1. On 5 December 2022, a delegate of the Agency approved a Statement of Participant Supports ('SOPS') for RPJJ.[3] RPJJ requested a review of the original decision.[4]
2. On 25 January 2023, a different delegate of the Agency confirmed the original decision under section 100 of the NDIS Act[5] ('the internal review decision').
3. On 21 February 2023, RPJJ applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ('AAT') for review of the internal review decision under section 103 of the NDIS Act.[6]
4. On 17 November 2023 RPJJ's 12-month interim plan was issued pursuant to a remittal under section 42D of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ('the AAT Act')[7]. RPJJ's 12-month interim plan with her SOPS was auto-extended.[8] The Tribunal continued to retain jurisdiction over the decision to approve the SOPS as varied.
5. On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal ('the Tribunal'). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 ('the Transitional Act'), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal pursuant to section 12 of the f the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2004 (Cth) ('the ART Act'), in conjunction with section 103 of the NDIS Act.

1. The Tribunal conducted six telephone direction hearings ('TDH') after constitution and prior to the hearing of this matter.[9]
2. At the first TDH on 8 October 2024, the Tribunal timetabled the matter to hearing and directed RPJJ to provide a list of her requested supports. At this TDH RPJJ stated that she did not consent to attending an Independent Medical Examination (IME).
3. The second TDH on 8 January 2025 was listed by the Tribunal because RPJJ had not provided her list of requested supports. The Tribunal granted RPJJ's request for additional time until 10 February 2025 to provide a list of her requested supports in dispute because RPJJ explained her family had recently relocated a considerable distance and she needed extra time to do so.
4. The third TDH on 25 February 2025 was listed by the Tribunal because RPJJ requested additional time[10] to provide a list of her requested supports in dispute. The Tribunal directed that RPJJ's list be provided on or before 12 March 2025.
5. On 11 March 2025, RPJJ sent an email only to the Tribunal attaching the documents listed in [14] below. RPJJ's list of requested supports that the Tribunal directed to be provided on 8 October 2024 was not part of this email.
6. On 21 March 2025 the Tribunal sent an email to the parties:

1. The Tribunal acknowledges that RPJJ emailed the Tribunal on 11 March 2025, and it appears this email was not also sent to the Respondent.
2. The Tribunal forwards RPJJ's email to the Respondent (and cc's RPJJ regarding this) and notes the following two attachments.
   1. Attachment one.
      1. 25 February 2025, Letter by RPJJ, 3 pages of typed material and a fourth blank page.
   2. Attachment two.
      1. 39-page attachment comprising 6 items:
         1. 3 February 2025, Assistive Technology Letter of recommendation, Ms I, occupational therapist, J Provider, 31 pages.
         2. 31 December 2024, Company M Quote, 1 page.
         3. 30 January 2025, Company W quote, 3 pages.
         4. 13 September 2024, Dr Nicholas Teo letter, Lipoedema Surgical Solution, 1 page.
         5. 12 March 2024, Ms R letter, physiotherapist, S Provider, 2 pages
         6. 19 December 2023 unsigned document, Absolute Ultrasound service, 1 page.
3. The Tribunal will consider RPJJ's requested supports at the substantive hearing.
4. The hearing, at the Brisbane registry, is scheduled for 3 days, on 24, 25, and 26 June 2025 commencing at 9am each day.
5. The fourth TDH on 4 April 2025 was listed by the Tribunal as the list of requested supports was still not received. The Tribunal granted RPJJ until 10 April 2025 to clarify her list of requested supports as part of her review application.[11]
6. Section 53 of the ART Act states:

53 Tribunal controls scope of review of decision > > In a proceeding for review of a decision, the Tribunal may determine the scope of the review by limiting the questions of fact, the evidence and the issues that it considers.

7. The fifth TDH on 17 April 2025 was listed by the Tribunal as the list of requested supports was not received. On 17 April 2025, the Tribunal directed:

The Tribunal VARIES the 4 April 2025 directions and DIRECTS:

8. On or before 9AM AEST on 22 April 2025 the Applicant is to provide to the Tribunal and the Respondent an:

1. updated statement of position including a table of supports detailing all remaining supports in dispute including the number of hours sought in regard to each support requested; and
2. any further evidence upon which they wish to rely at the hearing.

