3. On 16 August 2024, a delegate of the CEO of the Agency affirmed an earlier decision to approve an SPS for the Applicant. On 18 September 2024, the Applicant applied for a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) under section 103 of the NDIS Act and section 25 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act).[2]
4. A hearing was held by video on 14 and 15 August 2025. The Applicant was represented by his mother (AM). The Agency was represented by a barrister, Ms R Hamnett of Aickin Chambers, who was instructed by Ms A Lean from Mills Oakley Lawyers.
5. The issues narrowed significantly during the proceedings. Following the hearing, a transcript of the hearing was obtained, and the parties were directed to provide written closing submissions. Final submissions were received on 31 October 2025. On 22 October 2025, the Agency confirmed that the following supports had been agreed between the parties:

(a) Case Mode Bed and Pressure Care Mattress, costing $7,151.20, > > (b) Medifab Carewave cushion, costing $669.32, > > (c) Second hand support chair, costing $1,500, > > (d) funding for Assistive Technology BF ezi-Step 2+2 E-bike, costing $7,448, > > (e) funding for complex home modifications and associated works, including kitchen modifications and HBCF insurance, costing $204,009.14.

6. Having considered the material before me I am satisfied that these are appropriate concessions to make. As these agreed supports have not been incorporated into an updated SPS, I have included the supports in the orders made as reasonable and necessary supports which are to be included in the Applicant's new SPS.

1. For the approved complex home modifications to be completed, the Applicant had to relocate. It is not in dispute that his family's previous accommodation could not be modified as required. The remaining issue before the Tribunal is whether the following costs associated with relocating are reasonable and necessary to include the Applicant's SPS for the purposes of sections 33 and 34 of the NDIS Act:

(a) $30,845 - real estate commission, > > (b) $114,753 - stamp duty, > > (c) $6,853.41 - legal/conveyancing fees, > > (d) $515.13 - mortgage registration fees, > > (e) $395 - loan establishment fees, > > (f) $650 - building and pest inspection, > > (g) $3,500 - removal costs, > > (h) $4,977.62 - furniture rental for sale of home, and > > (i) $8,841.20 - real estate marketing, flyers, photography, and floor plans.

1. The Tribunal was provided with a Joint Hearing Bundle (JHB) by the parties, and this was accepted into evidence.[3] The JHB included:

(a) The T-documents,[4] > > (b) Letters and reports from occupational therapists (OTs) including WS, LW, AE, SC and NS, > > (c) Letters and reports from physiotherapists, including SC, JH and MW, > > (d) Letters and property reports from the Applicant's bank, > > (e) Letters and invoices from real estate agents and conveyancers, > > (f) Letters and quotes from builders, > > (g) A letter of support from the Applicant's GP, > > (h) A duty notice from the NSW state revenue office, and > > (i) Several advices from the Agency's Technical Advice and Practice Improvement Branch (TAPIB).

2. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Applicant's mother, and the Applicant's OT, NS, who completed the complex home modification assessments.

OVERVIEW OF THE NDIS DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK[5]

1. Chapter 1, Part 2 of the NDIS Act sets the Act's objects and principles including, for example, that the Act is to support the independence and social and economic participation of people with disability,[6] that the best interests of a child with a disability are paramount,[7] and that decision-makers are to have regard to the need to ensure the financial sustainability of the scheme.[8]
2. Chapter 3, Part 2 of the NDIS Act deals with participants and their plans and includes further principles in relation to the preparation, variation, reassessment and replacement of plans. This guidance includes that this planning process should, so far as reasonably practicable, be directed by the participant,[9] and be underpinned by the right of the participant to exercise choice and control over his or her life.[10]
3. A participant's plan must include a statement of the participant's goals and aspirations,[11] as well as an SPS that includes the reasonable and necessary supports that will be funded by the Agency.[12]
4. In deciding to approve an SPS, the Agency must have regard to the matters set out in section 33(5), including applying the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (Support Rules), and be satisfied that each support meets the criteria in section 34. The criteria in section 34(1) are that:

(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 ... > > (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.[1]

5. The phrase 'NDIS support' in section 34(1)(f) is defined in section 10 which further provides that rules may be made that declare whether a support is (or is not) an NDIS support. The Minister has made the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Transitional Rules). The Transitional Rules specify supports that are an NDIS support unless otherwise provided (Schedule 1) as well supports that are not NDIS supports (Schedule 2).
6. Section 7 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Transitional Rules 2024 (Miscellaneous Transitional Rules) also require that a support is most appropriately funded or provided through the NDIS, and not more appropriately funded or provided through other general systems of service delivery or support services. This is equivalent to section 34(1)(f) as it was prior to the commencement of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) Act 2024 (Back on Track Act).
7. NDIS Operational Guidelines also assist in making decisions in accordance with the NDIS Act. Operational Guidelines represent government policy and should be applied by the Tribunal unless there is good reason not to do so.[13] I will refer to these guidelines where relevant below.

