Assistance with daily life > > Supports to assist or supervise you with your personal tasks during day-to-day life that enable you to live as independently as possible. These supports can be provided individually in a range of environments, including your own home. Assistance with self-care activitiesTo (sic) trial alternate accommodation, support with your daily activities, personal tasks, and self-care.

6. There was also a category of support identified as "YPIRAC - Cross Billing" in respect of which funding of $95,537.80 was approved.[5] This support is described in the plan as follows:

Cross-billing arrangements for residential aged care subsidies and supplements ... this is to reimburse the Residential Aged Care system for the support they provide you. You don't need to take any action for this item.

7. This description of this support refers to an interdepartmental arrangement pursuant to which the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) reimburses the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing for payments it makes to the Applicant's residential aged care provider for her support in that facility.
8. The Applicant's YPIRAC funding is designated a "stated," "agency managed" support. In short, these designations mean that the Applicant's YPIRAC funding can only be used for its stated purpose and that payments are made directly from the NDIA to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. The Applicant has no control over this funding.[6]
9. In response to my inquiry of her at the Interlocutory Hearing the CEO's legal representative agreed that the Applicant's YPIRAC funding was a NDIS Support within the meaning of s 10 of the NDIS Act and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Cth) (NDIS Supports Transitional Rules) because it is so declared by Item 5 in Schedule 1 of those Rules as follows:

Supports that are NDIS supports unless otherwise provided

Assistance with daily life tasks in a group or shared living arrangement

Supports that provide assistance with or supervision of daily living tasks to participants in a shared living environment.

This includes the following:

...

(c) supports provided to participants living in residential aged care facilities

1. I do not understand it to be controversial that the approved funding for assistance with daily life is a NDIS Support because it is so declared in item 14 of Schedule 1 of the NDIS Supports Transitional Rules as follows:

Supports that are NDIS supports unless otherwise provided

Supports that provide supervision or assistance with personal daily living tasks to help a participant to live as independently as possible in their own home and in the community.

This includes the following:

(a) assistance with eating and drinking, dressing and toileting;

(d) maintaining personal hygiene, including showering, bathing, hair washing and drying, fingernail and toenail cutting and cleaning;

(e) moving and positioning;

...

1. Since becoming a participant in the NDIS, the Applicant has sought to obtain the CEO's approval of the supports she contends are reasonable and necessary for her to move out of the residential aged care facility to her own home in the community. That has been a long and painful road she has had to travel.[7]
2. Originally, there was an issue concerning the Applicant's eligibility for support for Specialist Disability Accommodation (support for SDA). However, on 31 July 2025 the CEO approved support for SDA in accordance with the Applicant's request, and this approval was recorded in the plan issued on 13 November 2025 as follows:[8]

Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) > > Specialist Disability Accommodation is a specially designed house for people with extreme functional impairment or very high support needs. ... We've added a $0.01 placeholder amount to represent your specialist disability accommodation (SDA) eligibility. SDA will be paid once you are living in an enrolled SDA dwelling.... You are eligible for SDA as follows: Specialist Disability Accommodation ... up to $73,437 per year (quote required). The design category is High physical support, building type is Villa/Duplex/Townhouse, 1 resident, location is Qld, Morton Bay North. This decision includes the provision of onsite overnight assistance and fire sprinklers.[9]