1. The Tribunal makes a section 53 ART Act Order to control the scope of review of decision to that which is filed by the Applicant by 9AM on 22 April 2025.
2. On or before 2 June 2025 the Respondent is to file with the Tribunal and provide to the Applicant:

1. An updated Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions (SFIC); and
2. Written submissions regarding the effect, if any, of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) Act 2024 (Cth), and any Rules and Guidelines made there under, on this application for review.

1. On or before 9 June 2025 the Applicant may file with the Tribunal and provide to the Respondent any reply to the Respondent's submissions under direction 2.[12]
2. On or before 16 June 2025 the Parties agree upon and file with the Tribunal a correctly indexed, paginated and searchable Joint Bundle including all submissions that the parties wish to rely on at hearing.
3. On or before 16 June 2025 the Parties agree upon and file with the Tribunal a joint witness schedule.
4. The Parties attend an in-person hearing at the Brisbane Registry on 24, 25 and 26 June 2025, commencing at 9AM AEST.
5. At the sixth TDH dated 9 June 2025, the Tribunal directed:

The Tribunal VARIES the directions dated 17 April 2025 and DIRECTS:

1. On or before 16 June 2025 the Respondent is to file with the Tribunal and provide to the Applicant:
   1. An updated Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions (SFIC); and
   2. Written submissions regarding the effect, if any, of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) Act 2024 (Cth), and any Rules and Guidelines made there under, on this application for review.
2. On or before 23 June 2025 the Applicant may file with the Tribunal and provide to the Respondent any reply to the Respondent's submissions under direction 1.
3. On or before 16 June 2025 the parties agree upon and file with the Tribunal a correctly indexed, paginated and searchable Joint Bundle including all submissions that the parties wish to rely on at hearing.
4. On or before 16 June 2025 the parties agree upon and file with the Tribunal a joint witness schedule.
5. The parties attend an in person hearing at the Brisbane Registry on 24, 25 and 26 June 2025, commencing at 9AM AEST.
6. The hearing was held in a hybrid manner in person and over Microsoft Teams on 24, 25 and 26 June 2025 and on 11 August 2025. RPJJ was self-represented, attended in person, and was supported at the hearing by Ms C. The Agency was represented by Mr A Hartnett of Counsel instructed by Moray and Agnew Lawyers.

1. On the afternoon before the first hearing day, the Tribunal received RPJJ's request for a confidentiality order pursuant to sections 70 and 71 of the ART Act.
2. The Agency did not contest this application. The Tribunal considered it was an appropriate order to make in light of RPJJ's circumstances. The Tribunal granted the confidentiality order on 24 June 2025. In summary this order prohibits the identification of RPJJ or any information that might identify her and her children.
3. For ease of reference to the material, I accept and use most of the anonymisation key as part of the Agency's closing submissions[13] because it maintains RPJJ's and her children's confidentiality.
4. RPJJ voiced several concerns on day one of the hearing that will be dealt with under the heading of RPJJ's adjournment request on day three of the hearing. In summary, RPJJ expressed dissatisfaction because:
   • RPJJ wanted additional information admitted despite the section 53 ART Act Order limiting RPJJ from filing additional material. RPJJ stated 'we haven't actually got podiatry in there. We have a report from a podiatrist ... I need to have one monthly visits'.[14]
   • RPJJ wanted to call her two children as witnesses. However, RPJJ also wanted her daughter as her support person throughout the whole hearing.
   • RPJJ wanted to call the Agency's solicitor and Agency's case manager as witnesses before the Tribunal.

RPJJ'S ADJOURNMENT REQUEST ON DAY THREE OF THE HEARING

1. On day three of the hearing RPJJ asked for an adjournment so her application could go to the Guidance and Appeals Panel ('the GAP') at the ART.[15] RPJJ stated

I have read that it's appropriate in some circumstances to request that the matter be referred ....[16]as a matter that's significant to the administrative decision-making and in the interests of justice.'[17]

2. The Tribunal sought to assist RPJJ in the following ways:
   • Directed RPJJ to the Tribunal website for information about the GAP.
   • Welcomed the suggestion from counsel for the Agency to provide 'legal submissions'[18] regarding the powers of the Tribunal (as currently constituted) concerning RPJJ's request for an adjournment to apply to the GAP.
   • The Tribunal granted a recess before hearing further submissions from parties around RPJJ's request regarding the GAP.
3. The Agency submitted that RPJJ's application for adjournment to the GAP entailed consideration of the following:[19]

The mechanism by which matters are referred to the GAP are by written application of the President and not to the Tribunal as currently constituted. There are two types of referrals. The first instance referral, and one of those has not been made here and the review has begun. > > And the second is a second instance referral which would require the member to give her decision. And what happens next is, of course, a matter for anyone dissatisfied with that decision, if that comes to be the case, that if there is an application made to the Tribunal as currently constituted for referral to the GAP, it is not a matter that the member could decide. The President would have to decide a written application for such a referral.

