Decision: The Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision and remits the matter to the Respondent for reconsideration in accordance with the Direction that one hour of 2:1 overnight support worker assistance is to be included in the Applicant's Statement of Participant Supports payable at the high intensity rate.

NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME - NDIS supports - reasonable and necessary supports - consideration of s 34 National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 supported independent living at high intensity rate - 24.5 hours 1:1 ratio, 56 hours 2:1 ratio - 63 hours 2:1 ratio active/inactive overnight - single occupancy specialist disability accommodation - increase to level 3 transport - decision set aside

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)

National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)

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

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

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

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

McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency [2017] FCA 308

National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF [2020] FCAFC 79

CEO of the National Disability Insurance Agency v Eastham [2026] FCA 147

Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634

Re FSWN and National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 114

Re Trapezanidis and CEO, of the National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 1674 Re Boicovitis and the National Disability Insurance Agency [2022] AATA 204

1. LDPD is aged 73 years and lives in Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) in Victoria. She was granted access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) in 2017 on the basis of impairments resulting from multiple sclerosis.
2. On 24 May 2024 a delegate of the Chief Executive Officer of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) approved a Statement of Participant Supports (SoPS) in LDPD's plan.[1] LDPD sought internal review of that decision because it did not include funding for assistive technology, an increase in support coordination and psychosocial recovery coach funding, continuous active 1:1 support worker assistance 24 hours daily over 7 days at the higher intensity support rate, level 3 transport funding and an increase in improved daily living support skills support to allow for 2:1 support worker assistance for LDPD to attend hydrotherapy weekly. On 21 November 2024, the internal reviewer with the NDIA varied LDPS's SoPS to include the assistive technology sought and the increase in support coordination and psychosocial recovery coach hours.[2]
3. On 22 November 2024, LDPD applied to the Tribunal for review of the NDIA's decision made on 21 November 2024. In her reasons for seeking review, LDPD stated that she is seeking single occupancy SDA, which was not addressed by the internal reviewer, level 3 transport, support worker assistance at the Higher Intensity Support rate and 3.5 hours of support worker assistance at the 2:1 ratio to attend hydrotherapy weekly. LDPD also stated that she is currently living in a dual occupancy SDA without a second resident and as her supports are shared, she has not been able to access the reasonable and necessary supports in her SoPS.
4. The hearing was held on 28 October 2025 and resumed on 3 December 2025 via Microsoft Teams video conferencing. On the first day of hearing, LDPD was represented by Ms N. Anderson and on the second day by Ms E. Almond, solicitors with Villamanta Disability Rights Legal Service. The NDIA was represented by Ms L. Martin of counsel who was instructed by Mr K. Rieschieck, solicitor with Mills Oakley.
5. The Tribunal had before it the joint tender bundle (JTB) comprising 584 pages. During the hearing, additional documents were submitted by the parties:
   • - Applicant's sleep/activity logs from 12 June 2025 - JTB16
   • - Applicant's sleep/activity logs Sleep logs from 1 September 2025 - JTB17
   • - Applicant's care plan updated as at 26 October 2025[3] - JTB18
   • - Letter from Professor H. Betzkueven, neurologist dated 28 October 2025 - JTB19
   • - Supplementary Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions by the Respondent- JTB 19
   • - Advice from the Respondent's Technical Advice and Practice Improvement dated 21 November 2025 - JTB 20
   • - Applicant's plan approved 21 November 2025 - JTB21
6. The Tribunal heard evidence from LDPD's daughter and nominee, Ms VP, Ms P. Dadia, occupational therapist, Ms J. Rologas, clinical manager with Acute Supports and Mr A. Yu, occupational therapist. No witnesses were called by the Respondent.
7. The parties provided written closing submissions.

1. On the first day of hearing, the NDIA agreed to fund LDPD's supported independent living (SIL) at the high intensity rate. On 21 November 2025, the Chief Executive Officer of the NDIA approved a new plan for LDPD to include in her SoPS, SIL at the high intensity rate. In accordance with paragraph 103(2)(e) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (NDIS Act), LDPD's application for review is taken to include the decision to approve the SoPS on 21 November 2025.
2. The issues in dispute before the Tribunal are whether the following supports requested by LDPD are reasonable and necessary:
   • SIL - 1:1 ratio - 24.5 hours per week
   • SIL - 2:1 ratio - 56 hours per week
   • 2:1 Active/inactive overnight support - 63 hours per week
   • Transport level 3
   • Specialist Disability Accommodation (High Physical Support), 2-bedroom, 1 occupant

3. The objects of the NDIS are to provide a nationally consistent approach for the provision of reasonable and necessary support to people with disabilities and to enable people with disabilities to exercise choice and control in the pursuit of their goals and the planning and delivery of their supports (section 3 of the NDIS Act). Section 4 sets out the general principles guiding actions under the NDIS Act including that people with disability have the same right as other members of Australian society to realise their potential for physical, social, emotional and intellectual development; should be supported to participate and contribute to social and economic life; and have the same right as other members of Australian society to respect for their worth and dignity and to live free from abuse, neglect and exploitation. Actions taken and decisions made under the NDIS Act are not without limits and regard must also be had to the need to ensure the financial sustainability of the scheme (subsections 3(3) and 4(17) of the NDIS Act).
4. When an individual is granted access to the NDIS, the next step is for the Chief Executive Officer of the NDIA to facilitate the preparation of the individual's plan in accordance with chapter 3 of the NDIS Act. Section 33 sets out the matters which must be included in the participant's plan before it is approved. The plan must include a statement of goals and aspirations, and a SoPS. The SoPS must specify the general supports and the reasonable and necessary supports to be funded under the NDIS, as well as the date or circumstances in which the plan will be reviewed and the management of the funding.
5. Section 34(1) of the NDIS Act sets out the criteria which must be satisfied before a support is considered reasonable and necessary. The NDIS Act, including section 34, was amended by the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 which commenced on 3 October 2024. The amendments were significant and apply to SoPS that are varied or approved after 3 October 2024. The NDIS Act as amended applies in this review which was not disputed by the parties.
6. Section 34 of the NDIS Act provides:

(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.

(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 10 was inserted into the NDIS Act and provides the definition of NDIS support. Subsection 10(1) states that a support is an NDIS support, if the support has been declared an NDIS support under the rules made for the purposes of this subsection. Subsection 10(2) allows the Minister to make rules to declare a support an NDIS support and subsection 10(4) allows the Minister to make rules declaring that a support is not an NDIS Support. The National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (the Transitional Support Rules) contains the support rules for the purpose of section 10 of the NDIS Act. Schedule 1 to the Transitional Rules specifies the supports that are NDIS supports and Schedule 2 specifies the supports that are not NDIS Supports.
2. Section 35 of the NDIS Act permits rules to be made in connection with the funding or provision of reasonable and necessary supports or general supports. The rules relevant in this review are the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 (the Support Rules) and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Specialist Disability Accommodation) Rules 2020 (the SDA Rules).
3. Relevantly, rule 3 of the Support Rules relates specifically to subsections 34(1)(c) and (d) of the NDIS Act and provide:

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 circumstances. That evidence may include:

(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. Rule 5 of the Support Rules sets out the general criteria for supports:

5.1 A support will not be provided or funded under the NDIS if:

(a) it is likely to cause harm to the participant or pose a risk to others; or

(b) it is not related to the participant's disability; or

(c) it duplicates other supports delivered under alternative funding through the NDIS; or

(d) it 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.

5.2 The day-to-day living costs referred to in paragraph 5.1(d) do not include the following (which may be funded under the NDIS if they relate to reasonable and necessary supports):

(a) additional living costs that are incurred by a participant solely and directly as a result of their disability support needs;

(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. In McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency[4] Mortimer J (as her Honour then was) observed:

The [Supports Rules] are an important element of the legislative scheme, introducing the ability to modify the operation of ss 33 and 34 by, for example, excluding certain kinds of supports from inclusion in participant plans. It is through the Rules that the executive is able to implement...some policy decision-making about the nature and extent of supports to be provided or funded.