3. Although support for SDA had been approved five months prior to the review hearing, at the time of the hearing the Applicant had been unable to secure suitable SDA despite what I found to be reasonable searches.[10] Nevertheless, searches continued, and on the final day a new option had been identified for investigation.[11] The significance of this at the time of the hearing, and now, is that a suitable SDA option may be secured for the Applicant at any time, and when it is, she will require support for daily personal activities to be available to take up that option.
4. It was this issue that remained in dispute between the parties at the final hearing; that is, what funding should be approved for support for daily personal activities to enable the Applicant to live successfully in the SDA that had been approved. The parties had competing proposals for this in terms of the intensity and duration/configuration of this support during the day and overnight that was reasonable and necessary.
5. I pause at this point to note that the issue before me at the final hearing was not whether funding should be approved for support for daily personal activities. It was, in effect, how much funding should be approved based on the intensity and duration/configuration of support that was to be determined to be reasonable and necessary.
6. This review took place in a context where funding for support for daily personal activities and YPIRAC cross billing were already approved, and SDA eligibility recorded, in the then current operative SOPS.
7. At no point did Counsel for the CEO put to me any of the following propositions:
   • - that the approval of funding for assistance with daily personal activities and YPIRAC cross billing in the then current operative SOPS was a duplication of supports and therefore prohibited by sub-rule 5.1(c) of the NDIS Supports Rules,
   • - that the approval of any funding for assistance with daily personal activities, whether the proposal she or the Applicant's representative contended for, or some other outcome decided by me, would be impermissible by operation of sub-rule 5.1(c), or
   • - that it would be necessary to give some form of contingent future approval for funding for assistance with daily personal activities triggered by the Applicant's move into SDA because this funding and YPIRAC cross billing funding could not co-exist temporally in the Applicant's SOPS because of sub-rule 5.1(c).
8. Consequently, I did not turn my mind to any such contention at the hearing, or in my disposition of the substantive review.
9. To labour the point, had I accepted the CEO's submission in toto as put at the hearing as to what funding should be approved for assistance for daily personal activities it would not have made any difference to the issue now agitated by the CEO in this application.
10. In disposition of the substantive review, I made the following orders:

(1) Pursuant to s 105 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), the decision under review is set aside and remitted for reconsideration by the CEO by 6 February 2026 in accordance with orders that:

(a) the following intensity of support worker assistance is reasonable and necessary support that is to be funded in the Applicant's Statement of Participant Supports:

Daytime support:

- six hours a day of assistance with daily personal activities at a ratio of 2:1 (including weekends and public holidays),

- two hours a day of assistance with daily personal activities at a ratio of 1:1 (including weekends and public holidays),

Overnight support:

- inactive overnight assistance with daily personal activities at a ratio of 1:1 347 days a year (but prorated to the plan reassessment date), and

- active overnight assistance with daily personal activities at a ratio of 1:1 18 days a year (but pro-rated to the plan reassessment date).

(b) the support specified in paragraph (a) is to replace the Applicant's existing funding for assistance with daily personal activities in her current operative Statement of Participant Supports,

(c) all other supports in the Applicant's current operative Statement of Participant Supports are to be replicated from the date on which the support specified in (a) is included in the Applicant's current operative Statement of Participant Supports until the plan reassessment date.

(d) the date by which the CEO must reassess the Applicant's Participant Plan is to remain 12 November 2026.

...

The s 114 'variation' application

1. Order 1 required the CEO to reconsider the operative decision and incorporate the approved assistance for daily personal activities in the Applicant's SOPS by 6 February 2026.
2. On that date, the CEO's legal representative wrote to the Tribunal to make a 's 114 variation request', stating, relevantly:

... > > For the Tribunal's ease of reference, we note the Tribunal decision found that increased core support in the form of daytime support and increased overnight supports were reasonable and necessary. > > At the time of writing, the Applicant is continuing to reside in residential aged care. Therefore, funding must remain in the Applicant's plan for Younger People in Residential Aged Care (YPIRA) until such time as she transitions to Specialist Disability Accommodation. To include the core supports in the Tribunal decision in the plan in addition to the YPIRA funding would therefore represent a duplication of supports, which is prohibited under the relevant Rules (r5.1(c) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants Rules) 2013 (the Rules)). > > To overcome this complexity, the Agency is proposing to create a new plan for the Applicant which includes a full description of the core support directed by the Tribunal, with a nominal value of $1 will be attributed to the support. Once the Applicant has transitioned out of residential aged care, and the YPIRA component of the plan is removed, the funding for the core supports directed by the Tribunal will be increased to the full value of the support. > > To ensure the Respondent remains compliant with the Tribunal decision, the Respondent respectfully requests the Tribunal decision dated 9 January 2026 be varied under s114 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2014 (Cth) (ART Act). The Respondent requests that rather than requiring the reasonable and necessary supports in the Tribunal decision be implemented on or before 6 February 2026, the decision be amended to require the supports be implemented upon the Applicant transitioning out of residential aged care. The Respondent makes the request under s 114 on the basis that the obvious error in the Tribunal decision is that it cannot be effectively implemented as directed by operation of r5.1(c) of the Rules. > > (errors in original)