1. The history of this matter has a very unfortunate timeframe in respect of the commencement of the Transitional Rules. During the hearing, AM provided a detailed history which, in summary, included that:
   • In November 2022, the Applicant's family purchased a two-storey townhouse in Sydney,
   • HYGR received his diagnosis shortly after moving into this townhouse in 2023 and began rapidly deteriorating after June 2023,
   • In November 2023, a complex home modification assessment conducted by NS concluded that relocation was required,
   • Also in November 2023, a nearby property that was suitable for modification was identified and approval from the Agency's complex home modifications team was sought,
   • In February 2024, the Agency advised that the home modifications and relocation could not be approved as further information would be required,
   • In April 2024, the Applicant requested an internal review of the February decision,
   • Around this time the situation became more urgent as HYGR continued to decline and experienced several falls. AM also required back surgery which made it very difficult to carry HYGR up and down the stairs in their townhouse,
   • In August 2024, the Agency provided in-principal approval in their internal review decision for the Applicant and his family to relocate to a home that could be appropriately modified,
   • In September 2024, the Local Area Coordinator sought a direct contact within the complex home modification team so that, if another suitable property was identified, it could be purchased quickly,
   • When this direct contact was refused, the Applicant escalated the matter by seeking a review at the Tribunal,
   • In November 2024, as part of the Tribunal's conferencing process, the Agency advised AM of the changes introduced by the Transitional Rules, and
   • In December 2024, the previously identified suitable property came back on the market (at a higher price), an Agency officer advised that the relocation cost (other than stamp duty) would be funded by the Agency, and AM decided to proceed with purchasing this property.
2. The Agency advice referred to in the last dot point above is an email which states:

Hi [AM] > > Gosh, this must be so incredibly stressful for you. > > The NDIS are able to cover the following expenses as part of the relocation costs: > > -Real estate commission > > -Conveyancing fees > > -Removal costs > > -Mortgage registration fees > > -Loan application or establishment > > -Building/pest inspections > > I have reached out and asked about the marketing costs and whether this would also be covered by us and I will get back to you as soon as I have an answer. > > Unfortunately, I'm still waiting on an outcome re the Stamp Duty.[14]

3. The Applicant submits that the delayed and inconsistent Agency advice has caused distress, physical harm, and financial disadvantage. More specifically, the Applicant identifies three legal issues which they say arise from the above timeline, being:

Issue 1 - Temporal Application and Non-Retro activity > > ● The matter commenced and was in progress before 3 October 2024 > > ● The AAT application was prior to awareness of the Oct 3 change > > ● The decision under review dated 16 August 2024, which affirmed the original decision to approve a statement of participant supports dated 18 July 2024, pre-dated the legislation amendments and therefore the amendments do not apply to the decision under review. Pursuant to section 85 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act), the application for review is taken to be an application for review of the last of those decisions. > > ● The transitional provision in question is item 129(1) of the Back on Track Act_, which provides that s 33, s 34 and s 35 of the_ NDIS Act as amended apply to an 'old framework plan' if the statement of participant supports is approved or varied after the commencement of the amendments. > > ● I raised my previous concerns with NDIS about a new plan invalidating any consideration of the 'old framework' as it had been proposed during the case conference. This was also raised at the hearing and Dr Louise Tofts in May 2025 > > "HYGR's family are now experiencing financial hardship and are frightened to get a new plan as they have concerns that would invalidate the claim for moving costs" ((JTB60) p 663) > > ● Applying the new Transitional Rules 2024 retrospectively breaches principles of procedural fairness and legitimate expectation (Maxwell v Murphy [1957] HCA 7; (1957) 96 CLR 261; Esber v Commonwealth [1992] HCA 20; (1992) 174 CLR 430). > > ● Requested supports are ancillary costs in nature and directly support the implementation of the approved relocation. > > Issue 2 - Reliance, Procedural Fairness, Legitimate Expectation and accrued and vested rights > > ● I reasonably relied and acted on NDIA communications and approvals under the pre-October framework. > > ● The NDIA's delay, silence, and failure to progress the matter caused serious detriment and hardship. > > ● The NDIA's inaction and the sudden rule change mid-process was procedurally unfair and caused harm. > > ● Approval of the plan on 18 July 2024 created a vested right to have supports assessed under the earlier rules. > > Issue 3 - Transitional Provisions and Parliamentary Intent > > ● Parliament intended continuity and fairness during transition - not invalidation of pending support. > > ● Amendments to the transitional rules/schedule are prospective not retrospective.[15]

