2. In her functional capacity report, occupational therapist (AG), describes the impacts of DID as follows:

DID, previously known as Multiple Personality Disorder, is a complex psychological condition that has strong ties to having a trauma history and undergoing Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs). DID is a form of dissociation which is a mental process that produces a lack of connection in thoughts, memories, feelings, actions, or sense of identity. Dissociative episodes are thought to be a coping mechanism in response to traumatic experience(s). > > A person who has DID is known to be part of a "system". This system consists of two or more separate identities called "alters". Alters control the person's behaviour at various times and each has their own personal history, traits, likes, and dislikes. Often, one of the alters is the main one seen presenting and this alter is known as the "host" although [KDPY] prefers that she not be referred to as an alter. > > [KDPY] finds it challenging to speak about her internal experience of DID, so it is unknown to this OT how many alters she has although in Dr [CM's] letter it is indicated that [KDPY] has at least 5 alters. In discussion with her trusted Support Worker of 2 years, [LJ], she reports that she believes "[KDPY]" to be the host of the system (which [KDPY] notes she sees as her true and core self), and that she has met some of [KDPY's] alters during times when [KDPY] has been triggered in some way. [KDPY] is who her support team have been doing capacity building with as [KDPY] is engaged in her recovery journey and when she is calm and connected she experiences reduced dissociative episodes.[2]

3. On 11 September 2024, a delegate of the Agency's CEO affirmed an earlier decision to approve a new statement of participant supports (SPS) for KDPY. On 26 September 2024, the Applicant sought a review of this decision by the Tribunal. While the matter was before the Tribunal, the Applicant's plan was automatically extended on 3 May 2025, and the Agency conducted a reassessment and approved a new SPS on 16 February 2026. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the decisions to approve the original and subsequent SPSs in accordance with section 103 of the NDIS Act and section 12 of the ART Act. The 16 February 2026 reassessment approved several of the supports requested by the Applicant which were the subject of the Tribunal's review.
4. A hearing by video was scheduled to be held on 18, 19 and 20 February 2026. On 30 January 2026, the Applicant advised that she was not longer being assisted by a disability advocate from People with Disabilities Australia. On 13 February 2026, the Agency requested that the hearing proceed 'on-the-papers' and the Applicant agreed to this. With the consent of the parties, the Tribunal agreed to proceed 'on-the-papers' under section 106(2) of the ART Act. Final evidence and submissions were received on 6 March 2026.

1. The remaining issues before the Tribunal are whether the following supports are reasonable and necessary to include in the Applicant's SPS for the purposes of sections 33 and 34 of the NDIS Act:

(a) an additional 10 hours of support worker assistance per week, and > > (b) short-term accommodation for respite.

1. The Tribunal was provided with T-documents,[3] a Joint Tender Bundle (JTB), and further reports and statements which were accepted into evidence.[4] In summary, this evidence includes:

(a) Reports from the Applicant's treating practitioners: > > > (i) Occupational therapists (AG and JD); > > > > (ii) Behaviour support practitioner (HC); > > > > (iii) General Practitioner (Dr KB); > > (b) Letters from a support workers (LJ) and support coordinator (JR) > > (c) Statements from the Applicant; > > (d) Copies of the Applicant's NDIS plans; and > > (e) Reports by an independent occupational therapist (VR).

OVERVIEW OF THE NDIS DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK[5]

1. Chapter 1, Part 2 sets the NDIS Act's objects and principles, including, for example, that reasonable and necessary supports should support the independence and social and economic participation of people with disability,[6] enable people with disability to exercise choice and control in the pursuit of their goals and the planning and delivery of their supports,[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 the planning process should, so far as reasonably practicable, be directed by the participant,[9] and facilitate tailored and flexible responses to the individual goals and needs of the participant.[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] 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.

4. The phrase 'NDIS support' in section 34(1)(f) is defined in section 10 which further provides that rules may be made to 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 as supports that are not NDIS supports (Schedule 2).
5. 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 requires 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).