1. The phrase 'reasonable and necessary' is not defined in the NDIS Act. In discussing the phrase in McGarrigle Mortimer J stated:

Whether a support is "reasonable" requires a different assessment to whether a support is "necessary"...the word "reasonable" would appear to be directed at factors such as those set out in s 34(1)(c) and (f). That is not to say the meaning of each word is exhausted by the factors set out in s 34(1): rather, it is to illustrate the different work that each concept does as an adjective in the phrase "reasonable and necessary supports".[5]

1. In National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF[6], the Full Court of the Federal Court also considered the meaning of reasonable and necessary supports and said:
   1. The phrase is a composite phrase. We accept the Agency's submissions that each limb of the phrase should be given work to do. That task is not difficult, or complicated with these two particular words, which are readily understood as conveying different meanings...
   2. ...Both adjectives qualify the noun "support", but they do so as a composite phrase. It is not fruitful to split them off and consider them separately, just as it is neither fruitful nor appropriate to attempt any exhaustive or authoritative judicial definition of them.
   3. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the contextual use of the phrase in this Act links it to public funding to be provided to a participant. In that context, the phrase connotes supports which meet a threshold which justifies - by reference to the context, objects and guiding principles of the Act and the facts of the case - the expenditure of public funds for that support, for a particular participant. As we have already explained, the phrase also needs to be understood taking into account what has qualified a person as a participant, and the links between a person's impairment and their full participation in the community, in the same variety of ways as persons without a disability might choose to participate. It is not accidental, in our opinion, that Parliament has chosen the term 'participant' to describe individuals who will receive funded support: the choice of that term reinforces, as we have sought to explain, that the driving objective of this Act is the holistic, improved and increased participation by persons with disability in the life of their communities, and in life itself.
2. In addition to the provisions in the NDIS Act, the Transitional Support Rules, the Support Rules and SDA Rules, the Tribunal is obliged to consider the relevant Operational Guidelines relating to reasonable and necessary supports, including supported independent living, SDA and transport. The Operational Guidelines contain governmental guidelines and policy as to how the legislation is to be applied. The Tribunal acknowledges that, whilst it may be guided by policy, it is not bound to follow it.[7]

1. By way of summary, it was submitted on behalf of LDPD that the requested supports are crucial to LDPD's safety and wellbeing and the failure to approve the requested supports will have a significant impact on the level of risk to the LDPD and result in stress to her care team and family. The principles in section 4 were emphasised and particularly, LDPD's right to respect for her worth and dignity and to live free from neglect, and to have the privacy and dignity respected. Relying on evidence presented, it was submitted that the requested supports are reasonable and necessary and satisfy the criteria in paragraphs 34(1)(c) and (d) of the NDIS Act.
2. It was contended on behalf of LDPD that the NDIA's decision not to pursue an independent medical examination of LDPD indicates that the NDIA consider the evidence presented by LDPD to be sufficiently robust.
3. Initially, the NDIA submitted that the increased SIL requested by LDPD was not an NDIS support and represented palliative care and medical care. The position changed on the first day of the hearing and the contention was withdrawn. It was submitted by the NDIA that there was insufficient evidence to satisfy the Tribunal that the requested supports were reasonable and necessary. The NDIA submitted that there were gaps in the evidence, evidence presented was broad and did not provide a clinical rationale for the requested supports. Therefore, it was submitted that the requested supports did not satisfy the requirements in section 34 of the NDIS and specifically that they represented value for money and were effective and beneficial.

1. Ms VP is LDPD's daughter and nominee. She prepared an impact statement dated 30 April 2024.[8]
2. In her evidence, Ms VP told the Tribunal that her mother was an active member of the community running her own business. LDPD was a great cook and has prepared a cookbook with Greek recipes. She enjoys cooking with her support workers at the SDA but is limited due to the size of the kitchen. Ms VP described her mother as very social and loves getting her hair and nails done and loves to be surrounded by people, especially her family.
3. Ms VP told the Tribunal that LDPD has declined in the last 12 months. She takes longer to eat and her voice comes and goes. She said that they now use an amplifier to be able to communicate with LDPD. Ms VP told the Tribunal that multiple sclerosis is a progressive disease and has now progressed to end stage which means it cannot get any worse. LDPD has good days and bad days.
4. Ms VP expressed concern that her mother is not receiving the support she requires. She now resides in a dual occupancy SDA with shared overnight supports. However, the design of the SDA and specifically the absence of an ensuite in the second bedroom, has deterred potential residents which has meant that LDPD was unable to access the shared overnight supports for several months. While there is currently a second resident, he is looking to relocate.
5. Ms VP told the Tribunal that LDPD needs daily support including overnight supports because she gets rolled every couple of hours to avoid pressure wounds. She needs support worker assistance for everything, including eating, drinking, showering, toileting and bushing her teeth. As LDPD barely has use of her left hand, she cannot always use her buzzer to call for help. The buzzer is placed under her chin, but it slides down. LDPD needs to be in sight for the workers to be able to assist her.
6. She accesses the community with support workers from Acute Supports. Ms VP said that LDPD receives support from a team of support workers with whom LDPD has developed a rapport.
7. In relation to transport, Ms VP gave evidence that the level 2 currently funded is insufficient and places her mother at risk of social isolation. LDPD receives $102.00 per fortnight and incurs an additional $100 in transport per fortnight. Ms VP gave evidence that LDPD previously attended monthly appointment with an osteopath in Moonee Ponds which was a very long trip ($70 each way). This has stopped because it is expensive and tiring for LDPD. She previously travelled to Ms VPs home in Bulleen for a weekly lunch or dinner and this has now shifted to Surrey Hills, fortnightly. Ms VP said that her sister's home in Surrey Hills is more accessible for LDPD.
8. LDPD previously attended the hair salon for a wash and blow wave fortnightly and now attends for colour every 5 or 6 weeks ($40 each way). LDPD also travels to have her nails done every 4 to 5 weeks and travels to the Glen shopping centre three times per week for shopping and/or to catch-up with friends or family ($15 each way). LDPD regularly travels to see her neurologist. Ms VP said that without adequate transport funding, LDPD would be isolated and lonely. Ms VP said that with an increase in transport funding, LDPD would get out more often. She would be able to visit a friend with an accessible home and her children regularly.
9. Ms VP gave evidence that her mother was in aged care until approximately December 2023 which was not suitable. The family chose this particular SDA because of the location which ensures that LDPD is close to her children. Neither Ms VP, nor LDPD are happy with the current accommodation. There is insufficient space and no privacy so when LDPD's family come to visit, the other resident retreats to his bedroom and when his family visit, LDPD retreats to her bedroom. The kitchen is small, so LDPD is unable to assist the workers with cooking. The main bathroom is shared by the other resident, the workers and visitors. When the other resident needs a shower, LDPD is moved to her room. Ms VP said it is not practical and everyone is impacted.
10. In response to questions from Ms Anderson, Ms VP said that her mother's equipment includes a princess chair, power wheelchair and a shower commode which remains in the ensuite. The other resident also has a wheelchair and bicycle equipment.
11. In cross-examination, Ms VP gave evidence that it is LDPD's preference to live alone either in SDA as a sole occupant or LDPD will purchase her own home which will allow her to have her family with her, including for sleepovers.

1. Ms Dadia is the founder and head occupational therapist of Pelorus Occupational Therapy. She is Mr Yu's reporting manager. Ms Dadia was called to give evidence for the Applicant. Ms Dadia did not provide a report prior to the hearing and was called to give evidence because LDPD's treating occupational therapist, Mr Yu was on leave.
2. Mr Dadia gave evidence that she reviews all the reports prepared by the therapists at Pelorus and convenes meetings with each of the occupational therapists, including Mr Yu. She confirmed reading all three reports prepared by Mr Yu and is aware of LDPD's disability and support needs, as well as the recent functional decline. She said she attended LDPD the week prior to the hearing and observed her for one hour to be better placed to provide accurate evidence to the Tribunal, particularly as the disease is progressive. During the visit, Ms Dadia said she observed mealtime, briefly spoke to LDPD, observed the SDA and briefly greeted the other participant.
3. Ms Dadia was referred to the report prepared by Mr You on 14 August 2024 and agreed with his recommendations. However, she stated that there has been a decline in LDPD's functioning since the report was prepared particularly in relation to the ability to communicate and to press the buzzer to call for help. Ms Dadia noted that LDPD did not have an active pressure wound when Ms Dadia attended the week prior to the hearing and LDPD's ability to swallow had declined. LDPD was no longer on soft foods but rather thick liquids. Ms Dadia gave evidence that the current SDA was meeting LDPD's needs. However, there is a risk to LDPD with shared supports because if two support workers are with the second resident, no one is available to monitor LDPD.