4. With regards to the application of the changes introduced in October 2024 by the Back on Track Act and the Transitional Rules the Agency submits that:

23. The Amending Act made changes to various planning related provisions of the NDIS Act, including changes to s 34 (reasonable and necessary supports), and ss 43 and 44 (plan management). The introduction of new s 10 (definition of NDIS support) and changes to s 24 (disability requirements) and s 25 (early intervention requirements) are also relevant to the changes made to s 34. > > 24. Subitem 129(1) of Schedule 1 of the Amending Act provides that ss 33, 34 and 35, as in force on and after 3 October 2024, apply to a plan approved or varied on or after that date. Subitem 129(2) of Schedule 1 of the Amending Act provides that if a plan is varied on or after 3 October 2024, the amendments apply irrespective of whether the Applicant's plan came into effect before, or on or after commencement. However, subitems 129(3) and 129(4) of Schedule 1 to the Amending Act provide that the amendments to s 33 of the Act to insert new ss 33(2A) to (2F) initially apply only to an original decision made by a delegate of the CEO. > > 25. As the Tribunal's decision will be made after 3 October 2024, s 34 (as amended) applies to the Applicant's plan and must be considered by the Tribunal. However, the amendments to s 33 of the Act will not apply to the Applicant's plan and consequently, must not be considered by the Tribunal in this application.[16]

5. My view remains that the Agency's position is correct. The Transitional Rules commenced on 3 October 2024. HYGR's application for review was made prior to 3 October 2024. However, the Back on Track Act states that the Transitional Rules apply to this review. Section 32A of the NDIS Act sets out that there are two kinds of plans, being 'new framework plans' and 'old framework plans'. HYGR has an 'old framework plan'. Section 129 of the Back on Track Act deals with the application of the amendments to the content and approval of 'old framework plans' and states that:

sections 33, 34 and 35 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, as in force on and after the commencement of this Schedule, apply in relation to a statement of participant supports included in an old framework plan for a participant if the statement is approved or varied on or after that commencement. > > ... (a) whether the participant becomes a participant; and > > (b) in the case of a variation - whether the plan comes into effect; > > before, on or after that commencement.

6. The Tribunal is now considering whether supports are reasonable and necessary and should be funded as part of HYGR's SPS. The Tribunal must apply the amended considerations in sections 33, 34 and 35 to the Tribunal's decision-making process. This includes applying the Transitional Rules.
7. I considered similar submissions as made by the Applicant with regards to retrospective application and accrued rights in another recent matter, QGGX.[17] As set out in paragraphs 20 to 30 of that decision, I consider that:
   • There is a clear legislative intent that the amended provisions apply to a decision to approve an SPS after commencement of the amendments.
   • A participant would only have an accrued right if this right was specifically preserved by legislative 'saving' provisions, but there is not such a provision that applies in this matter.
   • The Tribunal is required to make a decision as to whether HYGR has a present entitlement to the requested support. This is to be determined based on the current legislative provisions and rules.
8. I note that the facts in QGGX did not include a situation in which an Applicant had relied on advice from the Agency after 3 October 2024. I acknowledge AM's serious concerns with the Agency advice provided in December 2024 and her reliance on that advice in circumstances which were urgent and high risk. However, the central task of the Tribunal is to make the correct and preferable decision. This requires the proper application of the legislation and rules to individual facts and circumstances. The Tribunal is making this decision afresh and is not bound by earlier decisions made, advice given, or undertakings made by the decision-maker whose decision is being reviewed.
9. As identified by the Applicant, the Agency does not appear to be covered by the Commonwealth's scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA). In terms of improving the quality of government decision-making, I would recommend that the Agency review its procedures with a view to ensuring that any advice given to participants, particularly in respect of large or high-risk transactions, is done both carefully and in a timely manner. At a minimum, any public officer giving advice should be clear about their role and authority to provide this advice. In this matter, the person providing the advice does not appear to be an officer with delegated decision-making authority and this should have been made clear to AM. This is an issue that the Applicant may wish to consider raising with the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is the appropriate organisation to consider complaints about the way in which government services are delivered.