Impairments which meet the disability requirements - section 34(1)(aa)

1. The Agency does not contend that any of the supports requested by the Applicant arise from impairments in relation to which KDPY does not meet the disability requirements. Having considered the information before me, I am satisfied that KDPY has permanent intellectual, cognitive, neurological, and sensory impairments to which a psychosocial disability is attributable. These impairments result in a substantially reduced functional capacity for social interaction, learning, self-care, and self-management. These impairments affect KDPY's capacity for social and economic participation and KDPY is likely to require NDIS supports for her lifetime.[13]

Applicant's goals and aspirations - section 34(1)(a)

1. Section 34(1)(a) of the NDIS Act requires decision-makers to consider whether a support will assist a participant to pursue their goals and aspirations. In KDPY's plan dated 16 February 2026, her goals are stated to be:

(a) I would like to access the necessary clinical recovery supports to help me manage my trauma responses, mental health and emotional wellbeing so I can maintain a way of life that is worth living; > > (b) I would like to be able to have access to mental health retreats to allow me respite from my role as primary carer of my son who is also under the scheme and give me time to focus on my personal recovery and wellbeing; > > (c) I would like access to Physiotherapy and hydrotherapy to increase my mobility, help manage pain caused by my spondyloarthrophany[14] and increase my health, fitness wellbeing; > > (d) I would like support to develop the confidence and skills to advocate for myself and other mental health consumers, so that I can have greater choice and control in my life; > > (e) I would like to explore options for volunteering, with a view to working part-time in future; and > > (f) I would like support to travel domestically and internationally to visit my children.

2. I will return to these goals when considering the specific supports requested below. I note that the Applicant may wish to consider revisiting these goals as they have not been updated across multiple plans.

Support request (a): additional support worker hours

1. The Applicant is seeking 1:1 support worker assistance with daily life and social and community participation for 6 hours per day, 7 days per week, as well 1 hour per day for provider travel.
2. The Agency advises that the Applicant's current plan, which started on 16 February 2026, includes funding for 32 hours per week for 1:1 support worker assistance. The Agency submits that these hours could be used flexibly, for example, for 4 hours each weekday and 6 hours on Saturday and Sunday.
3. I note that the funding in KDPY's current plan for support worker assistance is considerably higher than in previous plans:

(a) In the plan approved on 21 June 2023, funding for support workers was approximately $98,000 over a 24-month period.[15] > > (b) In the plan approved on 3 May 2024, funding for support workers was approximately $94,000 over a 12-month period.[16] (While this total figure is less than the 2023 plan above, it was close to doubling the support worker funding as this funding could be used in 12 months, rather than having to be spread over 24 months). > > (c) In the plan approved on 16 February 2026, funding for support workers is $159,067.92 over a 12-month period.

4. I note this because some of the reports provided by the Applicant's treating practitioners relate to the 2023 and 2024 plans and need to be read in the context of their concerns with the adequacy of supports in those plans.
5. In her functional capacity report dated 1 February 2024, occupational therapist (AG) recommends 84 hours per week of support worker assistance for KDPY, saying:

It is recommended [KDPY] receive increased funding for Support Workers as her function fluctuates frequently. Currently on average [KDPY] is reportedly utilising 8 hours for Support Workers daily which can go up to 12 hours dependent on her function each day. > > She currently does not have sufficient funding to manage this increase in Support Worker hours, however her DID and Spondyloarthropathy have reportedly been easier to manage with the increased support and [KDPY] has had fewer hospitalisations, mental health service, police, and ambulance involvement (please see Behavioural and Mental Health). > > Additionally, the weekends are a known high risk time for behaviours of concern for [KDPY] as she does not typically have Support Workers available and "my head is not a safe place to be in". Please see her Interim Behaviour Support Plan for further information. > > It is the opinion of this OT that, without an increase in funding for Support Worker hours, [KDPY's] function is at risk of declining and her quality of life will reduce. > > Additionally, to achieve her goal of visiting her son in Canada, [KDPY] will require a Support Worker to travel with her to assist her with managing the impacts of her disabilities on her mental and physical health.[17]

6. I note that AG's report is more than two-years old and that KDPY is no longer seeking the number of hours recommended by AG.
7. In the comprehensive behaviour support plan dated 22 July 2024, behaviour support practitioner (HC) describes says KDPY's behaviours of concerns as being:

(a) Managing transitions from community to home when distressed and emotionally dysregulated, including that KDPY can:

• Wander away from supporters, move away fast and hide;
  • Resist verbal attempts by others to encourage her stop, slow down or stay away from high-risk places;
  • Change voice, mannerisms and demeanour. She may sound and act younger than her biological age and life experience;
  • Say "just leave me here" or stop in one place (such as on a bridge) and not move;
  • Refuse to return to the car;
  • Seem confused and not aware of who supporters are;
  • Run away and hide should emergency responders attend.