1. RPJJ provided her oral submissions around why she thought that the Tribunal process was unfair to her. RPJJ contended that:

• The Tribunal should not have limited the scope of the review pursuant to section 53 of the ART Act dated 17 April 2025 because: 'I think Dudgeon[20] overrides section 53 of the ART Act[21]...because 'our circumstances have changed';
  • RPJJ stated 'I don't believe the model litigant obligations...have been adhered to at all in the preparation to this hearing and in relation to the actual hearing itself.'[22] 'The other party has been extremely adversarial in their approach';[23] and 'not acted in good faith.'[24]
  • RPJJ contended that her compilation of emails 'must be considered' because they are relevant;[25]
  • 'The whole matter has been slowed in order to bring up the side of 14 October, you know. So 4 October when the changes were made. It has been deliberately halted as a strategy - strategically, in order to place it under the new supports.'[26]
  • 'This could have been resolved, the Agency has not attempted to make any genuine resolution of these matters is not just a detriment to me but it's a detriment to the public taxpayer. And it's a detriment to the other participants who are reliant on NDIS funding.'[27]
  • 'The waste of NDIS funding - not saying there's not a legitimate process here, but we're not going through the legitimate path. We're going through this other weird door where people are not up front. They're not transparent. They're not honest and they're not respectful. They do not respond to somebody who is not legally represented.'[28]
  • The Tribunal was wrong because 'I have not been able to call my...two witnesses.'[29]
  • RPJJ contended that she has been

discriminated against in terms of the fact that there's no - if I was a solicitor, I have been discriminated as a self-advocate, right. Because if had have been a solicitor, I would have expected and demanded and (indistinct) a response to each one of those emails. They were appropriately written. They were in relevant issues, you know. The Tribunal is required to make a decision on the current state of affairs, not what happened two and a half years ago.[30]

• 'Me and also my daughter as the significantly disadvantaged by having to carry an extraordinary carer burden at the same time as us having funds and not being able to use them because of it being Agency-managed without proper grounds or investigation or rights to response. So I think that we should be entitled to compensation for what those funds would have been by way of compensation other than potentially back pain. And I think this should be - you know, the fact that there is a huge saving to the NDIS funds by actually delaying by two years.'[31] RPJJ stated 'I would be asking for some sort of compensation, and I would be also asking for some...sanction...on the parties who have been party to this.'[32]
• RPJJ contended there was 'questioning which was probably terribly inappropriate with regards to my conversations with my psychologist under the guise of it being relevant to a request for a support.'[33] RPJJ contended 'there was some very deceptive, non-transparent attempts to elicit some sort of information around 'how did you find the STA people...'[34]
• '[The Tribunal is where]... we as unpresented people can be dealt with fairly. I think there has been a lot of hard work done by the other side to make sure that didn't happen - to exclude evidence. And I consider that very unfortunate and detrimental...I believe that the GAP is interested in this specifically and the incredible massive waste of very sacred NDIS funds.'[35]
• RPJJ stated she relied on the decision of Mazy 2018 AATA 3099 ('Mazy').[36] RPJJ contended that 'it should not fall to the participant to fully explore alternative supports which may be less expensive.' [37] RPJJ may then have quoted:

If the Agency claims that there are alternative supports which are preferable to those sought by the applicant, it is incumbent on the Agency to assist the Tribunal by providing evidence to support this argument.

1. The Agency contended that RPJJ's application for adjournment to apply to the GAP should not be granted because:
   • RPJJ's application is a first instance review, and the ART President is given discretion regarding whether matters raised meet the threshold for a GAP referral;[38]
   • The Tribunal should uphold its section 9 ART Act obligations to act expediently and minimise cost and afford procedural fairness to the parties;
   • Pursuant to section 37 of the AAT Act and now section 25 of the ART Act, the obligation to determine relevance of documents for T documents - this is separate to the joint hearing bundle - is by law imposed upon the respondent. The respondent is required to make that determination and lodge the documents with the Tribunal;[39]
   • It would be inappropriate to adjourn the current proceedings. A decision can be made. After the Tribunal decision then RPJJ could elect to make a second instance referral to the GAP;
   • The rules of evidence are a useful yardstick for the Tribunal to adopt to allow the most probative evidence before it. Nothing prevents parties from lodging additional material in the Tribunal that they wish for the decision-maker to take into account, subject to being provided procedural fairness about those additional documents;[40]
   • RPJJ could elect to pursue an application in the Federal Court if she was minded to take the matter further;
   • The 17 April 2025 section 53 order was made to limit the scope of the review. The material from the podiatrist was received after 9am on 22 April 2025 so it could not be added to the material as it would be procedurally unfair.[41]