1. With regards to relocation costs, the Agency submits that the Transitional Rules apply such that:

... the following are not NDIS Supports as expressly excluded under Schedule 2 Item 1(a), 2(h) and/or (l):

(a) $114,753.00 - stamp duty;

(b) $6,853.41 - legal/conveyancing fees;

(c) $515.13 - mortgage registration fees;

(d) $395.00 - loan establishment fees.

1. Item 1 of Schedule 2 to the Transitional Rules states that the following 'Day-to-day living costs - accommodation' are not NDIS supports:

(a) rent, rental bonds, home and property deposits, stamp duty, mortgage repayments, and strata fees;

(b) purchase of land, or house and land packages;

1. Item 2 of Schedule 2 to the Transitional Rules states that the following 'Day-to-day living costs - finance and payments' are not NDIS supports:

(h) legal costs; > > ... > > (l) debts, liabilities, loan repayments, buy now pay later payments, and taxes.

2. I agree that the expenses listed above are now excluded from being NDIS supports under Schedule 2 to the Transitional Rules.
3. The Agency further submits that:

... the Respondent maintains that following are not referred to, and do not come within any items listed in Schedule 1 to the Transitional Rules. They are therefore not NDIS Supports under s 10. They essentially constitute the costs normally incurred when one moves house:

(a) $30,845.00 - real estate commission;

(b) $650 - building and pest inspection;

(c) $3,500 - removal costs;

(d) $4,977.62 - furniture rental for sale of home;

(e) $8,841.20 - real estate marketing, flyers, photograph, floor plan online etc.

1. The Applicant has referred me to the recent Tribunal decision in Mizzi[18] in which Senior Member Webb found that:

I am not persuaded the relocation supports Mr Mizzi is seeking in respect of the sale of his previous house are within the terms of item 1(b). I do not accept 'the purchase of land, or house and land packages' can be construed to include the sale of a house. Doing so would strain the ordinary meaning of the words used. Item 1(b) is squarely directed to supports relating to the purchase of a house and land package and it does not include supports relating to the separate sale of a house.[19]

2. In that matter, SM Webb considered that the services involved in the sale of Mr Mizzi's previous property:

... to assist transition from his previously unsafe home are within the terms of item 3(b) of Schedule 1 even though services relating to his purchase of a new residence are excluded. The transition was directly related to his disability support needs. To the extent the costs he incurred might be considered as costs of daily living, they are additional costs of reasonable and necessary supports directly attributable to his disability support needs which are not excluded under s 5.1(d) and s 5.2(a) of the Supports Rules.

3. I agree with the reasoning of SM Webb. In relation to HYGR, I consider that the services relating to the sale of the family's previous property are not excluded by Schedule 2 to the Transitional Rules. For HYGR, the need to relocate is directly related to his disability and the approved complex home modifications, which could not reasonably be completed in the family's previous townhouse. These services are ancillary to item 22 of Schedule 1 to the Transitional Rules which states that 'Home modification design and construction' are NDIS supports unless otherwise provided and that these are:

Supports that design, change or modify a participant's home to help the participant live as independently as possible and to live safely at home. > > This includes the following: > > (a) installing equipment or changing a building's structure, fixture or fittings; > > (b) internal and external building modifications to remedy damage arising exclusively from disability-related behaviours or use of NDIS funded assistive technology or equipment; > > (c) regulatory certification requirements for works.