1. Ms Rologas is a registered nurse who prepared letters dated 15 August 2024,[9] 1 August 2025,[10] 29 January 2025.[11] She gave sworn evidence before the Tribunal. Ms Rologas told the Tribunal that she continues to work in acute and sub-acute nursing while also working as the clinical manager with Acute Supports.
2. Ms Rologas gave evidence that since 2019 when Acute Supports commenced working with LDPD, she has seen a significant decline in LDPD and requires support for every aspect of living, including physiotherapy exercises, hoisting, transferring, communication, toileting, eating, drinking and showering.
3. When asked to describe LDPD's morning routine, Ms Rologas said it involves repositioning LDPD with a hoist to do exercises which requires 2 support workers. LDPD is then provided with a small breakfast and then transferred to the toilet and shower chair. She is then transferred back into the chair for drying, dressing and grooming which includes hair, make-up and brushing teeth. LDPD then has a second breakfast. When questioned about eth need for two breakfast, Ms Rologas explained that the first is a small breakfast to ensure LDPD has the energy required to complete her morning routine.
4. Ms Rologas said that after breakfast LDPD usually goes out to do some shopping, attend the doctor or meet with family and friends before returning to the facility. She will have a coffee and/or snack while out in the community which takes a lot of time. Upon returning and because of her posture in the wheelchair, support workers will provide a light massage, some exercises to stretch her out and then LDPD will have a nap. Two workers are required to transfer her back to bed at which time continence aids are changed. After LDPD's nap, the dinner routine commences.
5. Ms Rologas told the Tribunal that LDPD is an active overnight and will rarely sleep through the night. She cannot communicate anymore, so the support workers need a clear line of sight which they don't have because of the position of the couch. Ms Rologas said the support workers check on LDPD every 15 to 30 minutes. Ms Rologas said when uncomfortable, LDPD requires repositioning and sometimes several repositions until she is comfortable. Sometimes her chest feels compressed and she cannot breathe, she may need mouth toileting because she cannot swallow her saliva due to the position of her head which she cannot keep straight. Workers must reposition her head. Sometimes LDPD is distressed so she needs some TLC (tender loving care). LDPD needs to be repositioned every 2 to 2.5 hours to avoid pressure wounds.
6. Ms Rologas said that while overnight supports should be shared, LDPD uses the active overnight worker. She gave evidence that LDPD is unable to call for help. She can move her neck and is able to sometimes press the buzzer to call for help if the buzzer is placed on her chest. However, the buzzer slides away. Ms Rologas said that LDPD is vulnerable and entirely dependent on support workers to meet her needs and staff now remain in the room with her. Ms Rologas said that all repositioning (including for pad changes) and transfers require two support workers because LDPD is dead weight and would pose an occupational, health and safety risk for one worker.
7. Ms Rologas referred to activity/sleep logs which document LDPD's support needs, as well as a nursing/care plan which were provided to the Tribunal after the first day of hearing.
8. Ms Rologas expressed concerns about the size and layout of the high physical needs SDA in which LDPD currently resides. She said she works with other participants in high physical support SDA, and those properties are bigger with ample room for equipment and safe exiting unlike the SDA in which LDPD currently resides.

1. Mr Yu, is an occupational therapist that has been treating LDPD since December 2023. Mr Yu was on leave on the first day of hearing and attended the second day in response to a summons issued by the Tribunal at the request of the NDIA. Mr Yu said that he does not see LDPD on a regular basis but rather as needed for assistive technology prescriptions. He prepared three reports dated 31 January 2025,[12] 14 August 2024[13] and 18 December 2023.[14] In his report dated 14 August 2024, Mr Yu recommended:
   • 56 hours of 2:1 supports per week
   • 24.5 hours of 1:1 supports per week
   • 24.5 hours of 1:1 supports in the community per week
   • 63 hours of active sleepover supports per week at 2:1 ratio
2. Mr Yu said that his recommendations for support worker assistance were based on the activity logs provided to him by Acute Supports. This was the first time the Tribunal heard about activity logs, and it was unclear whether Mr Yu was referring to logs that resembled the sleep logs provided to the Tribunal or some other document. Mr Yu was shown the sleep logs and confirmed that the documents he referred to as activity logs were in the same format and resembled the sleep logs provided to the Tribunal. The Tribunal will address this issue below.
3. Mr Yu gave evidence that LDPD requires repositioning to maintain her airways and to avoid pressure injuries which requires 2 support workers. Mr Yu said that there is no technology to replace the second worker. If required to stay in the same position, he explained that LDPD would be at risk of developing pressure injuries and require hospitalisation if her breathing is compromised. Repositioning is also required to maintain comfort.
4. Mr Yu said that LDPD requires 2 support workers for toileting because a hoist is used to transfer her to the commode. When informed that the Respondent agreed to fund one hour per night of 2:1 supports, Mr Yu was not prepared to comment because the activity logs did not specify the time required for repositioning and the time could vary depending on how LDPD was feeling.
5. In cross-examination, when referred to his recommendations for support worker assistance, Mr Yu acknowledged that his recommendations were based on the activity logs and although he has observed LDPD during mealtime, his report was based on the logs. In his report, Mr Yu set out LDPD's support needs in a typical day:[15]

10pm - 7am - Active Overnight Support (including reposition x4, medication administration x2, continence aid change x3) - 2:1 support required for assisting with repositioning, feeding, water and continence aid change. Due to the lack of shared supports, 2 support workers are always required for night support.

7am - 11am - Morning Routine - assistance with transfers, showering, drying, dressing, toileting, pressure area care - 2:1 support ration required

11am - 12.30pm - Assistance with feeding breakfast, medication, oral care/hygiene, breathing exercises and grooming - 1: 1 required

12.30 - 4pm - Community Access - 1:1 support required

4pm - 6pm -Transfers from Wheelchair to Bed - Rest in bed/assist with physio exercise - 2:1 support required

6pm - 8pm - Assistance with dinner, medication and evening routine - 1:1 required

8pm - 9pm - Transfers to commode - toileting - 2:1 support required

9pm - 10pm - Transfers from commode to bed, assistance with physio and breathing exercise - 2:1 support required

