1. On 13 February 2025 the Applicant's mother wrote to the Agency and provided information about PSP, describing it as a parenting program that she and the Applicant's father were undertaking to support the Applicant's needs:[2]

Below is information about the parenting program my husband and I are doing to support [the Applicant's] development needs. The course is called the Paradigm Shift Program (PSP) and is delivered online over 3 months through a US-based researcher...

PSP is based on polyvagal theory and teachers (sic) parents about what Pathological Demand Avoidance is and how to accommodate children with PDA using trauma-informed strategies...

Since [the Applicant's] paediatrician told us about PDA in November, everything finally clicked. Since that time we tried to work with our support team within the PDA lens. Unfortunately, PDA isn't well understood in Australia and our support team doesn't know how to support [the Applicant] or our family. It is these circumstances that led us to finding the PSP and start using the strategies taught in the program. It is early days, but [the Applicant's] meltdowns have decreased significantly, and he is eating after a period of intense restriction.

1. The email provided a hyperlink to the website of the provider of PSP, which states that the objectives of the program are:[3]

This program will teach you how to support your unique child. By tracking indicators of their nervous system health, access to basic needs, and connection to you, you will see *with your own eyes* what works for your unique family and child.

You will learn to see your child's behavior objectively as data that can inform mindful decision-making and help reduce your anxiety and stress while parenting and caregiving over the long term.

You will feel confident as a parent with the clarity to create a life with a PDA child or teen that you actually want to live.

You will know in your bones, gut and heart that you are on the right path for your family as your child's stability, mental health, and happiness improve - whether that is beginning to eat more, speaking to you more, engaging in drawing or art for the first time in years, or reducing panic attacks.

You will find joy and witness your child unfold in ways you can't imagine while they are in burnout or you are at the depths of your parenting trauma cave.

1. Whilst there is no evidence of the payment made for PSP, both parties state that its cost was $2,000. I find accordingly. Documentary evidence regarding the date that this payment was made is not before the Tribunal.
2. On 27 February 2025 a delegate of the CEO of the Agency approved a statement of participant supports for the period 27 February 2025 to 26 February 2026. The statement of participant supports did not include funding for PSP.
3. The Applicant sought a timely review of the decision with the Agency. On 15 April 2025 a different delegate determined that the original decision was correct.
4. On 15 April 2025 the Applicant sought a review with this Tribunal within the prescribed period.
5. An interlocutory hearing was held on 29 October 2025 to consider the dismissal request. The Applicant's father was in attendance. The Agency was represented by Ms Cybele Stockley, solicitor, Maddocks Lawyers.

1. The NDIS Act sets down the law that underpins the NDIS.
2. Individuals who are granted access to the scheme are referred to as 'participants'.[4] The Scheme provides individual plans to participants, which fund certain specified supports.
3. Section 33 of the Act identifies the matters that must be included in a participant's plan. Subsection 33(2) requires that a plan include a statement of participant supports prepared with the participant and approved by the CEO. Paragraphs 33(2)(a) to (e) of the Act specify these statement of participant supports must include general, reasonable and necessary supports in addition to the date by which the Agency must reassess the plan, as well as information regarding management of other plan aspects.
4. Section 33(5) of the Act directs that when deciding whether to approve a statement of participant supports the CEO (and this Tribunal upon review) must have regard to the participant's statement of goals and aspirations, relevant assessments, the principle that a participant should manage their plan to the extent that they wish, the operation and effectiveness of previous plans and compliance with spending in addition to being satisfied the supports are reasonable and necessary and the NDIS rules are applied.[5]
5. On 3 October 2024 the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS back on Track No 1) Act 2024 (Amending Act) came into force. Numerous provisions in the Act were amended.
6. Relevant to this application it included significant amendments to section 34 of the Act regarding reasonable and necessary supports. It introduced the concept and definition of what is an 'NDIS support'[6] and what is not an 'NDIS support'[7] and amended paragraph 34(1)(f) of the Act, requiring the decision-maker to be satisfied, when considering whether a support is reasonable and necessary, that the support is an 'NDIS support'.
7. Each limb outlined in paragraphs 34(1)(aa) to (f) must be established to determine a support is 'reasonable and necessary':

(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. > > Note: For the purposes of paragraph (aa): > > (a) the time at which the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements need to be met is the time the CEO decides to approve the statement of participant supports; and > > (b) a participant's disability support needs arising from an impairment in relation to which the participant meets the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements may be affected by a variety of factors, including environmental factors or the impact of another impairment in relation to which the participant does not meet either of those requirements. > > (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).