1. Both parties have also referred to the recent decision in Warwick[20] in which the Full Court of the Federal Court found that relocation costs, including those associated with entering into a loan and stamp duty, were not day-to-day living costs excluded under rule 5.1(d) of the Support Rules. However, the Agency contends that:

... the Full Court's consideration of 'day-to-day living costs' arose in respect of only the Support Rules. As is evident from the Schedule 2, Items 1 - 8, that phrase carries a different meaning within the Transitional Rules, because the items associated with that phrase (within Schedule 2) clearly refer to items which may represent one-off, irregular costs. That is, nothing about the Full Court's decision would affect the meaning of, or interpretation of, the Transitional Rules, which were not relevant to the Full Court's decision.

2. I partly agree with this submission. It is plainly correct that the Full Court was considering the Support Rules as they applied prior to the introduction of the Transitional Rules. However, I do not agree that the Full Court's decision does assist with interpreting the Transitional Rules. The Support Rules remain in force and must be read together with the Transitional Rules. In my view, if a requested support is specifically identified in Schedule 2 to the Transitional Rules as not being an NDIS support, there is little room left for the operation of the Support Rules with regards to that specific support. Stamp duty is an example of this. Stamp duty is expressly excluded in Schedule 2 and is not capable of being revived through the application of the Support Rules or the Full Court authorities on the application of these rules.
3. However, Schedule 1 to the Transitional Rules are drafted as inclusive lists and the Support Rules still need to be applied in considering whether supports in Schedule 1, or related items and services, are reasonable and necessary supports. When I am considering whether the costs associated with selling the family's previous property fall within item 22 of Schedule 1 to the Transitional Rules I need to apply the Support Rules. The Full Court's decision in Warwick confirms that such costs are not excluded by rule 5.1(d) of the Support Rules. They are not a type of support that 'relates to day-to-day living costs (for example, rent, groceries and utility fees) that are not attributable to a participant's disability support needs'.
4. I consider that the services required to sell HYGR's former home in order to move to a new home which was suitable for the approved complex home modifications fall within rule 5.2(b) of the Support Rules as they are:

(b) costs that are ancillary to another support that is funded or provided under the

participant's plan, and which the participant would not otherwise incur.

1. The complex home modifications have been approved by the Agency. There was no other reason for the family to relocate and to incur the significant costs and disruption of this relocation. Schedule 2 to the Transitional Rules excludes many of these costs from being covered by the NDIS. Schedule 1 to the Transitional Rules and the Support Rules allow for some of these costs to be funded by the NDIS.
2. I have also considered the Agency's submission that:

In the alternative, and should the Tribunal not be satisfied the relocation costs are not NDIS Supports, those costs as sought by the Applicant that are not specifically excluded, including real estate commission, building and pest inspection, removal costs, furniture rental for sale and real estate marketing, are not sufficiently related to the Applicant's disability as required by Rule 5.1(b).[21]

3. In making this submission, the Agency refers to my reasons in DRVV,[22] in which I concluded that removalist costs were not related to DRVV's impairments. An important point of distinction is that DRVV's relocation was due to a lease ending, as compared with HYGR who is relocating only because this is required to complete the approved complex home modifications.

1. I have also considered the NDIS Home Modifications Guideline which say:

Can we help you move to a more accessible home? > > If there are no other options, we may consider funding supports to help you move to a more accessible home if you choose to do so. These supports must be value for money, and meet the other NDIS funding criteria. We would only fund these supports if your current home can't be modified, or if the modifications would be very high cost or won't meet your needs long term. > > In this situation, we might be able to fund some of the costs involved in selling your current house and buying a more accessible one. Or we might fund the costs involved in moving to a more accessible rental property. > > The most important thing is you check with us before you move. We need to assess your situation first. > > Usually, we won't fund the costs of moving house, unless we decide it's value for money and it's the most effective way to meet your disability support needs. This is because everyone has to pay moving costs, whether or not they have a disability. We can't fund the purchase of your new house or land. We also can't fund standard day-to-day living costs, like rent, rental bonds, home and property deposits, stamp duty, mortgage repayments and strata fees.[23]

2. In considering this guideline, I note that AM clearly went to great effort to check with the Agency before the family purchased the new property and was advised that some relocation expenses would be funded by the NDIS. This advice was incorrect with regards to conveyancing fees, mortgage registration fees, and loan application or establishment fees. However, the advice is consistent with my conclusion with regards to real estate commission, removal costs, and building/pest inspections.
3. To be clear, I am not saying that the Agency's advice has impacted my conclusion on whether these supports are reasonable or necessary, or otherwise. I am observing that the approach taken by AM in seeking to check with the Agency before incurring these expenses is entirely consistent with the Home Modifications Guideline. I also observe that the guidelines contemplate that there may be circumstances in which some costs in selling a house and relocating could be funded. In my view, the guidelines include a limited degree of flexibility which is consistent with application of Schedule 1 to the Transitional Rules and the Support Rules. The Agency's submissions do not appear to be consistent with the Home Modifications Guideline.