1. In response to questions from Ms Martin, Mr Yu was unable to specify the time required to complete each individual task during each of the routines that is, the time required feeding, administering medication, brushing teeth, assisting with exercise and grooming.
2. Mrs LDPD is funded for 6 hours per day of 2:1 support worker assistance and Mr Yu recommended 8 hours per day, an increase of 2 hours per day. He maintained during cross- examination that based on the activity/sleep logs provided by the SIL provider, there was a shortfall of 2 hours of 2:1 support. He disagreed with the suggestion that his recommendations were generous. For instance, one hour of 2 support workers needed for transfers to commode and toileting between 8pm and 9pm. Mr Yu said that the process of transferring LDPD is slow and care is required. He also said that care is also required while toileting to ensure she does not fall.
3. In his report of 14 August 2024,[16] Mr Yu included a table which set out the supports required by LDPD. He recorded that active overnight support between 10pm and 7am required 2:1 and due to lack of shared supports, 2 support workers are always required for night support. He gave evidenced that having reviewed more recent sleep logs dated June to August 2025, there was a reduction in repositioning. He agreed that the current request for one active and one inactive support worker was appropriate at the 1:1 ratio.
4. Mr Yu confirmed that LDPD has an electric adjustable bed and a pressure care mattress. In response to questions from Ms Martin, he said that the mattress provides pressure care relief but 2-3 repositions are required. Suctioning should be completed on a regular basis but according to the activity logs this activity does not occur regularly.
5. Shared active overnight supports are currently funded and Mr Yu said that the shared supports are inadequate because of LDPD's functional decline. LDPD is unable to call for help because hand function has declined and is unable to press her bell. The overnight worker needs to deal with hydration, toileting, monitoring breathing and repositioning. If the worker is with the other resident, there is a risk that LDPD who is unable to call for help, will be left unattended and not receive the support she needs in a timely manner, particularly if both participants have high needs. Mr Yu told the Tribunal that he was not aware of an incident where LDPD was left without support because the support worker/s were attending to the other resident.
6. In cross-examination, Mr Yu said that initially when LDPD moved into the SDA, she was unable to utilise her shared overnight supports because there was no second resident. He said that the design of the SDA deterred other participants from moving in (because of the absence of an ensuite in the second bedroom). Consequently, LDPD overutilized her supports and funding was exhausted. He said single occupancy would avoid the problem reoccurring (presumably because shared supports would not be approved).
7. Mr Yu confirmed in his evidence that he has attended LDPD at her current SDA and said that the accommodation is suitable for her given that she has a bedroom with an ensuite and the SDA is in the high physical needs design category. He agreed that the SDA was designed to be shared. He stated that LDPD's equipment consists of a hi-lo adjustable bed, mattress, hoist, commode which remains in the ensuite, a princess chair and power wheelchair. He agreed her storage needs are not above average. Mr Yu said that dual occupancy is fine for LDPD if adequate supports are in place. However, he said that LDPD has expressed a preference to live in a single occupancy SDA. He said that LDPD can mouth one or two words if she is in the right posture, but it takes a long time.

1. "Sleep" logs were referred to by Ms Rologas on the first day of hearing and provided to the Tribunal and the Respondent after the first day of hearing. The sleep logs comprise two bundles consisting of 77 pages in total and each page records LDPD's activities and sleep for one day. The page contains a table with 7 columns, with a column for the time, the location of the participant, the activities completed, whether formal or informal support was provided and the type of support provided (person to person, supervision or prompting). The last column allows for a description of the activity and/or the support provided. Relevantly, each row is prefilled with an hourly block which covers each hour in a 24-hour period.
2. During his evidence on the second day of hearing, Mr Yu referred to "activity" logs. When Mr Yu was shown a copy of the sleep logs before the Tribunal, he confirmed that the logs he had relied on resembled those that had been provided to the Tribunal. Noting that his report was prepared in August 2024, it is likely that activity logs recording LDPD's activities prior to 14 August 2024 were available to Mr Yu to allow him to make the recommendations that he made.
3. In response to a direction from the Tribunal at the conclusion of the second day of hearing requesting the documents relied on by Mr Yu, Ms Anderson provided a document entitled "Daily running sheet for [LDPD] 2024 SIL" which appears to set out LDPD's daily activities in 15-minute increments. This document does not resemble the sleep/activity logs provided to the Tribunal or the document/s that Mr Yu said he relied on. In closing submissions, Ms Anderson submitted that:

The service provider delivering the supports has provided a "running sheet" which outlines the general timing of the Applicant's day and supports, broken into 15-minute intervals. This document provides the Tribunal with information as to how long these tasks generally do take.[17]

1. It is unknown when this document was prepared, by whom and for what purpose. The Respondent submitted that the document appears to have been produced for advocacy purposes noting that it includes details of LDPS's travel expenses which is also an issue in dispute. The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent's submissions. In the absence of details of the author and purpose for which the document was prepared, the Tribunal does not consider the document to be a reliable source of information to assist the Tribunal. The document was provided by Ms Anderson at the conclusion of the hearing. Neither the Tribunal nor the Respondent had received notice of the document and there was no opportunity to test the evidence contained in the running sheet. The Tribunal has therefore, not placed weight on the running sheet.
2. As neither party made a request to reopen the case prior, the Tribunal proceeded to make its decision on the evidence and submissions available to it.

1:1 Ratio - 24.5 Hours Per Week & 2:1 Ratio - 56 Hours Per Week

1. LDPD is currently funded for a SIL model that consists of 21 hours per week (3 hours per day) of 1:1 support and 42 hours per week (6 hours per day) of 2:1 support. Her SoPS also now includes 28 hours of other support (4 hours per day) which is within the home and living budget.[18] LDPD is funded for 4 hours of 1:1 support for community access which is not in issue.[19]
2. LDPD's SIL consists of active overnight support at the 1:2 ratio for 63 hours per week (9 hours per day).
3. The Tribunal is satisfied having regard to the totality of the evidence before it that LDPD requires a high level of support which does not appear to be disputed by the NDIA as evidenced by the supports already approved, including SDA. Her daytime support needs span across 16 hours, and nighttime supports across 8 hours. She is approved for 4 hours each day for community participation which was not in dispute. In addition, LDPD is currently funded for 13 hours per day made up for 3 hours of 1:1 support, 6 hours of 2:1 support and 4 hours of other supports.
4. The Tribunal will consider whether LDPD's requested support satisfies the criteria in subsection 34(1) of the NDIS Act.
5. The parties submissions focussed on whether the requested support represents value for money and whether it is effective and beneficial which satisfies the Tribunal that there was no dispute that the requested support is necessary to address the needs of the participant arising from her impairments, the support will assist the participant to pursue her goals, objectives and aspirations and the support will assist the participant to undertake activities, so as to facilitate her social and economic participation. Having regard to the documentary evidence before it, including the nature of LDPD's disability and impairments, as well as her statement of goals, the Tribunal is satisfied that paragraphs 34(1)(aa), (a) and (b) are satisfied.
6. Paragraph 34(1)(c)) of the NDIS Act requires the Tribunal to determine whether the requested 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. In making its finding, the Tribunal is also to have regard to the matters set out in Rule 3.1 in the Support Rules.
7. In support of the increased support worker assistance, LDPD relied on the recommendations of Mr Yu, as well as the evidence of Ms Dadia and Ms Rologas. The NDIA identified deficiencies in the evidence presented and submitted that little or no weight should be placed on the evidence that was presented.
8. Ms Dadia was called to give evidence because Mr Yu was on leave. Her knowledge of LDPD is based on discussions she had with Mr Yu during meetings and reports that he had prepared. Ms Dadia gave evidence about her observations of LDPD following a one-hour visit in the week prior to hearing. In the absence of an ongoing therapeutic relationship with LDPD and/or her own independent comprehensive assessment of LDPD's functional capacity, the Respondent submitted that the weight to be placed on Ms Dadia's evidence is limited. The Tribunal agrees with this submission.
9. Ms Rologas is the clinical manager at Acute Supports and provides support to LDPD at the SDA. She has extensive knowledge of LDPD and her support needs. However, no evidence was led from Ms Rologas as to the deficiencies in LDPD's daytime support.
10. In her report dated 15 August 2024, Ms Rologas stated:

We are requesting an increase in 1:1 support hours while we continue to explore options for a second client, as well extend [LDPD's] current 2:1 support from 6 hours to 8 hours per day. Her last recorded sacral wound was in May 2024, highlighting the continued need for increased support to effectively manage her condition and prevent further complications.[20]

