that is required falls within the passive overnight classification of no more than two hours per night. However, as Ms Bauchinger pointed out, the practical reality is that it is simply not possible that a third person can enter the home overnight to meet the funding ratio of 1:3.
15. On balance, I am persuaded that the most appropriate provision of SIL is at a ratio of 1:2 as this strikes the proper balance considering the Applicant's needs arising from her impairment whilst in the home.
16. Based on the allied health evidence before me I am satisfied that the provision of SIL is a necessary support arising from the Applicant's impairments. Paragraph 34(1)(aa) of the Act is satisfied.
17. I am satisfied that the provision of SIL at a ratio of 1:2 will assist the Applicant to pursue the goals, objectives and aspirations included in her statement of goals and aspirations, including building her everyday living skills, assist her to maintain social relationships, build her communication skills and will be effective and beneficial having regard to current practice, the expert opinion in evidence and her lived experience.[57] Paragraphs 34(1)(a),(b) and (d) of the Act are satisfied.
18. I am also satisfied that the provision of 1:2 support represents value for money, as required under s 34(1)(c) of the Act. I have reached this state of satisfaction taking into account the financial viability of the scheme. As stated in the Support Rules, this provision is not simply about identifying a similar support at a lower cost. Consideration must also be given to the cost of the support relative to the benefits achieved, and the cost of alternative supports. The evidence does not persuade me that the same outcomes could be achieved by the provision of 1:3 support when compared to 1:2; provision of support at a 1:3 ratio would result in the Applicant not receiving adequate support and assistance as and when required. Clearly, this would not improve her life stage outcomes nor be of assistance to her in the long-term. Having said that, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the provision of 1:2 funding is likely to reduce the cost of funding supports for the Applicant in the long term, though it is possible.
19. The Applicant is a young woman. Her family provides overnight care one night per week. I am not persuaded that it is reasonable for her family or informal networks to provide more care than they currently are. Paragraph 34(1)(e) of the Act is satisfied.
20. And finally, it is not in contention, and I so find, that the provision of SIL at a ratio of 1:2 is an NDIS support. Paragraph 34(1)(f) of the Act is satisfied.

1. I conclude that the provision of SIL at a ratio of 1:2 support worker assistance at all times (excluding periods of SECP funding), including passive overnight, is a reasonable and necessary support pursuant to s 34(1) of the Act.

2. At the commencement of the hearing, the Respondent advised that it conceded that the SECP support as requested by the Applicant, were reasonable and necessary supports, being:

ii. 12 hours per week of 1:2 support at the weekday daytime rate;

iii. 24 hours per week of 1:3 support at the weekday daytime rate;

1. It was submitted on behalf of the Applicant that the current ratios provided at the two SECP programs were not contested. As I understood these submissions, a reconsideration of SECP support ratios would take place only once the SIL ratio was determined by this Tribunal. The Applicant was aware that this would require a new application to the Agency.
2. I have already generally outlined the evidence from the SECP providers regarding the provision of support provided to the Applicant whilst she participates in these activities. Not dissimilar to the home environment, it is apparent that the Applicant often requires greater support and assistance than the 1:2 and 1:3 ratios currently provided would indicate.
3. I have already referred to an undated report from Fighting Chance, the SECP provider that provides support to the Applicant whilst she undertakes three days of work. The provider recommended that the Applicant's next plan see an increase in her staffing ratio from 1:3 to 1:2 based on six incidents where the Applicant required 1:1 support.
4. Whilst I do not positively conclude that the 1:3 ratio currently provided is sufficient to meet the Applicant's support needs whilst she participates in this three day program, I am satisfied that the ongoing provision of 1:3 ratio of SECP support should not be disturbed. Certainly, the Applicant does not seek an increase. Whilst this may appear contradictory to my findings about the provision of SIL at a ratio of 1:2, in light of the fact that the Applicant does not press this issue, it is for a limited period of 24 hours per week and that current staffing ratio at the program appears to be able to currently meet the Applicant's higher support needs I am satisfied that the ratio of support should remain undisturbed. That is, it should remain at its current funding level.
5. I conclude that the provision of SECP in the ratios outlined at [29] are reasonable and necessary supports pursuant to s 34(1) of the Act.

c) Provision of speech therapy at 74 hours per annum

1. In her report dated 13 September 2023, Ms Amos, behaviour support practitioner, recommended that the Applicant continue to be provided speech therapy.[58] She did not state the reasons for this recommendation.
2. In her report dated 2 April 2024, Ms Tadros observed:[59]