1. As the complex home modifications have been conceded by the Agency as being a reasonable and necessary support for HYGR, the ancillary costs for services to sell the family's former home and move to the new home are reasonable and necessary. There was not any evidence put forward to suggest that these costs were anything other than what would usually be incurred in marketing and selling a home and moving to another nearby.
2. I am satisfied that the following services associated with selling the family's townhouse and moving to a home that could be appropriately modified are reasonable and necessary supports to be included in HYGR's SPS:

(a) $30,845 for real estate commission, > > (b) $650 for building and pest inspection, > > (c) $3,500 for removal costs, > > (d) $4,977.62 for furniture rental, and > > (e) $8,841.20 for real estate marketing.

3. These services are attributable to the Applicant's impairments associated with his degenerative condition of Ullrich Congenital Muscular Dystrophy.[24] The Applicant's ability to mobilise within his home will support his goal of increasing his independence, is effective and beneficial, and will improve his social participation.[25] The services are value-for-money relative to the benefits achieved.[26] I am not satisfied that there are lower cost alternatives that would achieve the same outcome.[27] I have taken into account what is reasonable to expect families to provide.[28] These services are NDIS supports and are not excluded under the Transitional Rules.[29] The services are most appropriately funded under the NDIS as they relate directly to the Applicant's disability needs and are not available under another system of support.[30] Overall, I consider that these services are reasonable and necessary supports to be funded in the Applicant's SPS.

1. The decision under review, being the decision of the National Disability Insurance Agency made on 16 August 2024, to approve a statement of participant supports under sections 33(2) and 100(6) of the NDIS Act, is set aside under section 105 of the ART Act and remitted for reconsideration with the directions that:

(a) the statement of participant supports include sufficient funding for the Applicant to be reimbursed for the following expenses: > > > (i) $30,845 for real estate commission; > > > > (ii) $650 for building and pest inspection; > > > > (iii) $3,500 for removal costs; > > > > (iv) $4,977.62 for furniture rental; > > > > (v) $8,841.20 for real estate marketing. > > (b) the statement of participant supports include sufficient funding for the following agreed items: > > > (i) Case Mode Bed and Pressure Care Mattress, costing $7,151.20; > > > > (ii) Medifab Carewave cushion, costing $669.32; > > > > (iii) second hand support chair, costing $1,500; > > > > (iv) funding for Assistive Technology BF ezi-Step 2+2 E-bike, costing $7,448; and > > > > (v) funding for complex home modifications and associated works, including kitchen modifications and HBCF insurance, costing $204,009.14. > > (c) the date by which the Agency must reassess the Applicant's plan is 12 months from the date that the above supports are added to the Applicant's plan. > > (d) the remaining aspects of the statement of participant supports, including plan management, remain unchanged.

I certify that the preceding 49 (forty-nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member J Toohey.

[1] Report dated 5 July 2025. Page 648 of the Joint Hearing Bundle. Emphasis in original.

[2] On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.

[3] The document numbering in the hearing bundle index is adopted throughout these reasons.

[4] Which are all the records that the Agency considered when making the decision under review as required by section 37 of the AAT Act.

[5] I have used a similar overview in other decisions.

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

[14] Email from LK dated 18 December 2024.

[15] Applicant's closing submissions, 30 October 2025. Emphasis in original.

[16] Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, 5 June 2025, page 735 of the Joint Hearing Bundle. Notes omitted.

[17] QGGX and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 1903, [20-30].

[18] Mizzi and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 2155.

[20] National Disability Insurance Agency v Warwick [2025] FCAFC 100.

[21] Page 738 of the Joint Hearing Bundle.

[22] DRVV and National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 158.

[23] NDIS Operational Guideline: Home modifications published 4 June 2025, page 9. Notes omitted.

[29] Sections 10 and 34(1)(f) as amended.

[30] Section 34(1)(f) prior to amendment.