1. In her subsequent reports dated 29 January 2025[21] and 1 August 2025,[22] Ms Rologas did not express any concerns about LDPD's daytime support worker hours. Her later reports expressed concerns about inadequate overnight supports, the SDA design issues resulting in difficulty securing a second resident and the need for high intensity supports because of the nature of the tasks required to be performed for LDPD. Similarly, in her evidence before the Tribunal, Ms Rologas opined that shared overnight supports and the current dual occupancy SDA were inappropriate.
2. By way of background, in April 2024,[23] LDPD moved into the SDA and for several months she lived in the dual occupancy SDA alone because of difficulties securing a second tenant. This meant, according to the witnesses, that LDPD was unable to share her overnight supports which resulted in an overspend and a consequent short fall. The Tribunal makes no findings on these matters. It appears to the Tribunal that the reports of Ms Rologas (and Mr Yu) prepared in August 2024 in which they opined that daytime supports were inadequate, were prepared at the time when of LDPD was experiencing a shortfall in her supports. In early 2025, a second resident moved into the SDA and the shortfall in daytime supports appeared to no longer be an issue as evidenced by the contents of Ms Rologas subsequent reports prepared in January and August 2025. Any shortfall in funding in the past due to the inability to share supports because of the absence of a second resident does not, of itself, satisfy the Tribunal that the costs of the requested supports are reasonable relative to the benefits.
3. The Tribunal will turn to the evidence of Mr Yu which was the focus of both parties' closing submissions.
4. Mr Yu reported that 1:1 support is required in the SDA between 11am and 12.30pm for assistance with feeding breakfast, medication, oral care/hygiene, breathing exercises and grooming and between 6pm and 8pm for assistance with dinner, medication and evening routine. He also reported that 2:1 support worker assistance is required as follows:
   • - for the morning routine between 7am and 11am - assistance with transfers, showering, drying, dressing, toileting, pressure area care
   • - between 4pm and 6pm to assist with transfers from wheelchair to bed and assist with physio exercise
   • - between 8pm and 9pm for transfers to commode for toileting
   • - between 9pm and 10pm to assist with transfers from commode to bed, assistance with physio and breathing exercise
5. In evidence, Mr Yu told the Tribunal that he relied on the activity logs to make the recommendations. He said he had previously observed mealtime for LDPD and had also spoken to LDPD's support workers. However, he did not observe the tasks being completed for the purpose of making the recommendations that he made and did not speak to the support workers about the time required for each specific task. When asked to comment about the Respondent's preparedness to fund one hour of 2:1 support overnight, Mr Yu could not comment because he said, the sleep/activity logs did not specify the time required for each activity. In circumstances where Mr Yu did not observe the specific tasks to determine the time required and the sleep/activity logs did not provide sufficient detail to determine the time required for each, the basis for his recommendations is unknown.
6. During his evidence, Mr Yu referred to the activity logs that he had relied on to make his recommendations. He also gave evidence that the activity logs he relied on resembled the sleep/activity logs provided to the Tribunal. When directed to provide the activity logs relied on by Mr Yu, Ms Anderson provided a running sheet and when enquiries were made by the Respondent's representatives, Ms Anderson confirmed that the correct document had been provided which the Tribunal understands to mean that the information relied on by Mr Yu was not the information recorded in the sleep/activity logs but rather the running sheet. The failure to clearly specify and identify the information relied on by Mr Yu casts further doubt in the Tribunal's mind as to the reliability of his evidence and the recommendations he has made.
7. In closing submissions, Ms Anderson referred the Tribunal to the functional assessment completed by Mr Yu in December 2023 in which he did observe the completion of self-care tasks and transfers and LDPD's results following the assessment under the Modified Barthel Index (BMI). Ms Anderson also relied on the many activities required to be completed for LDPD and the precautions needed to ensure her safety as set out in the care/nursing plan. The Tribunal accepts that LDPD is entirely reliant on support workers for all activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living as reported by Mr Yu which is consistent with the evidence of Ms Rologas and the documentary evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also accepts that LDPD requires a high level of support because her needs are complex, precautions need to be taken to ensure her safety and therefore, the completion of tasks is slower. LDPD is currently receiving a high level of support worker assistance each day. The evidence referred to by Ms Anderson does not explain why further support worker hours are needed.
8. Mr Yu did not note the time taken to complete the various tasks. While the Tribunal accepts that it is not practical to observe every aspect of a participant's care, in a case such as this where a participant is seeking an increase in SIL supports, the Tribunal would expect information about the time required to complete the specific activities in a routine to justify an increase. Alternatively, evidence that LDPD's needs are not being met. No such evidence was available to the Tribunal. On the contrary, Ms Dadia gave evidence that when Mr Yu prepared his report in August 2024, LDPD had an active pressure wound which was consistent with a letter prepared by Mr Rologas.[24] When Ms Dadia attended the SDA a week prior to the hearing, there was no active pressure wound. This suggests that LDPD's support needs are being met with the current funding.
9. The Tribunal reviewed the sleep/activity logs which cover the period between 12 June 2025 and 29 October 2025. While the logs show the frequency in which LDPD requires person to person assistance and supervision, the logs do not provide sufficient detail to determine the time required to complete the various activities. The Tribunal acknowledges that the logs before the Tribunal were not the logs relied on by Mr Yu. The Tribunal reviewed the logs to determine whether there was any justification for the increase in daytime support worker assistance requested by LDPD. There was not.
10. LDPD is seeking an additional 30 minutes per day for 1:1 support worker assistance and an additional 2 hours per day of 2:1 support worker assistance for her daytime needs. In the absence of evidence to explain why the current funding is inadequate or why the additional funding is required, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the requested support represents value for money. As paragraph 34(1)(c) of the NDIS is not met, the increased support worker assistance is not reasonable and necessary.

Active/Inactive Overnight Support - 2:1 Ratio - 63 Hours Per Week

1. LDPD's SoPS include funding for active overnight support at the 1:2 ratio meaning that the active overnight support worker is shared by LDPD and the other resident in the SDA. LDPD seeks a model of overnight support that consists of 2:1 active/inactive overnight support meaning that one support worker is active and the other inactive but available for transfers and repositioning when 2 workers are required.
2. As with the previous requested support, the parties' submissions focussed on whether the requested overnight support model represents value for money and whether it is effective and beneficial. Having regard to the documentary evidence before it and in the absence of dispute, the Tribunal is satisfied the requested support is necessary to address the needs of LDPD arising from her impairments, the support will assist her to pursue her goals, objectives and aspirations and the support will assist her to undertake activities, so as to facilitate her social and economic participation. The Tribunal is therefore, satisfied that paragraphs 34(1)(aa), (a) and (b) are satisfied.
3. The Tribunal considered whether the model of overnight support requested by LDPD (2:1 active and inactive) 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 in accordance with paragraph 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act.
4. The Tribunal will consider each of the active and inactive overnight support requests separately.
5. It was submitted on behalf of LDPD that the requested supports are crucial to her safety and wellbeing and the failure to fund the supports will have a significant impact in terms of the level of risk to LDPD and stress on her care team and family. It was further submitted that her impairments and support needs require a support worker to be with her at all times, including overnight at the 1:1 ratio with a second support worker present to assist with transfers and repositioning.
6. In support of her request, LDPD relied on the evidence of Mr Yu, and particularly the assessments he completed in December 2023 which confirmed that LDPD is entirely reliant on support workers for all activities of daily living as evidenced by her results using the MBI index. Mr Yu concluded that LDPD requires 24/7 supervision in his December 2023 report and again in his August 2024 report. He gave evidence that active overnight support at the 2:1 ratio was required because of a decline in LDPD's functional capacity and her inability to call for help. In cross-examination he said that if the worker is with the other resident, there is a risk that LDPD who is unable to call for help, will be left unattended and not receive the support she needs in a timely manner, particularly if both participants have high needs. Mr Yu said that he was not aware of any incident where LDPD was left unattended for any length of time and her needs not attended to.
7. The Tribunal was not persuaded by Mr Yu's evidence on this issue. While the Tribunal accepts that LDPD is unable to press her buzzer every time she needs assistance, the evidence before the Tribunal satisfies it that LDPD does not need to press her buzzer. Ms Rologas gave evidence that the overnight support workers check on LDPD every 15 to 30 minutes which is consistent with the sleep/activity logs before the Tribunal. While the logs are prefilled with hourly increments, there are multiple references to 'safety check,' 'checked', 'welfare check'. This suggests to the Tribunal that with the currently funded shared overnight support, LDPD is attended to throughout the night at 15 to 30 minutes intervals. There is no evidence that her needs are not being attended to in a timely manner which was the concern expressed by Mr Yu nor is there any evidence that LDPD has been left alone for any length of time.
8. LDPD also relied on the evidence of Ms Rologas who reported that active overnight support is required because LDPD cannot always use to the buzzer to call for help, she is non-verbal and unable to express her needs. In a report dated 1 August 2025, Ms Rologas recorded that "LDPD is exposed to the risk of aspiration from excessive mucus, compromised respiratory function due to poor position and MS-related weakness, pneumonia from aspiration or poor secretion clearance and an inability to call for help due to physical limitations and these risks are mitigated through frequent overnight repositioning, regular suctioning, monitoring oxygen saturation and respiratory status and 1:1 overnight staffing who remain awake and responsive to any changes in condition.[25]
9. Ms Rologas gave evidence that staff now remain in LDPD's room to provide reassurance and respond to her needs promptly. She provided the same information in a letter dated 29 January 2025.[26] It is unknown when support workers started staying in LDPD's room and if the sleep/activity logs were provided to the Tribunal and the Respondent in advance of the hearing, evidence could have been lead from Ms Rologas. The evidence provided by Ms Rologas is at odds with the sleep/activity logs before the Tribunal.
10. The sleep/activity logs cover the period between 12 June 2025 to 29 August 2025 and 1 September 2025 to 29 October 2025. Relevantly, Ms Rologas gave her evidence to the Tribunal on 28 October 2025. The activity/sleep logs from 22 October 2025 to 29 October 2025 continue to record 'buzzer within reach,' 'checks done,' 'LDPD buzzing,' 'visual checks,' 'safety check.' The Tribunal was unable to identify a day where no "safety" or "welfare" check was recorded in the days leading to the hearing. It is unclear why a safety or welfare check would be recorded in the log if the worker always remained in the room with LDPD as stated by Ms Rologas. It is also unclear why the buzzer would need to be within reach and recorded in the log, if the intention was to remain in LDPS's room. This evidence casts doubt on the reliability of Ms Rologas' evidence.
11. As with the request for increased daytime supports, it was submitted on behalf of the NDIA that the Tribunal should treat Mr Yu's evidence with caution. The NDIA submitted that his primary area of practice is the prescription of assistive technology and the methodology used by Mr Yu and his inability to identify the basis for his opinions may suggest inexperience in recommending personal support worker assistance. Mr Yu gave evidence that while a significant proportion of his practice involves the prescription of assistive technology (70%), he also provides therapy (30%). His report of December 2023 shows that he also completes comprehensive assessments of functional capacity.
12. The Tribunal has stated above that Mr Yu's inability to provide a clinical justification for the recommended increase in daytime supports and his failure to record in his report the sources of information relied on to make his recommendations raised concerns about the reliability of his recommendations. The concerns apply to the recommended overnight supports. The Tribunal observes that Mr Yu's evidence was measured and he made appropriate concessions. The Tribunal found him to be a credible witness.
13. In his report dated 14 August 2024, [27] Mr Yu stated in his introduction that:

"[LDPD] is the only tenant in the SDA as the SDA provider has difficulty finding another NDIS participant who wants to live in the new SDA, meaning [LDPD] does not have any shared supports with the other tenant. Given this context, [LDPD's] approved SIL support does not meet her current needs."

Mr Yu went on to say that the SIL and SDA providers have not found another tenant to move in and:

"during this period, [LDPD] is unable to utilise any shared supports due to the lack of another tenant in the SDA. The ratio of all current support from support workers was either 1:1 or 2:1, resulting in her SIL funding not being sustained until the end of this plan."

1. Noting that Mr Yu's recommendations were made at a time when LDPD was the sole occupant of the SDA, it is unclear to the Tribunal whether his recommendations were based on the overspend or overutilization of approved supports because of the absence of a second tenant. Mr Yu referred to "a significant gap" between the required supports and those funded, and the need to provide a "temporary increase" or "buffer" pending a second tenant moving in. The Tribunal does know what the arrangements were for LDPD when she was the sole occupant in the SDA with funding for shared supports overnight. While not relevant to the Tribunal's fact-finding exercise under section 34, the issue was clearly a concern for Mr Yu and Ms Rologas in mid-2024 as evidenced by their correspondence to the NDIA at that time which may have influenced the recommendations made.
2. During her evidence to the Tribunal, Ms VP gave evidence that her mother's preference is to live alone in her own home and alternative accommodation was being explored. In her closing submissions, Ms Anderson submitted in relation to sole occupancy SDA, that a more appropriate accommodation option may be one that provides a concierge service which would allow her to share a support worker who is not in her home but available to assist when she needs 2:1 supports for a short time on multiple discrete occasions. Such a model would remove the need for 1:1 inactive overnight supports and potentially reduce the need for 2:1 supports during the day. The NDIA submitted that the proposed alternative accommodation model significantly undermines the arguments relied on by LDPD to support the increase in SIL supports, including the overnight supports.
3. The Tribunal is not persuaded by the NDIA's submission in response to the proposed concierge model. There is no suggestion that LDPD will not require her active 1:1 support during the day or night. The proposed concierge model was canvassed as a possibility that may reduce the need for the second inactive worker overnight and potentially the second worker during the day. This is not inconsistent with the Applicant's position that she always requires a support worker with her.
4. LDPD is resident in a dual occupancy SDA and is receiving active overnight support at the 1:2 ratio. That is, she has been approved for shared overnight support. While the Tribunal accepts based on the documentary evidence before it that LDPD's support needs are high and complex, there is insufficient evidence to satisfy the Tribunal that the requested active overnight support represents value for money. There was no evidence that the requested support would achieve a better outcome, improve LDPD's life stage outcome or be of long-term benefit, nor was there evidence that the requested support is likely to reduce the costs of supports in the long-term.
5. The activity/sleep logs before the Tribunal show that a worker is attending to LDPD's overnight care. On the evidence of Ms Rologas, LDPD is checked every 15 to 30 minutes. There is no evidence that her needs are not currently been met at the 1:2 ratio to justify a finding that the active overnight at the 1:1 ratio represents value for money. Therefore, paragraph 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act is not met.
6. The Tribunal will now consider the request for an inactive support worker at the 1:1 ratio to assist with tasks that require 2 workers.
7. The NDIS Operational Guideline dealing with SIL provides that inactive overnight assistance is appropriate if the participant requires no more than 2 hours of assistance overnight.
8. As with the previous supports, the parties' submissions focussed on whether the requested support represents value for money and whether it is effective and beneficial. In the absence of dispute and having regard to the documentary evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that paragraphs 34(1)(aa), (a) and (b) of the NDIS Act are met. The Tribunal will consider whether paragraph 34(1)(c) of the NDIS is satisfied, having regards also to the matters specified in rule 3.1 of the Support Rules.
9. LDPD is seeking inactive overnight support to assist with transfers and repositioning as required which indicates that the inactive support worker will not be required for more than two hours each night in accordance with the NDIS SIL Operational Guideline. The NDIA has agreed to fund 1 hour at the 2:1 ratio overnight to allow a second worker to assist with transfers and repositioning which acknowledges the need for a second support worker for at least one hour per night. The Tribunal notes that funding for 2:1 equates to 2 support workers for one hour which is in addition to the shared active overnight support currently funded.
10. Mr Yu recommended 2:1 active overnight support between 10pm and 7am to assist with repositioning x 4, medication administration x 2, continence aid changes x 3. He recommended 2 support workers overnight to assist with repositioning, feeding, water and continence aid changes. In his evidence before the Tribunal, Mr Yu confirmed that his recommendations were based on the activity logs that he had reviewed prior to preparing his August 2024 report. He said that after reviewing more recent activity logs in 2025, he revised his opinion and recommended one active and one inactive support worker to meet LDPD's needs which is in line with the overnight support model requested by LDPD.
11. Ms Rologas said that all repositioning (including for pad changes) and transfers with a hoist require two support workers because LDPD is dead weight and would pose an occupational, health and safety risk for one worker.
12. In closing submissions, the NDIA accepted that LDPD requires repositioning 2 to 3 times per night which is consistent with the evidence of Mr Yu, Ms Rologas and the nursing/care plan before the Tribunal. In the absence of a manual handling plan, the NDIA submitted that the role of the second worker is unclear. In reviewing the sleep/activity logs, the NDIA submitted that in the 4 months, pad changes were required on 10 nights and transfers for toileting were required on 3 nights. The NDIA submitted that the care/nursing plan does not record a need for suctioning or other respiratory support and no such support is recorded in the logs. The NDIA further submitted that LDPD has an electric adjustable bed which assists with repositioning and reducing the risk of aspiration. She also has a pressure care mattress to mitigate pressure injury risks.
13. In reply to the NDIA's submissions, Ms Anderson referred the Tribunal to LDPD's inability to perform any bed transfers which is consistent with the MBI score of 0 and her need for maximum assistance from 2 individuals with a mechanical device in all facets of the transfer process, as well as the importance of repositioning. Ms Andeson also submitted that while LDPD required pad changes only on 18 nights out 78, it is not acceptable that she remain in her own urine until a second worker is available to assist with repositioning and the pad change.
14. The Tribunal agrees that it would not be appropriate for LDPD to remain in bed with a wet continence bed. However, the evidence does not indicate that this is occurring. The nursing/care plan before the Tribunal indicates that LDPD is susceptible to urinary tract infections (UTIs) and regular continence pad changes are required to minimise the risk of UTIs. Similarly, repositioning every 2 to 3 hours is recommended as a measure to minimise the risk of pressure wounds. There is no evidence of increased frequency of UTIs or active pressure wounds before the Tribunal which would suggest that continence pads are not being changed or that the repositioning is not occurring as recommended by Mr Yu and as documented in the nursing/care plan.
15. The Tribunal notes, however, that Mr Yu stated that suctioning should be completed on a regular basis but according to the activity logs this activity does not occur regularly. It is unknown whether suctioning is not completed because of the absence of a second worker or because it is not necessary. The evidence before the Tribunal did not indicate that two workers were required for suctioning.
16. The sleep/activity logs between June and October 2025 indicate that LDPD is receiving support from a second support worker for repositioning and hoist transfers for toileting as required. It is unclear to the Tribunal whether an additional support worker is available overnight and shared by the two residents in the SDA or whether the second support worker is available because of the flexible use of core supports in LDPS's plan. In any event the second worker is available to meet LDPD's needs.
17. In determining whether inactive overnight support represents value for money, the Tribunal has considered the costs of the requested support and the alternative agreed to by the NDIA. According to the current NDIS Price Guide the cost of the overnight sleepover is a flat rate of $297.60 per night or $2,100 per week. On the Tribunal's calculations the weekday rate of 2 workers overnight is $170.54, the Saturday rate $213.86 and the Sunday rate $275.74 with the week totalling $1,342.30 which does not include the public holiday rate. The difference each week between the inactive overnight and one hour of 2:1 each night is $757.70 ($39,400.40 per annum) which in the Tribunal's view is not insignificant.
18. In circumstances where LDPD's needs are being met with the current funding, the Tribunal is satisfied that the additional hour of 2:1 funding is a comparable support which would achieve the same outcome at a substantially lower cost. There is no evidence that the requested inactive overnight support will substantially improve the life stage outcomes for and be of long-term benefit to LDPD. LDPD is now at the end stage of her disease which is progressive and not going to improve. The Tribunal is satisfied that the requested support is not likely to reduce the cost of the funding of supports in the long term nor will it increase her independence and reduce her need for other kinds of supports.
19. Having considered the totality of the evidence before it and the submissions of the parties, the Tribunal is satisfied on balance that the requested inactive overnight support does not represent value for money and paragraph 34(1)(c) is not met. As all the criteria in subsection 34(1) must be met, it follows that the inactive overnight support is not reasonable and necessary.
20. The Tribunal will set aside the decision under review and remit to the NDIA with the Direction that the additional hour for overnight support at the 2:1 ratio is reasonable and necessary.