8. The Amending Act provides at subsection 138(1) that the Minister may, by legislative instrument, make rules prescribing matters of a transitional nature relating to the amendments to the Act.
9. The National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 (Transitional Rules) also came into force on 3 October 2024. The Transitional Rules modified the operation of section 34 of the Act, by expressly excluding certain supports from inclusion in a participant's statement of participant supports.
10. These legislative amendments and Transitional Rules must be applied by the Tribunal when a statement of participant supports is approved or varied on or after 3 October 2024, even if a participant's plan came into effect before the commencement of the amendment.[8]
11. Schedule 1 to the Transitional Rules outlines supports that are 'NDIS supports' unless otherwise provided. This relevantly includes:[9]

Supports that are NDIS supports unless otherwise provided

15 Development of daily care Supports that provide training and development

and life skills activities for participants or carers to increase a

participant's ability to live as independently as possible (including as part of psychosocial recovery supports).

This includes increasing the participants ability to independently undertake the following activities:

________________________________________________________________________

16 Disability-related Health supports that relate to the functional impact

(d) training support workers, family and friends to perform roles where appropriate.

1. Schedule 2 to the Transitional Rules outlines supports that are generally not considered 'NDIS supports'. Relevant to this review, Schedule 2 provides:

(h) general parenting programs, counselling or other supports for families, which are provided to families at risk of child protection intervention and to the broader community, including making them accessible and appropriate for families of people with disability.

________________________________________________________________________

1. The Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act) is the statute that governs this Tribunal.
2. Paragraph 101(1)(b) of the ART Act provides that the Tribunal may, at any time, dismiss an application if the Tribunal is satisfied that the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

1. It is evident that the Applicant's current plan is subject to the changes made by the Amending Act on 3 October 2024 as the statement of participant supports contained within the plan were approved after the Amending Act came into force.
2. It follows that subsection 34 of the Act, as in force after the commencement of the Amending Act, is applicable in the Applicant's case.
3. In the matter of FSWN and National Disability Insurance Agency[10] Senior Member French outlined the structure of enquiry in matters where the application for review is concerned with a statement of participant supports that was varied after 3 October 2024, noting that this is also applicable to statement of participant supports that were approved after this date too. Senior Member French stated that there are two stages and the following steps:[11]

Stage 1 Ascertain if the requested support is an "NDIS" Support as defined. This

inquiry is focused on the support, not the participant.

Step 1: Determine if the requested support is of a character that falls within the scope of a category of support specified in column 1 of the Table to Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules by reference to the description of supports that fall within the scope of that category contained in column 2 of the Table.

If the answer to that question is "yes", then stage 1 is complete. The

requested support is not a NDIS Support and cannot be approved for

inclusion in a SoPS because of s 34(1)(f) (subject to a replacement support

determination being made, as to which see following).

If the answer to that question is "no", then proceed to step 2 of stage 1:

Step 2: Determine if the requested support is of a character capable of falling within the scope of a category of support specified in column 1 of the Table to Schedule 1 of the Transitional Rules by reference to the description of supports that can fall within the scope of that category contained in column 2 of that Table.

If the answer to that question is "no", then the requested support will not be

a NDIS Support and cannot be approved for including in a SoPS because

If the answer to that question is "yes", then the requested support will be a

NDIS Support that is capable of being approved for inclusion in a SoPS by

operation of s 34(1)(f), and stage 2 of the enquiry is reached.