3. By that correspondence, the CEO's representative advised that the consent of the Applicant to this 'variation' had been sought and a response was awaited.
4. In the early evening of 6 February 2026 (that day being a Friday) the Applicant's representative wrote to the Tribunal stating as follows:

We confirm that we have received an email from the Respondent this afternoon outlining the concern they have raised regarding implementation of the Tribunal decision, that was due to occur today. > > I have spoken to Ms Myers and her support co-ordinator. They have raised the following concerns:

(a) the possible delay in the plan being implemented once Ms Myers is ready to transition out of residential aged care and the potential of there being a gap in supports.

(b) Ms Myers should not and would not sign a Service Agreement prior to funding being placed in her plan. Therefore, she is restricted in her ability to engage a service provider prior to leaving Residential aged care and again there may be a gap in supports.

[the CEO's solicitor] has reassured the Applicant that her carriage of the matter, and the oversight of the NDIA Appeals Case Manager, will remain until Ms Myer's transitions to SDA. We would, however, be further reassured by any further details as to how the Respondent envisions the transitional period will take place in a timely manner and effective manner to ensure no gap in Ms Myers' supports.

1. I considered this correspondence on 10 February 2026 and directed Registry to list the s 114 variation request for an Interlocutory Hearing. I directed Registry to advise the parties that they were to attend that hearing prepared to address the implications of ss 107(1)[12] and 108(4) and (5)[13] of the ART Act for that application.
2. In the meantime, on 9 February 2026, the CEO issued the Applicant with a new NDIS Plan commencing on that date which specifies 8 February 2027 as its reassessment date (the replacement plan). By operation of paragraph 37(3)(a) and ss 37(4) of the NDIS Act this new plan replaces the plan, with SOPS, that was subject to independent review. That plan, and SOPS, ceases to have effect because of the approval of the new plan and SOPS. Sub-section 103(2) of the NDIS Act does not operate to place this new plan before the Tribunal for review because the Tribunal's review had been finalised before it was made.
3. The replacement plan replicates the supports contained in the SOPS in the 13 November 2025 plan. This includes the funding for assistance with daily personal activities and other core supports that was contained in that plan alongside the funding for the YPIRAC cross billing arrangement.
4. In relation to the outcome of this Tribunal's independent review the new plan includes the following commentary in the "Core Flexible" category:[14]

Assistance with Daily Life > > ... You will need to let us know when you move into a registered SDA (Specialist Disability Accommodation) so that the correct amount of funding can be added for assistance with self-care activities while you are living in SDA.

1. Section 37 of the NDIS Act provides, relevantly:

37 When a plan is in effect > > (1) A participant's plan comes into effect when the CEO has:

(a) received the participant's statement of goals and aspirations from the participant; and

(b) approved the statement of participant supports.

(3) A participant's plan ceases to be in effect at the earliest of the following times:

(a) when the plan is replaced by another plan (see subsection (4));

..

(4) For the purposes of paragraph 3(a), if a plan (the replacement plan) comes into effect for a participant while another plan is in effect, the other plan is replaced by the replacement plan.

1. The effect of the CEO's post hearing conduct is, therefore, that -

(i) There has been a constructive failure or refusal to give effect to the Tribunal's decision by reconsidering the operative decision under review and incorporating, as directed, the additional supports the Tribunal decided were reasonable and necessary; and > > (ii) Instead, a decision has been made to create an entirely new plan and SOPS for the Applicant, unilaterally, rather than with her,[15] which does not incorporate the outcome of the Tribunal's independent review, which replaces the operative SOPS that was subject to the Tribunal's independent review, and which by operation of s 37 avoids the obligation to implement the Tribunal's decision on review; > > (iii) the Applicant's application for review has been a futility, notwithstanding that she was substantially successful in its outcome.