1. LDPD is currently funded for level 2 transport and seeks an increase to level 3. It was submitted that level 2 is not sufficient to cover LDPD's day-to-day transport costs and that her need to use a maxi taxi when participating in the community is closely related to her disability. It was submitted that without the maxi taxi, LDPD would have to stay home most of the time which would increase her social isolation.
2. Having regard to the documentary evidence and the submissions before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that that the support is necessary to assist LDPD's needs arising from her impairment for which she gained access to the NDIS, namely her inability to use public transport and mobilise because of the physical impairment resulting from multiple sclerosis (paragraph 34(1)(aa)) and that the support will assist her to pursue her goals, namely to facilitate opportunities for social engagement and community participation tailored to her preferences and abilities (paragraph 34(1)(a)). The Tribunal is also satisfied that that the support will assist LDPD to undertake activities, so as to facilitate her social and economic participation under paragraph 34(1)(b).
3. The next question for the Tribunal is whether level 3 transport represents value for money in accordance with paragraph 34(1(c), that is whether the costs are reasonable having regard to the benefits achieved and the cost of alternative support.
4. In her Statement of Facts and Contentions, LDPD set out her regular community access and social participation as follows:
   • Weekly medical appointment in Moonee Ponds - 32km and $ 61 each way
   • Weekly lunch/dinner out with her children in Bulleen - 17km and $32 each way
   • Weekly group catch-up with friends/family at the Glen - 10 km and $18 each way
   • Fortnightly hairdresser in Fountain Gate Westfield (only salon to accommodate a
   • wheelchair at basin) - 27km and $47 each way
5. In his report of 14 August 2024, Mr Yu also set out the above outings. He stated that LDPD's daily outings include shopping, nails, coffee, movies and other activities of her choice which cost approximately $15 each way, depending on traffic. He stated that LDPD uses her power wheelchair and requires and accessible taxi. He reported that:

"her average taxi spending, incorporating her half-price taxi card, is approximately $220 weekly. [LDPD] is currently allocated level 2 transport support, which is $2,472 per year. Level 2 transport support is insufficient to cover LDPD's day-to-day transport costs. Her need to take a maxi taxi when participating in the community is closely related to her disability MS. Without taking a maxi taxi, [LDPD] would have to stay home most of the time. This increases the risk of social isolation and deterioration of Depression. Therefore, she will benefit from level 3 transport support to maintain her community access and social participation, which is one of her NDIS goals."

1. In evidence before the Tribunal, Ms VP said that LDPD no longer attends Moonee Ponds because of the expense and the length of the trip. LDPD now attends lunch or dinner with her daughter at Surrey Hills, and she attends the hairdresser for colour every 5 to 6 weeks. Ms VP did say that LDPD previously attended the hairdresser fortnightly for a blow wave but is unable to do this because of the cost. Ms VP said that without level 3 transport funding, her mother was at risk of social isolation.
2. In a letter dated 2 February 2025, Ms B Phelan, support coordinator submitted:

[LDPD] continues to access the community regularly so that she is not bound to her home. Her highly skilled workers, of whom have been working with her for nearly a decade, are unable to transport [LDPD] in their own cars due to her disability needs. [LDPD] is not able to purchase and modify a car for herself (which would cost her approximately $50,000 with NDIS funded approximately $30,000 of modifications). In order for [LDPD] to continue accessing the community regularly, it is recommended that she receive Level 3 transport payments so that she can use this for a wheelchair taxi's. Level 3 transport allowance is far better value for money for the agency as opposed to funding $30,000 of modifications to a car that [LDPD] will only use for the coming year. Please see Anson's (Pelorus OT) letter of recommendation for further information.

1. The NDIA submitted that Mr Yu's evidence contains several inaccuracies and his justification for level 3 transport replicates the final page of the running sheet provided by the Applicant. That Mr Yu's report replicates the travel costs set out in a document that appears to have been prepared for advocacy purposes, does raise doubts as to the justification for his recommendations. It was submitted by Ms Anderson that the individual transport costs set out by Mr Yu do not detract from the fact that LDPD wants to increase her social communication. Nonetheless, the Tribunal must be satisfied that an increase in transport funding is reasonable and necessary.
2. In considering the request the Tribunal has considered the NDIS Guideline for transport funding which provides that:

A participant will generally be able to access funding through the NDIS for transport assistance if the participant cannot use public transport without substantial difficulty due to their disability.