[The Applicant]'s speech and language difficulties were pervasive throughout the assessment session, affecting both her expressive and receptive language abilities. In terms of expressive language, [the Applicant] experienced challenges with word retrieval, often struggling to find the appropriate words to express her thoughts. This difficulty was evident in her limited vocabulary, as well as her struggles with morphology and syntax, which encompassed issues with word forms and sentence structure. > > Moreover, [the Applicant] exhibited notable difficulties with pragmatics, the social aspects of language use, which impacted her ability to engage in effective communication. She displayed challenges in understanding and using language in social contexts, such as maintaining appropriate conversational topics and adhering to conversational norms. > > In addition to expressive language difficulties, [the Applicant] also faced challenges with receptive language processing. She required frequent repetition and clarification of instructions, suggesting difficulties in understanding and interpreting verbal prompts. These receptive language difficulties may have contributed to her overall performance on tasks requiring auditory processing and comprehension. > > It's important to recognise that [the Applicant]'s speech and language difficulties may have underestimated her true cognitive abilities, particularly in tasks reliant on verbal expression and comprehension. Her struggles in these areas likely impacted her performance on verbal tasks, highlighting the need for alternative assessment strategies that accommodate her communication challenges.

Therapy and Speech Services: [The Applicant] would benefit from ongoing therapy sessions to address her anxiety symptoms and develop coping strategies to manage stress and emotional regulation. Additionally, consistent speech therapy sessions should be recommended to target her expressive and receptive language difficulties. These interventions should be provided by qualified therapists experienced in working with individuals with intellectual disabilities and communication disorders.

1. There is in evidence a report/quote authored by Ms Nicole Ng, speech therapist dated 25 May 2024.[61] Ms Ng advocated for the provision of minimum weekly speech therapy to build her functional receptive and expressive language skills. Ms Ng provided a progress report dated 12 August 2024,[62] recommending that the Applicant continue to receive ongoing weekly therapy targeting her receptive and expressive language. It was noted that despite making gains, the Applicant continues to present with a reduced functional capacity for communication and presents with a severe language disorder, severe written language difficulties and social communication difficulties.[63]
2. I note that the daily activity record provided by the mother indicates that the Applicant was receiving fortnightly speech therapy. The Applicant contends that the increase from fortnightly to weekly speech therapy is necessary to better develop the Applicant's communication capacity.
3. The Respondent submits that the provision of speech therapy of 74 hours per annum, comprising provision of therapy, planning and reporting is a reasonable and necessary support pursuant to s 34(1) of the Act.
4. The evidence before me indicates that the Applicant has communication difficulties in the domains of expressive and receptive language, which is consistent with Mr Stretton's observation at the functional capacity assessment.[64]
5. I am sufficiently persuaded that the provision of speech therapy of 74 hours per annum (including weekly therapy, planning and reporting) is a reasonable and necessary support that should be funded under the NDIS, pursuant to s 34(1) of the Act.

1. For the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that the matter should be set aside and remitted for reconsideration in accordance with my findings regarding the SIL, SECP and speech therapy supports. It is appropriate that all other reasonable and necessary supports in the Applicant's current statement of participant supports be replicated and the reassessment date is 12 months after the day on which the reasonable and necessary supports are included in the Applicant's statement of participant supports.

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the matter for reconsideration in accordance with the order that:

1. (a) The following supports are reasonable and necessary support pursuant to subsection 34(1) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013:
2. (i) Funding for SIL compromising 1:2 support worker assistance (excluding periods during which SECP supports are funded), including passive overnight, at the standard intensity pricing;
3. (ii) Provision of Social and Economic Participation at the standard intensity pricing as follows:
4. A) 4 hours per week at the 1:1 ratio for transport;
5. B) 12 hours per week of 1:2 supports at the weekday, daytime rate; and
6. C) 24 hours per week of 1:3 supports at the weekday, daytime rate.

(b) funding for speech therapy comprising 74 hours per annum to provide therapy, planning and reporting;

(c) all other reasonable and necessary supports in the Applicant's current statement of participant supports shall be replicated; and

(d) the reassessment date is 12 months after the day on which the above reasonable and necessary supports are included in the Applicant's statement of participant supports.

[2] Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth) (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.

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

[57] NDIS plans commencing 13 May 2025 and 6 August 2025.