2. The CEO's s 114 variation application asks the Tribunal to somehow regularise this post hearing conduct on the basis that its orders were made in error, being contrary to sub-rule 5.1(c) of the NDIS Supports Rules.
3. In oral argument, the CEO's representative submitted to the Tribunal that if it did not correct its decision pursuant to s 114 in the manner he contended for, he would have no alternative but to cease funding for the Applicant's YPIRAC cross billing arrangement. The Applicant's representative submitted, in effect, that the Applicant found that submission menacing.[16]

114 Tribunal may correct error in decision or statement of reasons > > (1) If, after the Tribunal makes a decision, the Tribunal considers that there is an obvious error in the text of: > > (a) the decision; or > > (b) the statement of reasons for the decision; > > the Tribunal may alter the text of the decision or statement. > > Note: The following are examples of obvious errors in the text of a decision or statement:

(a) an obvious clerical or typographical error in the text of the decision or statement;

(b) an inconsistency between the decision and the statement of reasons for the decision.

(2) If the text of a decision is altered under subsection (1), the altered text is taken to be the decision. If the text of a statement is altered under subsection (1), the altered text is taken to be the statement.

1. The Tribunal's power to correct an 'error' in a decision or statement of reasons is to be distinguished from its power when constituted as the Guidance and Appeals Panel to conduct a new hearing in a second review.[17] It is also to be distinguished from the right of a party to appeal from a decision of the Tribunal to the Federal Courts on a question of law,[18] or to seek judicial review of a decision of the Tribunal by the Federal Courts.[19]
2. With very limited exceptions, substantive Tribunal decisions published at the end of an independent review finalise an application for review. That is because the decision discharges the statutory function that the Tribunal is required and empowered to perform under the statute that establishes it. In arcane parlance the Tribunal becomes functus officio of its statutory obligation: in more colloquial terms, it has done its job and can't do it over again. This principle is derivative of a general doctrine of law that decisions of courts and tribunals are final, unless set aside for error on appeal or on judicial review by a court. That doctrine quells disputes by producing finality and certainty of outcome.[20]
3. Section 114 is one of the limited exceptions to this doctrine. It permits the Tribunal to revisit a final decision it has made for the narrow purpose of correcting an obvious error in the text of the decision or a statement of reasons. Although the word 'correct' is used in the section, what is typically to be 'made right' are obvious textual and typographical errors in the decision or reasons, or inconsistencies between the meaning conveyed by the decision and the reasons upon which it is based. Such errors are typically self-evident, and their correction is typically uncontroversial. The word "correct" does not connote a power to revisit and change an asserted wrong conclusion of law or fact contained in the decision or reasons. The avenues by which the Tribunal is corrected in such a case is on second review by the GAP, or by the Federal Courts on appeal or judicial review.
4. It might be said that the above statement of principle is something of an oversimplification. In Bhadawaj[21] and related cases it has been held that the Tribunal has the power to correct its own error when, because of that error, it has failed to discharge its statutory function. But this is based upon the principle that a decision involving such a jurisdictional error is no decision at all. Because the Tribunal's function has not been discharged it is able to continue to deal with the underlying application.[22] Although more complex in character, a Bhadawaj type error nevertheless remains one of an administrative rather than substantive character.[23] In any event, the application made by the CEO here does not assert jurisdictional error.
5. What is asserted, in substance, is an error of law. That is, it is asserted that the Tribunal concluded that funding for assistance for daily personal activities could be approved for inclusion in the Applicant's SOPS concurrently with the YPIRAC cross payment contrary to sub-rule 5.3, which prohibits the approval of duplicative supports. There is nothing merely textual in that asserted error: it goes to the centre of the dispute that was before the Tribunal. That 'error,' if it is one, is therefore not amenable to correction pursuant to s 114, it must be corrected on second review by the GAP or on appeal or judicial review by a Federal Court.
6. Having regard to that it is not appropriate for me to make any comment in relation to the substantive correctness of my decision. That will be a matter for the GAP or a Federal Court to determine if the CEO seeks further consideration of the outcome of my review.
7. However, I do turn now to consider the implications of the CEO's decision of 9 February 2026 to issue the Applicant with a new plan, with new SOPS, that does not contain the fruits the Applicant obtained in the independent review of the SOPS that was before the Tribunal. As I have noted above that new plan and SOPS replaces the plan and SOPS which was before the Tribunal and so frustrates the result the Applicant obtained in the Tribunal's review of its predecessor. It appears to me that this may constitute contempt of the Tribunal, contrary to s 120 of the ART Act. If so, it would be a very serious matter, and one incompatible with the CEO's model litigant obligations.[24]
8. It thus appears to me appropriate that I consider if the CEO's post-Tribunal decision conduct ought to be referred to the President's Chambers for consideration under s 120 of the ART Act. As the parties were not on notice as to that potential outcome in advance of the interlocutory hearing, I have made directions calling for submissions as to whether this referral is appropriate. I will decide whether to do so after I have considered the parties submissions.