(b) Leaving safe places and supports when highly distressed and emotionally dysregulated.

• Going alone to high-risk areas;
  • Experiencing suicidal thoughts.

(c) Self-medicating by overdosing on prescribed medications when highly distressed and emotionally dysregulated.[18]

HC also reported that the frequency of these behaviours were decreased by the assistance of support workers and that support worker hours may be able to be reduced over time, saying:

Since trusted formal supports were increased to 30 - 45 hours per week including evening and weekend help with emotional regulation and problem solving, [KDPY] has not accessed emergency or inpatient mental health supports. > > Not continuously rebounding between home and hospital in the past 12 months has meant that [KDPY] has been able to start working towards her higher order NDIS goals, including reconnecting with her adult children and re-engaging in the community. As [KDPY] continues to increase her capacity, including return to work and or study in some form, and firming up her informal relationships, it is expected that over the next 2 - 3 years [KDPY] will be able to reduce her levels of 1:1 formal NDIS supports. However, this process needs to be carefully considered with [KDPY]'s involvement and faded in correlation with [KDPY's] demonstrated improved capacity and readiness to do so.[19]

HC also indicates that the comprehensive behaviour support plan was completed in consultation with the Applicant, saying:

[KDPY] participated in face to face data collection, supporting interviews with her and her supporters, reviewing reports including four home visits and five telephone consults from November 2023 until the end of July 2024.[20]

In her report dated 4 February 2025, mental health occupational therapist (JD), recommends 6 hours of support worker assistance for KDPY each day (42 hours per week).[21] JD also indicates that she has worked with KDPY since February 2018 and that her assessment as completed with KDPY over 2.5 hours with KDPY's support worker present.[22] In her letter of support dated 12 February 2026, JD provides her opinion as to why this level of support workers assistance is required, stating:

[KDPY] lives with dissociative identity disorder, a complex and severe trauma-related condition that involves dissociation, identity disruption, memory gaps, emotional dysregulation, and periods of reduced awareness and control. These symptoms fluctuate in response to stress and environmental demands and have a significant impact on her daily functioning and safety. > > [KDPY's] stability is highly dependent on consistent and adequate support. When appropriate supports are in place, she is better able to regulate her emotions, remain safe in the community, and participate in daily activities. When supports are insufficient, her vulnerability increases significantly. > > [KDPY] recently required hospital admission due to heightened stress and deterioration in her mental health. This admission, alongside my previous incident report relating to events at [omitted] Mall, clearly demonstrates the risks that arise when adequate one-to-one support is not available. During periods of stress or overwhelm, [KDPY's] dissociation and reduced executive functioning can substantially compromise her safety in community environments. > > Given the chronic, severe, and fluctuating nature of her condition, I strongly support [KDPY's] request for one-to-one support for 6 hours per day, 7 days per week, including public holidays. In my professional opinion, this level of support is reasonable and necessary to: > > • Maintain her safety in the community > > • Reduce the risk of further hospital admissions > > • Support emotional regulation and grounding during dissociative episodes > > • Assist with daily living tasks when executive functioning is impaired > > • Provide supervision and timely intervention during periods of increased vulnerability > > [KDPY's] safety must remain paramount. The requested level of support is preventative and protective in nature. It aims to reduce crisis presentations, mitigate risk of harm, and provide the stability required to maintain community living. In my professional opinion, this level of daily support is proportionate to the functional impact of her psychosocial disability and is necessary to sustain her wellbeing and safety.