Stage 2: Ascertain if the requested support satisfies each of the other criteria

specified in s 34(1)(aa) to (e) and the associated Supports Rules. There is

some overlap of the stage 1 and 2 enquiries. However, in my opinion

stage 2 is primarily a participant focused enquiry. That is, it seeks to

establish the benefit of the support to the participant. To the extent that

stage 2 also requires examination of the efficacy of the support per se it adds nothing to the outcome of the stage 1 enquiry in my opinion.

1. I endorse the approach outlined in FSWN and so first considered whether PSP falls within the scope of column 1 of the Table to Schedule 2 to the Transitional Rules.

1. The Applicant's father's submissions are summarised as follows.
2. Whilst the term parenting program is not expressly defined, the natural and ordinary meaning of the term should be applied. They have received various supports with varying degrees of success. Last year his son "entered burnout" and this course provided he and the Applicant's mother a three-month online course, comprising group workshops, 1:1 coaching and other materials and information relevant to their son's condition that has assisted them to better structure the home, support the Applicant through his burnout and strategies that will continue to support them into the future.
3. The father asserts that content and skills built as a consequence of attending PSP all fall into the support descriptors in items 15(f) and (g) and 16(d) of Schedule 1. The parents, as the Applicant's carers, received training in development care and life skills. PSP assisted the parents to understand what was at the root of the Applicants' behaviour. By implementing changes to their parenting approach they were able to foster a secure and connected environment for the Applicant, and so provide the child with confidence to leave the home and engage with extended family and friends. PSP gave them the tools to understand their son's experience and how best to support him so he could grow and thrive.
4. The father confirmed that he and the Applicant's mother have had no engagement with state-based child protection services or family support services.
5. The Respondent acknowledged that the term 'parenting program' is not defined but relies on the definition provided by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, [12] being:[13]

Parenting programs include a diverse range of interventions that aim to improve child outcomes by supporting parents and caregivers. This article defines parenting programs as:

any program that provides direct or targeted education, training, coaching or support to primary caregivers of children between 0 and 12 years with the overall objective of improving child outcomes by improving parenting practices or parent-child and family relationships.

Parenting programs vary according to their content, format, delivery method, population, timing and intended outcome. Parenting programs usually aim to support parents to care for their children in ways that promote positive child development, behaviour and/or wellbeing outcomes3 (PRC, 2012) (see this section for a list of outcomes included in this resource).

Parenting programs may focus on building general parenting knowledge by providing education (e.g. teaching new parents to understand child development milestones or their infant's basic needs) or they may focus on building skills or techniques that address a specific need. They often do this by providing more intensive training or coaching (e.g. coaching parents to respond to and support their child's behaviours).

Programs are also delivered in different ways. They may be provided in clinic or classroom-like settings to groups of parents, or delivered in the family home or via telehealth to one family at a time. Some programs run over longer periods with a high number of contact hours between practitioners and parents (e.g. 12-month coaching programs), other programs are brief with minimal contact hours (e.g. self-paced online education programs). Parenting programs may be delivered by a variety of practitioners with different professional backgrounds, skills and approaches, or by other parents and peers with similar lived experiences. Some well-established programs may have strict requirements about who can deliver them, while others may be more informal and flexible.

1. The description of PSP provided by the Applicant's parents falls squarely within the general understanding of what a parenting program is. The Respondent is firmly of the view that a parenting program is not an NDIS support and therefore it cannot be found to be a reasonable and necessary support.
2. The Respondent confirmed that there is no evidence to suggest that PSP was ordered by a state-based child protection service.
3. The Respondent also contends that even if PSP is not a parenting program, if the expense in purchasing the program was incurred prior to 27 February 2025 (when the current plan commenced) the Tribunal does not have the power to order the Respondent to reimburse the participant.

