1. The absence of such details by BD means that Tribunal cannot be satisfied that if the additional support sought was granted, this may not result in a duplication of other therapies.
2. The Agency relies upon the BF's recommendation to support its contentions as to the level of support for occupational therapy.
3. The Agency contends that the level of support recommended by BF represents value for money which is likely to achieve the same outcome for MZZY but at a lower cost. Further, BF's recommendation is likely to improve MZZY's life stage outcomes and have long- term benefits for her.
4. In contrast to F who seeks therapy sessions to continue for MZZY during school holidays, BF's view is that it is important for children to have a break from therapy sessions during the school holidays.
5. Notably, the interventions recommended by BD are acknowledged by BF who recommends 20 hours in the same circumstances.
6. As to F's request for funding to allow MZZY to travel to her location, the Agency refers to Transitional Rules, Sch 2, item 6. Item 6 provides that transport for children as part of their reasonable care and support provided by families or carers" is not generally a NDIS support.
7. It is noted that for provider travel to be a NDIS support, the transport costs must, on the evidence, be outside of what is considered reasonable for a family to provide. The Agency accepts BF's recommendations the therapy will be more productive in the school environment than in MZZY's home where there can be distractions or, in consulting rooms. Accordingly, the Agency agrees to fund 15 minutes per therapy session for the provider to travel to the Applicant.[51] The Agency also accepts that 6 hours per year is reasonable and necessary for the purpose of report writing and resource development.
8. For the reasons I have previously stated above, I prefer BF's recommendations to those of BD.
9. I accept the Agency's contentions that the recommendations of BF are effective and beneficial and value for money.
10. The level of occupational therapy funding as sought by MZZY is not a reasonable and necessary support for the purposes of section 34(1) of the NDIS Act and the current funding in MZZY's SOPS commencing 8 August 2025 remains unchanged.

1. F seeks 40.5 hours per year for speech therapy.
2. The Agency's position is that 36 hours per year is reasonable and necessary, comprising 24 hours for direct therapy intervention, 6 hours for report writing and 6 hours for travel.
3. What is in dispute between the parties is whether the Tribunal can be satisfied that MZZY's request for the level of speech therapy meets sections 34(1)(c), (d) and (e) of the NDIS Act; is this support value for money, what is its benefit and what is reasonably expected of family to provide.
4. F relies upon the report of speech pathologist, SR.
5. SR recommends a total of 37.5 hours plus 15 minutes of travel for each session in order to further develop MZZY's articulation skills, and ongoing assistance with social thinking and expressive communication.
6. SR relevantly stated that:

(a) She considers MZZY has a mild to moderate delay in receptive language and language memory, and she is average in the domains of core language, receptive

(b) Therapy has had a positive impact on the Applicant's functional capacity, but then states that MZZY has made minimal progress toward achieving her goals.[53]

(c) Specific goals have not yet been targeted due to prioritization of building the

therapeutic alliance and targeting foundational articulation skills.[54]

1. I note that BD recommended that MZZY undergo 86 hours of direct intervention. BD is not a speech pathologist. It follows that her recommendation has very little probative weight. Where BD's opinion conflicts with that of SR, SR's opinion as a qualified speech pathologist must be preferred.
2. SR's report does not contain:
   • a breakdown of the recommended intervention.
   • What expected functional communication outcomes likely to be achieved for MZZY in comparison to her current functional capacity.
3. The criteria identified in the previous paragraph is necessary for the Tribunal to assess whether or not it can be satisfied that the requested support is value for money. In the absence of evidence detailing the proposed intervention, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the requested support is effective and beneficial.
4. The Agency also contends that in the absence of any evidence as to why MZZY's parents cannot be provided with in-home strategies to support the Applicant with her speech therapy goals, the requirements of section 34(1)(e) of the NDIS Act cannot be satisfied. I accept this is a reasonable contention.
5. The Agency's position is that its proposed level of speech therapy is a comparable support that would achieve the same outcome at a substantially lower cost and is effective and beneficial. Accordingly, the Agency accepts speech therapy sessions will be more productive in the school environment, than in the Applicant's home or in consulting rooms, so it agrees to fund 15 minutes per therapy session for the provider to travel to MZZY. Applicant.[55] The Agency also accepts that 6 hours per year is reasonable and necessary for the purpose of report writing and resource development.
6. For the reasons detailed above, I accept the Agency's position and I am unable to accept MZZY's request for this support satisfies the criteria in section 34 (1)(c), (d) and (e) the criteria.
7. The level of speech therapy funding as sought by MZZY is not a reasonable and necessary support for the purposes of section 34(1) of the NDIS Act and the current funding in MZZY's SOPS commencing 8 August 2025 remains unchanged.