In a medical certificate dated 9 February 2026, Dr KB states that:

[KDPY] is a long term patient of mine and I have been seeing her for over 10 years. I feel I am in a position to be able to comment and support her request for extra carer hours as I have seen at first hand the impact the carers have on her ... safety, quality of life and huge reduction in cost to the health services. > > [KDPY] requires 365 day coverage and 7 hrs a day, to enable her to cope with her severe mental health needs. Obviously these needs do not go away on public [holidays], and in fact could be magnified at those often emotional times. > > Thus I fully support her request for these extra hours. The consequence of not allowing this request could be potentially hugely significant to her Mental health and well being and would likely see an increase in use ... of the hospital system and local community mental health team. Since the carers have been involved there has been a dramatic reduction in crisis management needed but often the [carers] have given up their own time due to lack of enough hours in the package.

The Agency relies on the reports of occupational therapist, (VR), dated 18 June 2025 and 27 January 2026. VR's reports are based on an in-home assessment conducted on 30 May 2025. VR notes the following in the report's methodology section:

Information for this report was compiled from information obtained from [KDPY] and her support worker at the time of assessment and review of materials provided with referral. > > Present at the time of the interview was [KDPY] and her support worker, [LJ]. [KDPY] requested that her support coordinator/advocate be present for the assessment, and [KC], Advocate for People with Disability, was present on the phone for the duration of the assessment. The occupational therapist requested that the interview was not to be recorded. > > [KDPY] did not consent to photographs being taken at the time of assessment. > > [KDPY] did not agree to simulate any activity during the assessment; she only agreed to an interview. > > The interview was conducted over a two-hour period.[23]

At the time of the assessment, [KDPY] did not exhibit any impairments related to DID or her other mental health conditions. [KDPY's] function on the day of assessment was assessed as being her 'baseline' level of functioning: interactive, talkative and could ask questions of the occupational therapist.[24]

14. At Appendix 1 of the June 2025 report, VR provides a weekly schedule of recommended support worker hours which indicates that KDPY requires the following 1:1 supports:
    • Monday, 4 hours;
    • Tuesday, 6 hours;
    • Wednesday, 4 hours;
    • Thursday, 6-7 hours;
    • Friday, 4 hours;
    • Saturday, 4 hours; and
    • Sunday, 4 hours.[25]
15. Based on Appendix 1, the weekly support worker hours recommended by VR is 32 to 33 hours. I was unable to work out why VR recommends additional hours on Tuesday and Thursday as there did not seem to be an difference in the activities indicated on these days as compared to the other days of the week.
16. However, in her January 2026 supplementary report, VR provides an opinion that funding for 21 hours per week as included in KDPY's May 2024 plan is sufficient.[26] VR also provided a new appendix with a daily schedule indicating support worker assistance for 3 hours.[27] The reason for the change in VR's recommendation is not apparent to me from the written reports provided. VR also expands on limitations in her assessment of KDPY, saying:

[KDPY] declined to simulate activities, declined physical assessment, and > > consented only to a verbal interview. This significantly limited the scope of the > > assessment and restricted the extent to which functional capacity could be > > directly observed and assessed. Any resulting limitations in clinical opinion are > > therefore attributable to the assessment constraints arising from [KDPY's] > > non-participation.[28]