1. Subitems 14(d) and (h) of Schedule 2 refer to parenting programs generally and those specifically targeted to at risk families and families who live with disability. As drafted, I consider that the subitems are designed to capture the breadth of parenting programs available, not just programs designed for families involved in the child protection system.
2. The term 'parenting program' is not defined in the NDIS Act or in the Transitional Rules.
3. I understand the term 'parenting program' to encompass a broad spectrum of interventions designed to provide education, training, coaching/skill building or support to parents or caregivers with the overarching goal of improving outcomes for a child. Such programs vary significantly in their content and intended outcomes, reflecting the diverse needs of families and children.[14]
4. I am satisfied that the Applicant's parents participated in PSP as prior therapeutic and other supports provided did not provide effective strategies to meet the Applicant's needs. I accept without hesitation the father's evidence that the program was enormously beneficial to the Applicant and the family unit.
5. Having considered the mother's email to the Agency, the father's description of PSP at hearing and the website of the provider of PSP I am satisfied that PSP falls under the umbrella of a 'parenting program'.
6. Application of the Transitional Rules results in a finding that PSP is not an 'NDIS support' by operation of subitems 14(d) and (h) of Schedule 2. Therefore, PSP is not a reasonable and necessary support pursuant to paragraph 34(1)(f) of the Act.
7. It follows that funding for PSP cannot be included in the Applicant's statement of participant supports.
8. Having determined that PSP is not an 'NDIS support' by operation of item 14 of Schedule 2, I am not required to consider whether PSP is an NDIS support pursuant to subitems 15(f) and (g) and 16 (d) in Schedule 1.
9. As already stated, a new plan came into place on 27 February 2025. The only matter in dispute is the provision of PSP; that is, there are no other disputes between the parties that require determination by this Tribunal.

1. I next considered whether this application should be dismissed on the basis that it has no reasonable prospects of success, as urged by the Respondent.
2. The relevant legal principles applying to applications for dismissal on the basis of no reasonable prospects of success were helpfully summarised in Houston v New South Wales (No 2) [2021] FCA 637:[15]
   • it requires attention to the real, as opposed to 'fanciful' prospects;[16]
   • a Court (or this Tribunal) is required to make a practical judgement about whether there is more than a 'fanciful' prospect of success;[17]
   • caution must be exercised in determining whether summary judgment should be granted where there are factual disputes and the evidence is not in its final form;[18]
   • the Court (and Tribunal) retains a discretion whether to dismiss or refer to trial, though this must be exercised judicially;[19] and
   • the power must not be exercised lightly.[20]
3. I must also be guided by the object of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, which relevantly states at subsection 9(b) that the Tribunal must ensure that applications are resolved as quickly as proper consideration permits.
4. I am satisfied that apart from the funding sought by the Applicant in respect of PSP there are no issues in dispute between the parties.
5. I am also satisfied that there is no prospect of success if this application were to proceed to hearing as I have already determined that PSP is not reasonable and necessary support pursuant to subsection 34(1) of the Act and so cannot be funded under a statement of supports.
6. If an application can provide no purpose for the Applicant, the Tribunal's time and resources should not be used: Taylor and National Disability Insurance Agency.[21] It follows that there is no utility in the Applicant proceeding with the application, as no other more favourable outcome is available.
7. I therefore proceed to dismiss this application pursuant to section 101(1)(b) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 as it has no reasonable prospects of success.

[1] https://www.atpeaceparents.com/paradigm-shift-program.

[3] The At Peace Parents website: https://www.atpeaceparents.com/paradigm-shift-program, accessed on 7 November 2025.

[8] Subitems 129(1) and (2) of Schedule 1 to National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS back on Track No. 1) Act 2024.

[9] Noting that Column 3 in Schedule 1 is not included in this reproduced table.

[12] Respondent's submissions - Application for Dismissal of Application for Review, [35]

[13] Effective parenting programs: What does the evidence say? Policy and practice paper: https://aifs.gov.au/resources/policy-and-practice-papers/effective-parenting-programs-what-does-evidence-say.

[16] White Industries Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCA 511; (2007) 160 FCR 298 at [59] as per Lindgren J.

[17] Spencer v Commonwealth [2010] HCA 28 at [25] as per French CJ and Gummow J.

[18] Boston Commercial Services Pty Ltd v G E Capital Finance Australasia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1352 at [43]- [44] as per Rares J

[19] Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Cassimatis [2013] FCA 641 at [50] as per Reeves J.

[20] Spencer at [60] per Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ and Trkulja v Google LLC [2018] HCA 25 at [22] per Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane, Nettle and Gordon JJ.

[21] [2021] AATA 1042 at [21].