1. The Applicant is 62 years old and a participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). He lives with, among other things, Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP), a progressive neurological condition.
2. I accept that the Applicant's condition causes, among other things, muscle weakness, fatigue, and reduced coordination and mobility. He experiences significant limitations in mobility and relies on crutches, a four-wheel walker, or a mobility scooter to move around his property. I accept that transfers are difficult, and he is at high risk of falls, particularly on uneven ground.
3. The Applicant resides on a 200-acre property in Victoria, which he describes as his home of 23 years. To move through the property, he must currently pass through gates. This requires him to stop his vehicle, dismount on uneven terrain, manually open the gate, return to the vehicle, drive through, and repeat the process to close the gate.
4. The Applicant describes this process as 'exhausting, painful, and risky'. I accept that characterisation in the context of the Applicant's evidence and the totality of the medical evidence before me. In this context, he seeks funding for cattle grids to replace the manual operation of these gates, allowing him to remain in his vehicle and access the property safely and independently

1. I accept that the review is conducted under the NDIS Act as amended by the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth) (Amending Act). As such and because the decision is being made after 3 October 2024, the amendments to s 34 apply to the Applicant's plan. For present purposes, it is relevant that s 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act now requires that a support must be an 'NDIS support' for the participant.
2. 'NDIS support' is defined in s 10 of the NDIS Act. I otherwise approach the question of whether a support is an 'NDIS support' is determined by the Transitional Rules in the manner identified by Senior Member French in FWSN[1]. In that respect, I note that Schedule 1 lists supports that are NDIS supports and Schedule 2 lists supports that are not NDIS supports. As explained by SM French in FWSN, a support which is prescribed in Schedule 2 is excluded, even if it might otherwise fall within Schedule 1 because it cannot satisfy s 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act.[2]

1. The central issue is whether the supply and installation of two cattle grids is an 'NDIS support'. This turns on whether the cattle grids are excluded 'standard items' under Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules.