Funding takes into account any relevant taxi subsidy scheme, and it does not cover transport assistance for carers to transport their family member with a disability for everyday commitments.

1. The Guideline also sets out the levels of transport that may be available:

Level 1 - The NDIS may provide $1,784 per year for participants who are not working, studying or attending day programs but are seeking to enhance their community access.

Level 2 - The NDIS may provide $2,676 per year for participants who are currently working or studying part-time (up to 15 hours a week), participating in day programs and for other social, recreational or leisure activities.

Level 3 - The NDIS may provide $3,456 per year for participants who are currently working, looking for work, or studying, at least 15 hours a week, and are unable to use public transport because of their disability.

Exceptional circumstances: participants may receive higher funding if the participant has either general or funded supports in their plan to enable their participation in employment.

1. The Tribunal acknowledges that the Operational Guidelines represents policy and is not binding. However, in the present case, no compelling reasons have been presented to justify a departure from the guideline.
2. Level 3 transport may be funded for participants who either work or study at least 15 hours per week and are unable to use public transport. LDPD is neither working nor studying. She is, on the evidence before the Tribunal engaging in social activities and satisfies the requirements for level 2 transport.
3. It was submitted that LDPD was at risk of social isolation. On the available evidence, the Tribunal is not persuaded by this submission. LDPD regularly attends the Glen shopping centre for coffee and catching-up with friends and family. She also attends the hair and nail salon. She has fortnightly lunches or dinners with her daughter and according to Mr Yu, her three children visit frequently and sometimes daily.[28] In the circumstances, the Tribunal does not accept that LDPD is at risk of social isolation to warrant a departure from the Operational Guideline.
4. Ms Anderson relied on the judgement in McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency.[29] In McGarrigle, Mortimer J (as she then was) concluded that when a support is found to be reasonable and necessary, the scheme contemplates that the support will be fully funded. Unlike the present case, Mr Garrigle was working and attending a disability group program which was funded by the NDIA. LDPD is not incurring travel costs that are ancillary to a support that has been approved by the NDIA, and no specific travel cost/s has been found to be reasonable and necessary nor has such a submission been made to the Tribunal.
5. In circumstances were LDPD is engaging socially and participating in the community with level 2 funding, the Tribunal is not satisfied on balance that the costs of level 3 are reasonable relative to the benefits achieved. There is no evidence that level 3 would achieve a better outcome for LDPD or that it would substantially improve her life stage outcome or be of long-term benefit. The Tribunal finds that the request for level 3 transport does not represent value for money and therefore paragraph 34(1)(c) is not met.

SPECIALIST DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION (HIGH PHYSICAL SUPPORT), 2-BEDROOM, 1 OCCUPANT

1. LDPD's is currently funded for SDA (high physical support), 2 occupants. She seeks funding for sole occupancy SDA with 2 bedrooms, and her preference is to remain in the SDA she is currently in, as the sole occupant.
2. The SDA Rules set out the eligibility requirements for a person to receive SDA (rule 11) and the matters that must be determined by the CEO, including the building type (rule 16), design category (rule 17) and location of the SDA (rule 18). LDPD is currently approved for and residing in SDA. Her eligibility is not in dispute and there is no dispute as to the building type, design category or location. The only issue in dispute is whether a two-bedroom, single occupancy SDA is reasonable and necessary.
3. The Tribunal first considered whether paragraph 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act is satisfied. Paragraph (aa) requires the decision-maker to be positively satisfied that the requested support is necessary to address needs of the participant arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements.
4. In CEO of the National Disability Insurance Agency v Eastham,[30] Hespe J set out the components of the provision and explained:

By its terms, s 34(1)(aa) requires the CEO (or the Tribunal on review) be satisfied, in relation to the funding or provision of a support, that:

(a) the support is necessary to address needs of the participant;

(b) those needs must arise from an impairment; and

(c) the impairment giving rise to the needs must be one in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements in s 24 or the early intervention requirements in s 25.

1. Ms Anderson submitted on behalf of LDPD that the having the second resident in the property poses a privacy risk because the second bathroom is shared by the second resident, staff and visitors. The property lacks adequate storage for assistive technology and personal care items which poses a risk of trips and falls. Ms Anderson also submitted there the cramped storage creates potential fire risks and potentially the absence of a suitable exit in the event of an emergency evacuation. LDPD relied on the evidence of Mr Yu who recommended that LDPD remain in the SDA she is in because of the costs and risks to LDPD if she was required to relocate. LDPD also relied on the evidence of Ms Rologas who gave evidence of design issues, including the absence of an ensuite in the second bedroom, inadequate storage which poses risks of falls and trips, and an inability to safely exit in an emergency because equipment blocking the exits. Ms Rologas also gave evidence of inadequate clearance to accommodate the footprint of LDPD's equipment.
2. In a letter dated 1 August 2025, Ms Rolgas stated:

The home is small, lacks adequate privacy, and offers minimal storage or personal space. It is significantly cluttered due to the volume of high-needs equipment and personal care items required for both HPS participants, resulting in a cramped and suboptimal environment for high-needs care.[31]

1. The documentary evidence before the Tribunal included photographs of the SDA.[32] There was no evidence of clutter. The lounge room appeared to be spacious and the equipment visible in the photograph included a wheelchair and exercise bike which belonged to the second resident. LDPD was reclining in a princess chair, and her power wheelchair was located in corner. Her bedroom was partially visible in the photograph. It too, did not appear cluttered. In his evidence Mr Yu confirmed that LDPD's equipment was not above average for a participant with high physical support needs. He also stated that dual occupancy SDA is appropriate for LDPD provided that she has sufficient supports in place.
2. The Applicant's submissions focussed primarily on the design of the SDA. The witnesses before the Tribunal gave evidence that the design of the SDA was deterring potential residents because the second bedroom does not have an ensuite. This means the second resident must walk through the living area to access the bathroom thereby raising privacy concerns for the other resident. In addition to the impact on the other resident, it was submitted that the need for the other resident to access the shared bathroom in varying states of undress causes embarrassment for LDPD when she has visitors. Ms Anderson submitted that the location of the second bathroom is a very real disability related matter.
3. The Tribunal is not persuaded by the Applicant's submissions. Matters relating to the design of an SDA are the responsibility of the SDA provider, and specifically the provider who has applied to have the dwelling enrolled as an SDA (Division 3 of the SDA Rules).
4. The matters raised by Ms Anderson do not satisfy the Tribunal that the requested support, a two-bedroom SDA is necessary to address the needs of LDPD which arise from her impairments. While in previous decided cases, the Tribunal has determined that space requirements or a participant's disability support needs may justify more than one bedroom or a different building type,[33] that is not the case for LDPD. Her equipment is not above average, and the Tribunal is not satisfied that the SDA is cluttered. The absence of an ensuite for the second resident may adversely impact a second resident. It may also cause embarrassment for LDPD. However, LDPD has her own bedroom with an onsite in a high physical needs SDA.
5. On the available evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that a second bedroom is necessary to address LDPD's needs arising from her physical impairment. Therefore, paragraph 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act is not satisfied. It follows that a sole occupancy SDA with 2 bedrooms is not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision and remits the matter to the Respondent for reconsideration in accordance with the Direction that one hour of 2:1 overnight support worker assistance is to be included in the Applicant's Statement of Participant Supports payable at the high intensity rate.

Dates of hearing: 28 October 2025 and 3 December 2025

Solicitors for the Applicant: Ms N. Anderson and Ms E. Almond, Villamanta Disability Rights Legal Service

Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr K. Rieschieck, Mills Oakley

[3] The document is recorded as Care Plan as at October 2026 which may be a typographical error.

[4] [2017] FCA 308.

[5] [2017] FCA 308 at [91].

[6] [2020] FCAFC 79.

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

[18] Respondent's closing submission at [10]

[19] Applicant's plan approved on 21 November 2025, JTB 21

[29] [2017] FCA 308

[30] [2026] FCA 147

[33] Re Trapezanidis and CEO, of the National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 1674; Re Boicovitis and the National Disability Insurance Agency [2022] AATA 204