17. In her submissions dated 2 February 2026, the Applicant raises many concerns with VR's report. In particular, I note that these concerns include that VR's assessment:
    • Does not give sufficient emphasis to the stress and anxiety her youngest son's behaviour causes KDPY;
    • Overstates KDPY's capacity and caring responsibilities for her mother and brother;
    • Incorrectly assumes that KDPY was not dissociating (KDPY has little memory of the assessment indicating that an alter presented for the assessment);
    • Does not recognise that an alter would not disclose the dissociative state other than to 2-3 highly trusted individuals;
    • Does not account for KDPY's distrust of assessment processes which have previously resulted in removal of children from her care;
    • Does not sufficiently acknowledge the calming influence of having LJ present in-person with KC on the phone;
    • Was not informed by specialist mental health qualifications or experience.[29]
18. On balance, while I have given weight to the each of the expert opinions, I have placed less weight on the opinions of VR. I consider that it is likely that KDPY presented as requiring less support during VR's assessment as KDPY did not have the required level of trust in VR due to KDPY's trauma experience and DID. The logic of how VR arrived at the recommended support hours and the change in her recommendations between her original and supplementary report is unclear. I have also placed less weight on the report of AG due to this report being prepared more than 2 years ago. I prefer the opinions of HC, JD and Dr KB based on their greater experience with KDPY over time.
19. Based on the information before me, I consider that 6 hours of 1:1 support worker assistance, 7 days per week, is a reasonable and necessary support for KDPY. This level of support worker assistance is necessary to address needs arising from impairments in relation to which KDPY meets the disability requirements.[30] This will support her goal of managing her trauma responses, mental health and emotional wellbeing.[31] This level of support worker assistance will assist with the Applicant's social and economic participation.[32] Support worker assistance is effective and beneficial as supported by evidence of good practice in assessments by appropriately qualified allied health practitioners.[33] Having regard to the operation and effectiveness of the Applicant's previous plans, I consider that the 2023 and 2024 plans have not operated effectively in meeting KDPY's disability support needs.[34] The support workers are value for money relative to the benefits achieved.[35] I am not satisfied that there are alternatives that would achieve the same outcome at a substantially lower cost.[36] I do not consider that it is reasonable for family, informal or community supports to provide this assistance.[37] These types of assistance are NDIS supports under items 14, 23 and 27 of Schedule 1 of the Transitional Rules_._ They are not excluded under schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules.[38] Support worker services are most appropriately funded under the NDIS as they relate directly to the Applicant's disability needs and are not more appropriately provided under another system of support.[39]
20. However, based on my approval of the above support worker hours, I do not consider that an additional hour per day for provider travel is required. I also agree with HC's opinion that this level of support worker assistance may be able to be reduced over time. The anticipated improvements in KDPY's functional capacity are not yet present. It may be that, during the next reassessment, it would be appropriate to consider whether a gradual 'step-down' of supports is appropriate. This is a matter for a future decision-maker to consider.

Support request (b): short term accommodation for respite

1. The Applicant seeks 28 days per year of 1:1 short term accommodation for respite. There are several reports that are supportive of this request. For example, the plan review report prepared by the Applicant's support coordinator (JR) in December 2023 says:

Goal: I would like to be able to have access to mental health retreats to allow me respite from my role as primary carer of my son who is also under the scheme and give me time to focus on my personal recovery and wellbeing. > > [progress] > > 1. [KDPY] has been supported to travel and participate in respite / STA stays. In September she visited friends and family in Canberra, allowing her to maintain positive relationships and have new experiences. In October, [KDPY] travelled to Brisbane, managing an airplane journey with support to manage anxiety and maintain safety. > > 2. Supporting [KDPY] to have positive travelling experiences has been important for maintaining her wellbeing, building capacity and promoting recovery. > > 3. Travelling with support has provided [KDPY] with a break from her caring roles and allowed her to focus on her own needs and wellbeing > > [barriers] > > 1. [KDPY] experiences severe anxiety and difficulties with mobilising when travelling and needs support when visiting new places, being in crowded places, using transport of any kind, and to engage in recreational activities whilst away. > > 2. [KDPY] would like to visit the Blue Mountains in January with her support worker, Lisa. [KDPY] will be working with her SC and support worker to plan the trip and to research economical accommodation and travel options.[40]

2. In her February 2025 report, mental health occupational therapist (JD), says:

[KDPY] requires 28 days a year of respite which must be provided as a 1:1 ratio with a trusted support worker. Due to her severe trauma, [KDPY] cannot go to a respite centre. > > 1. Caregiver Burnout and Mental Health Needs > > • Emotional and Physical Strain of Caring: [KDPY] is the primary carer for multiple family members with disabilities, which places significant emotional, mental, and physical strain on her. Constant caregiving can lead to caregiver burnout, which is associated with stress, anxiety, exhaustion, and physical illness. For [KDPY], this constant caregiving can exacerbate her own mental health conditions, such as bipolar disorder and DID, potentially triggering mood swings, dissociation, or other symptoms that may impact her ability to effectively care for her family. > > • Impact on Bipolar Disorder: [KDPY's] bipolar disorder involves mood fluctuations, including depressive episodes and manic phases, which can be triggered or worsened by stress and overwork. > > Without sufficient rest and recovery, her symptoms could escalate, affecting her ability to care for her family and herself. > > • Impact on DID: Dissociative Identity Disorder involves the presence of distinct identity states, and caregiving responsibilities can worsen dissociation, memory gaps, and identity disturbances. > > Extended periods of caregiving without respite could lead to further fragmentation and impair [KDPY's] ability to function both as a carer and as an individual. > > • Respite is Essential for Mental Health Recovery: The 28 days of respite will provide [KDPY] with the necessary time to recover mentally, emotionally, and physically. This time is critical for [KDPY] to manage her own mental health, allowing her to return to her caregiving duties with a restored capacity to support her family.[41]