1. MZZY seeks 73 hours per year for psychology, comprising 52 hours for direct intervention, 13 hours for travel and 8 hours for report writing.
2. The Agency's position is that 43.5 hours per year is reasonable and necessary, comprising 30 hours for direct therapy intervention, 6 hours for report writing and 7.5 hours for travel. The Agency also agrees to fund 10 hours per year for carer psychoeducation.
3. Not in dispute between the parties is that MZZY's proposed funding for psychology satisfies sections 34(1)(aa), (a), (b), (e) and (f) of the NDIS Act.
4. However, the Tribunal must decide if it can be satisfied that the proposed funding for psychology, meets sections 34(1)(c) and (d), that is whether the proposed funding is value for money and is of benefit to MZZY.
5. The Joint Tender Bundle contains a lot of evidence containing comment from psychologists and neuropsychologists in respect of MZZY from 2018.
6. F relies on the report co-authored by SO and RM dated 25 September 2024.[56] Relevantly, this is the most recent psychologist's report in respect of MZZY.
7. This report refers to MZZY presenting with symptoms of anxiety including not speaking to unfamiliar adults, teachers, and school staff, social-emotional difficulties relating to her communication of emotions, emotional and behavioural regulation, and difficulty with perspective-taking and understanding people's personal space boundaries. MZZY's testing results indicated that MZZY experiences anxiety symptoms that may significantly impact her daily functioning but may not be severe enough to be classified as an anxiety disorder.
8. SO and RM conclude that MZZY requires 52 sessions per year in a total amount of $15,260.96. However, their report does not contain:
   • an explanation as to how they arrived at their recommendation, and
   • how this recommended level of funding will improve the life stage outcomes for MZZY and, reduce the cost of funding supports in the long term in line with the Support Rules, rule 3.1(b).
9. As with the previous support, in the absence of evidence detailing why MZZY's current level of funding is insufficient to meet her goals, the Tribunal has no way of determining whether the level of psychology sought is effective and beneficial, having regard to good practice.
10. Pursuant to Schedule 1, item 34 of the Transitional Rules, supports that provide evidence based therapy to help participants improve or maintain their functional capacity are generally NDIS supports. Without evidence detailing the functional gains made during her current treatment plan, further recommended intervention, and expected future functional outcomes, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the support will maintain or improve the Applicant's functional capacity.
11. For the reasons detailed above, I am unable to accept MZZY's request for this support satisfies the criteria in section 34 (1)(c), (d) and (e) the criteria.
12. The level of psychology funding as sought by MZZY is not a reasonable and necessary support for the purposes of section 34(1) of the NDIS Act and the current funding in MZZY's SOPS commencing 8 August 2025 remains unchanged.

1. Pursuant to subparagraph 105(c)(ii) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2025 (Cth) the decision under review is affirmed.

Counsel for Respondent: Mr Tom Lettenmaier of Counsel

[6] Letter NDIS to F dated 8 August 2025 attaching MZZY's NDIS plan and budget breakdown

[7] Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31; (2008) 235 CLR 286, 37

[8] Esber v The Commonwealth [1992] HCA 20; (1992) 174 CLR 430, 440; Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2019] HCA 16; (2019) 266 CLR 250, 51.

[9] QDKH, by his litigation representative BGJF v National Disability Insurance Agency [2021] FCAFC 189, 7

[10] National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth), ss 3(1)(c), (d) and (e).

[11] Section 129 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No 1) Act 2024

[13] National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF [2020] FCAFC 79 ('WRMF')

[14] McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency [2017] FCA 308 ('McGarrigle')

[15] Minister for Home Affairs v G [2019] FCAFC 79 at [18]

[16] [1979] AATA 179 (1979); 2 ALD 634

[17] [2018] FCA 1229

[19] This also includes the T- Documents and material filed post filing of the JTB.

[22] ASD assessment report, Dr Argiro, Hayley White and Kim Urwin,8 August 2023, p15.

[24] T7, p 73; Dahl Report, p 8; Paediatric assessment, DH, 9 September 2021, pp 9-10.

[27] Agency's SFIC dated 2 September 2025]

[44] NDIS Act, s 34(1)(d); Supports Rules, rr 3.2 and 3.3.

[47] Public Trustee of South Australia (as litigation representative for Isherwood) v National Disability Insurance Agency (No 2) [2023] FCA 852;

[55] SR's response to targeted questions and email from F, 22 January 2025.