1. The Transitional Rules establish a framework where certain categories of goods are excluded from funding because they are considered day-to-day living costs or standard household items, rather than disability supports.
2. Schedule 2, Item 1 excludes 'standard home security and maintenance costs, fencing, gates, and building repairs'. The Respondent submits that cattle grids fall within this exclusion. Although 'cattle grids' are not expressly named in the text, the Respondent argues they belong to the same genus or class as 'fencing' and 'gates'.
3. I accept this submission. The purpose of a cattle grid is to contain livestock while permitting vehicle access. It serves the functional equivalent of a gate. In the context of the Transitional Rules, the list of excluded items in Schedule 2 is not exhaustive but illustrative of categories. Cattle grids are, in their nature and ordinary function, farm infrastructure synonymous with gates and fencing.
4. The Applicant contends that for him, the grids are not infrastructure but 'assistive technology'. He likens them to a stairlift or automatic door opener, arguing their purpose is to overcome a disability-related barrier and enable him to traverse and access different areas of his property.
5. In my view, this argument must be tested against the definition of 'standard item' in rule 4 of the Transitional Rules. A 'standard item' is defined as 'an item that is not modified or adapted to address the functional impairments of the participant'.
6. The definition of 'standard item' was recently considered by the Guidance and Appeals Panel of this Tribunal: Hyde; Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Insurance Agency and (Guidance and Appeals Panel) [2025] ARTA 2597 (Hyde). That decision was not unanimous.
7. Deputy President Dordevic, who was in the minority, adopted an objective, item-focused construction of the definition. Deputy President Dordevic concluded that the inquiry must be limited to the item itself, asking whether the item has been physically modified or altered from its original state. The Deputy President held that the functional needs of the participant are not relevant to the characterisation of an item as a standard item and that the activation of features or customisation of existing features does not convert a standard item into a non-standard item as the item was still performing the function that it was manufactured to perform.
8. The majority, comprised by Senior Members Bean and Shepherd, approached the construction question adopting a purposive, participant focused approach. They found that the inquiry must focus on whether an item has been modified or adapted specifically to address the participants functional impairments. They concluded that adapted is broader than physical modification and includes tailoring or integrating components to create a solution that addresses the impairment. They held that an item is not standard if it is distinct from what a person without the impairment would use and that if the item (or a system of items) contains specific adaptions or elements required solely due to the impairment, it is not standard.
9. In short, under the approach of Senior Members Bean and Shepherd, an item is standard if it is a commonplace item, used in a typical manner, and has not been specifically tailored, integrated, or altered to overcome the participants disability-related limitations.
10. In the present case, there is no real occasion to consider the competing positions in resolving the present review. That is because I have concluded that irrespective whether I apply the approach of either Senior Members Bean and Shepherd or Deputy President Dordevic, the outcome is the same in relation to the factual scenario before me.
11. I do not accept that characterisation of cattle grates as being assistive technology. Just because an item may offer a practical solution or practical assistance to a person who has a disability related impairment, it does not follow that the item is capable of being characterised as assistive technology.
12. Insofar as it is suggested, in the written material, that "the sole functional purpose of the cattle grids is to enable the Applicant's safe passage without having to repeatedly dismount mobility aids to operate gates"[3] or that they are not being installed for stock control but that "their sole purpose is to enable the Applicant's safe mobility and mitigate falls risk"[4], I do not accept that characterisation which Ms Manley qualified during her submissions. As I raised during the hearing, if that was their sole purpose, then that purpose could be equally served by removing the gates entirely.
13. In the present case, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the cattle grids requested are physically modified or adapted to suit applicant's disability related impairment. They are standard agricultural grids. While the use of the grids addresses the Applicant's functional impairment (by removing the need to dismount), the item itself remains standard.
14. The Applicant argues that the cattle grids are 'adapted' in circumstances where they are 'unaltered in structure, but repurposed'. I accept, as a general proposition, that an item that has been repurposed may mean that item that is adapted in the relevant sense. However, I do not accept that that there is a relevant repurposing here. The cattle grids are being used for their intended purpose, which is to allow people and vehicles to traverse them but restrict the movement of cattle. There is, I find, no relevant adaption only an incidental access benefit.
15. The question that I must resolve is not a value judgment about whether a person with a disability should, or should not, be able to fully engage in their hobbies. Rather, I must apply the law and regulations as Parliament has made them. In my view, the legislative intention and purpose of the Transitional Rules is to draw a strict line between general goods and goods which are subject disability-specific modifications. A standard item does not become an NDIS support solely because a participant uses it to mitigate the effects of their disability. Unlike a ramp or an automatic door opener, which are modifications specifically designed or installed to alter the built environment for accessibility, I am satisfied that a cattle grid remains a piece of standard farm infrastructure. That it confers, incidentally in my view, accessibility benefits does not change that conclusion.
16. I otherwise accept the submission that cattle grids belong to the genus of 'fences' or 'gates' in Schedule 2, Item 1(c), as they serve the same primary purpose, namely securing livestock and allowing access to, and egress from, fenced areas by persons, but not by cattle.
17. Consequently, I find that the cattle grids fall within the exclusion in Schedule 2, Item 1(c) of the Transitional Rules as standard 'fencing' or 'gates'. In those circumstances, and as Ms Manley quite properly accepted, because the support is excluded by Schedule 2, it cannot be an NDIS support. It is therefore unnecessary to determine whether the property is a workplace or a home, or whether the cattle grids would otherwise come within Schedule 1.
18. As the cattle grids are not NDIS supports, the requirement in s 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act is not met. The support cannot be funded following the Amending Act commencing, notwithstanding that other cattle grids were funded in 2023. Accordingly, the review application must fail.

1. I certify that the preceding thirty-one (31) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member Robertson

..........................[SGD].........................

[1] FSWN and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 114 [43]-[46] (FSWN).

[3] See Applicant's statement of facts, issues and contentions, [37].

[4] See Applicant's statement of facts, issues and contentions, [39].