3. The Agency relies on the June 2025 report of occupational therapist (VR) who responded to the Agency's questions as follows:

62. Based on your observation and assessment, please explain whether you consider that [KDPY] requires 28 days per year of 1:1 short term accommodation. > > I am unable to comment on whether her son, [HP], is provided with any STA in his current NDIS plan. [KDPY] stated that the provision of STA would provide her with an opportunity to have a break from caring for her son. However, if he is funded for STA, then I consider it unreasonable that [KDPY] would also be funded for STA, as she would be provided with a rest break through her son's plan. > > I note [AG] has recommended the provision of a support worker to travel to Canada with her in order to visit her son. I would consider this cost to be unreasonable, and I do not support this recommendation. > > 63. Do you consider that this support is likely to increase [KDPY] functional capacity and/or reduce the need for future supports? If so, please specify the degree to which you consider this likely to occur. > > No, I do not consider that the provision of STA will reduce future supports, nor will it increase her functional capacity. [KDPY] has a mental health condition that is chronic and lifelong; the provision of STA will not improve her functional capacity. > > ... > > 65. Do you consider that the provision of funding for 28 days of 1:1 STA would affect [KDPY] other core supports (i.e., the amount of regular support worker assistance)? > > If [KDPY] was provided with STA funding to live in a respite facility with shared supports, it is expected that her support hours would be reduced for that period of time, as she would not require 1:1 direct support. Support could be shared with other participants. > > If, as [AG] has suggested, the STA would be to travel to Canada with support worker support, then support worker hours would significantly increase, and I would consider this increase in support worker hours to be unreasonable. > > 66. Please state whether there are comparable supports which would achieve the same outcome at a substantially lower cost (such as a lower ratio of support). Please include reasons for your answer. > > As stated, if [KDPY] was to access a group mental health retreat, where support could be shared. Then, this may be a lower-cost alternative.[42]

4. The Applicant submits that VR's report does not properly consider the therapeutic benefits of mental health retreats or JD's opinion that KDPY requires 1:1 support worker assistance during these retreats.[43]
5. The Agency submits:

[KDPY] seeks funding for STA "to give my carers and son a break and that I can try new things in a safe environment". She also appears to assert that the STA funding is for her own benefit to give her some respite from her role as primary carer of her son. > > The additional support is not properly justified. It is unclear and unexplained why [KDPY's] son "needs a break" from her, or what arrangements exist with his own NDIS funded carers to ensure his needs are met. Whether [KDPY's] son, who is a participant on the NDIS, "needs a break" from [KDPY] is a matter for him to raise with the Agency, and not a justification [KDPY] to have STA funding, especially at 28 days per annum. As [KDPY] states, if the son is funded for STA, it would be unreasonable for [KDPY] also to be funded for STA, as she would be provided with a rest break through the son's plan. > > To the extent the STA funding is sought to give [KDPY] her own respite from her caring role for her son, this is not a support related to her disability, but related to her caring responsibilities.[44]

6. In my view, this submission is most relevant to KDPY's son who is a NDIS participant (HP). Regarding HP, I agree that funding for KDPY to have respite from her carer responsibilities is something that is properly considered as part of HP's NDIS plan. I do not have any information about HP's NDIS plan. It has not been provided to the Tribunal and the Tribunal is not reviewing any plan other than KDPY's plan in this proceeding.
7. However, it also appears that KDPY's request for respite relates to one of her other sons (ZP) and his caring responsibilities for KDPY. KDPY said in her statement on 24 December 2024:

In response to STA I have been able to use this in the past. My supports and specialists have commented on how vital it is not only for me but also for my son who is the only informal support for myself and his brother who is also on NDIS. I need to support our relationship and having time apart gives him time to focus on himself. This son really wants to move out and when he does I will be left with no informal supports and will have to get a [change of circumstances] to get more support hours.[45]

8. It is not clear to me who requires respite, in relation to which caring responsibilities, and how much respite is required. In February 2025, JD reported that:

[KDPY] lives at home with her son [ZP] who has a diagnosis of autism. [ZP] works long hours up to six days a week and does not provide her with any support. [KDPY's] other Son [HP] (who is autistic and is also an NDIS participant) lives between [KDPY's] home and Brisbane.[46]

9. If respite is required for KDPY based on her carer responsibilities for HP, not only would further information be required about any funding for STA in HP's NDIS plan, but additional informational would be required about KDPY's carer responsibilities for HP. Based on the current information before the Tribunal, HP does not appear to be in KDPY's care.
10. If respite is being requested for ZP based on his carer responsibilities for KDPY, additional information would be required in relation to ZP's responsibilities and carer burden. Presently, the information before the Tribunal indicates that ZP provides some assistance to KDPY with heavy laundry and cleaning.[47] Based on this information, the carer burden for ZP does not appear to be at a level that might require 28 days per year of respite. While I can accept the KDPY's behaviours will impact ZP, I have very little information about the extent of these impacts.
11. Overall, I do not have sufficient information before me to be satisfied the 28 days of STA for respite is a reasonably and necessary support for KDPY. I also consider that there is insufficient information about the any proposed mental health retreats to be satisfied that they are therapy supports which are likely to be effective and beneficial for KDPY.

1. Section 33 requires that an SPS specify the date by which, or the circumstances in which, the Agency must reassess the plan. The parties agree that a 24-month plan duration is appropriate. Having consider the material before me, I agree that the Applicant's SPS should specify a reassessment date of 24 months from the date on which the new SPS is approved following this decision.
2. The parties have not expressed a view with regards to funding periods. The Applicant's SPS which commenced on 16 February 2026 specifies a 12-month funding period. I consider that 12-month funding periods remain appropriate, noting that two 12-month funding periods will be required the 24-month SPS that will be implemented following this decision.

1. The decision under review, being the decision of the CEO of the National Disability Insurance Agency to approve a statement of participant supports under sections 33(2) and 100(6) of the NDIS Act:

(a) made on 11 September 2024; > > (b) as extended on 3 May 2025; and > > (c) as reassessed on 16 February 2026;

is set aside under section 105 of the ART Act and remitted for reconsideration with the directions that the statement of participant supports include sufficient funding for support worker assistance at a 1:1 ratio for 6 hours per day, 7 days per week, including weekend and public holidays.

1. The date by which Agency must reassess the Applicant's plan is 24 months from the date that the above supports are added to the Applicant's plan.
2. The other aspects of the statement of participant supports, including the management of supports, and funding periods, will remain the same.

[3] Which are all the records that the Agency considered when making the decision under review as required by section 23 of the ART Act.

[4] The page numbering in the T-documents and JTB is adopted throughout these reasons.

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

[13] NDIS Act, sections 24 and 34(1)(aa).

[14] This is the terminology uses in the statement of the Applicant's goals. A web search did not provide results for this term and suggested instead the terms 'spondyloarthropathy' or 'spondyloarthritis'.

[19] T-documents, page 94. Emphasis in original.

[21] JTB, pages 22 to 26. At this time JD's initials were JM.

[26] VR supplementary report dated 27 January 2026, pages 3 and 4.

[27] VR supplementary report dated 27 January 2026, page 8.

[28] VR supplementary report dated 27 January 2026, pages 3.

[30] NDIS Act, section 34(1)(aa) and Support Rules, rule 5.2.

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

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

[41] JTB, pages 30 to 32. Author initials were JM at time of report. Emphasis in original.

[42] JTB, pages 116 and 118. Emphasis in original. Notes omitted.