1. For the foregoing reasons, this application must be refused on the basis that it is misconceived.

Pursuant to paragraph 101(1)(a) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) the Respondent's Application pursuant to s 114 of that Act for a correction to the decision published on 9 January 2026 is refused on the basis it is misconceived.

The Tribunal has considered the CEO's submissions, dated 24 February 2026, concerning the potential referral of his post Tribunal decision conduct to the President's Chambers for consideration in relation to s 120 of the ART Act. The Tribunal notes that the CEO has now issued the Applicant with a new participant plan and SOPS, dated 24 February 2026, which incorporates the fruits of the Tribunal's independent review. Considering that development the Applicant has notified the Tribunal she does not wish to take the matter further. The Tribunal will therefore take no further action in relation to this issue.

[1] Myers and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2026] ARTA 37 (Myers No.1).

[2] See further Myers No.1 at [19] - [20].

[3] This reassessment date is required to be included in a participant plan by paragraph 33(2)(c) of the NDIS Act.

[4] Your NDIS plan, 13 November 2025, pages 3-4.

[6] Tribunal Documents, Tab T4, pages 93-5.

[7] Applicant's Statement of Lived Experience, 23 April 2025, Joint Tender Bundle, Tab JTB22, pages 619-23.

[8] As required by sub-rule 19(1) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Specialist Disability Accommodation) Rules 2020 (Cth).

[9] Your NDIA Plan, approved 13 November 2025, page 11.

[10] See further Myers No.1 at [115]

[12] ss 107(1) provides that it is the general rule that a decision of the Tribunal in the proceeding in relation to an application comes into operation when it is given to the parties to the proceeding.

[13] ss 108(4) and (5) provide, in summary, that when the decision of the Tribunal to vary or set aside the reviewable decision comes into operation, the reviewable decision as varied, or the decision made in substitution for the reviewable decision has effect, or is taken to have had effect, from the time at which the reviewable decision has or had effect unless the Tribunal orders otherwise.

[14] Equivalent commentary appears in relation to the funding approved for 'Assistance with Social, Economic and Community Participation', which is inscrutable, given that the funding amount in this category remains the same as for the 13 November 2025 plan, and this support was not in issue in the independent review.

[15] See the chapeau to ss 33(2) of the NDIS Act.

[16] Transcript, 17 February 226, at page 5 line 41- 46; page 7, line 21 to page 8 line 15.

[19] Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth): s 5

[20] Johnson v Veterans' Review Board [2005] FCA 1136 at [55]; Bogaards v McMahon [1988] FCA 161 at [40]; Commonwealth v Snell [2019] FCAFC 57 at [71]; Kuchlmayr and Australian Capital Territory (Compensation) [2020] AATA 5072 at [13] - [15]; Re Rana and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2008] AATA 558 at [99]; Re Michael and Secretary, Department of Employment, Science and Training (2006) 90 ALD 457; [2006] AATA 227 at [17].

[21] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597; 67 ALD 615; [2002] HCA 11.

[22] Ibid [2002] HCA 11 at [51] per Gaudron and Gummow JJ.

[23] Re Michael and Secretary, Department of Employment, Science and Training (2006) 90 ALD 457; [2006] AATA 227 at [17].

[24] Division 2, Part 5, Legal Services Direction 2025 (Cth).