Tribunal decision regarding RPJJ's adjournment request

1. The Tribunal accepted the Agency submissions, particularly that it was preferable to progress RPJJ's matter in line with the Tribunal's section 9 objectives.
2. The Tribunal did not accept RPJJ's submissions that the Tribunal process was unfair to her for the following reasons.
3. Firstly, I find that RPJJ was afforded procedural fairness for the following reasons:
   • There were six telephone direction hearings since the matter was constituted. The Tribunal recognised that RPJJ was not legally represented and provided multiple extensions of time to RPJJ so that she could particularise her application in order for it to progress to hearing.
   • At the TDH on 22 April 2025, the Tribunal explained the section 53 order to RPJJ and that she had until 9AM on 22 April 2025 to file her list of requested supports so that the Agency could then respond and prepare the documents required for the hearing. The Tribunal explained to RPJJ that was important so that the parties and the Tribunal would understand the issues to be considered at the hearing. There was no objection made by either party to the making of the section 53 Order at the 22 April 2025 TDH.[42]
   • I was not persuaded by RPJJ's reference to the decisions of Dudgeon nor Mazy. RPJJ did not provide submissions as to how these decisions were relevant to her circumstances.
   • The Tribunal acknowledges RPJJ's concerns. RPJJ believed that every email she sent to the Tribunal was part of the tender bundle. That was not the case. Only the podiatry letter was not included in the bundle after 22 April 2025 due to the section 53 order being made. In addition, RPJJ is currently funded for podiatry as a support.[43] The Tribunal notes that it is open to RPJJ to seek through the plan reassessment process funding for any particular supports that she may require going forward.
   • I acknowledge RPJJ's submission that the Tribunal is entitled to have any information before it that was not before the primary decision-maker. However, the Tribunal made a section 53 order to control and confine the scope of the decision under review in order to progress the application for review.
4. Secondly, the Tribunal formed the view that the Agency had acted fairly and in accordance with its model litigant responsibilities. I do not accept RPJJ's contentions that the Agency 'slowed' down her application. Examples were that:
   • The Agency offered RPJJ the opportunity to attend an IME with an independent occupational therapist. RPJJ elected not to do so. Subsequently the OT provided an 'on the papers' assessment of RPJJ.
   • The Agency compiled the 'additional material' between day three and four of the hearing that RPJJ stated was essential.
   • I find that counsel's questions were polite, open-ended, and sensitive to RPJJ's circumstances as a person living with a disability.[44] Moreover, counsel's questions provided RPJJ with an opportunity to provide responses.
   • It was appropriate for RPJJ to be asked questions about the disability related health supports she requested in the form of psychology sessions related to RPJJ's disability related needs as opposed to the 'ordinary incidents of stress that occur in a parental role.'
   • It was appropriate for RPJJ to be asked questions about Short Term Accommodation (STA) as RPJJ added it as one of her requested supports.
5. Thirdly, regarding the calling of witnesses I do not accept RPJJ's allegations that she was 'discriminated against' or treated unfairly because she was self-represented and that she 'tried to call two witnesses and was refused'.[45] I find that:
   • RPJJ elected not to call independent witnesses in support of her application. The directions from October 2024 until June 2025 all put RPJJ on notice that a 'witness schedule' was required.
   • The two witnesses were her two children. RPJJ stated that Mr C had a medical appointment to attend on the first day of the hearing and after hearing RPJJ's submissions I was not persuaded that Mr C would be able to provide relevant evidence in his position as RPJJ's son regarding his mother's application for her requested supports.
   • RPJJ elected to have her daughter sit with her as a support person throughout the entire hearing.[46] This meant that Ms C was present for all of RPJJ's evidence. The Tribunal did not wish to for Ms C's evidence to be tainted and decided it would read Ms C's written statements about her experiences as an informal carer for her mother. The Tribunal acknowledges and is grateful for Ms C's assistance. Ms C provided answers and assisted RPJJ throughout the hearing in a professional and calm manner that belied her 18 years. Ms C's written statements were considered by the Tribunal.[47] I do not accept RPJJ's contentions that the Tribunal unfairly refused to allow her to call witnesses.
   • It was not appropriate for the Agency's instructing solicitor to be called as a witness. The Tribunal accepted the Agency's submissions that the work done in the course of acting for the Agency is covered by legal professional privilege and the Agency's solicitor would be entitled not to answer those questions. The Tribunal reasoned that its role is to consider the legislative framework and especially section 34 of the NDIS Act. The Tribunal's role was not considering a claim under another Act for contravention of a disability discrimination law.[48]
   • It was not appropriate for the Agency's case manager working for the Agency to be called as a witness. The role of the Tribunal is to make an administrative law decision, and there was no relevant evidence that an Agency case manager could provide in assisting the Tribunal with its task.[49]
6. Fourthly, I cannot accept RPJJ's contentions that the Agency should be 'sanctioned'[50] as it had strategically slowed things down so the decision was made after 4 October 2024,[51] it had not resolved things earlier, and had wasted 'sacred NDIA funds.' There was no evidentiary basis for any of these allegations. In addition, RPJJ did not direct the Tribunal to any legislative criteria whereby the Tribunal is able to 'sanction' a party.
7. Fifthly, regarding RPJJ's contention that relevant material was not before the Tribunal. I do not accept RPJJ's conception of the relevance of evidence. I accept the Agency submissions and find that relevant evidence pertains to that which relates to the Tribunal's decisional task which is to review a decision to approve a SOPS under section 33 of the NDIS Act which now refers to section 25 of the ART Act.[52] It is a confined relevance test.[53] It is open to parties to lodge documents for the Tribunal to consider however, the sensible and rational considerations of what is probative evidence also apply to these additional documents.[54]
8. Finally, the Tribunal accepts the Agency's submissions that:

On 9 June 2025, there was a telephone directions hearing during which it was suggested that RPJJ's matter might be moved to September by reason of the fact that Ms Houston's report had come in on 2 June 2025. That there was a statement of facts, issues and contentions for the respondent to prepare very quickly. And that was strongly resisted by RPJJ. She preferred to go ahead with the proceedings between the 24th and the 26th of June. I understand now that there is some complaint about the length of the hearing not being long enough and the fact that RPJJ has not had the opportunity to call witnesses. In my submission, the choice to have this hearing on this date was what was pressed for by RPJJ and I'll leave the submission there. Because I wanted to put that on the record so that the Tribunal can consider that to have some context around some of those complaints.[55]

9. The Tribunal refused RPJJ's 26 June 2025 adjournment request and offered next available dates for hearing. RPJJ stated she was unavailable for the June dates because her daughter was away, and RPJJ was not available for an earlier July date as she had an interstate trip planned. The Tribunal settled on 11 August 2025 for the final hearing day.[56]
10. The Tribunal directed RPJJ to provide any further material regarding the requested supports by no later than 4pm on 28 July 2025. The reason for this was so that the Agency could collate this material on RPJJ's behalf before the final day of hearing on 11 August 2025.[57]

1. The Tribunal marked evidence received as an Exhibit Bundle ('EB') which included:
   • EB-1 - Consolidated hearing bundle, filed- 282 pages;[58]
   • EB-2 - T-docs - 289 pages;[59]
   • EB-3 - 26 April 2024 Statement of Participant Supports - 22 pages;
     • Annexure A - Auto extension of plan for 12 months dated 26 April 2025;
   • EB-4 -RPJJ sourced information from a 'medical website' regarding SFPN[60] - 24 pages, received 24 June 2025;
   • EB-5 - Plan breakdown of 22 January 2025 - 2 pages.
   • EB-6- RPJJ one page email 16 January 2025 at 11:07am attached is an invoice
     • Annexure A 'Primer Box Express Pty Ltd' 15 January 2025
   • EB-7 - RPJJ Email on 25 June 2025 at 1826pm
     • Annexure A photos from applicant 37 pages
   • EB-8 RPJJ email 20 June 2025 1029 am.
     • Annexure A Applicant witness list 20 June 2025. RPJJ requested Agency solicitor as a witness.[61]
     • Annexure B - Dudgeon.
   • EB-9 email correspondence between applicant to NDIA after 21 February 2023. RPJJ filed these emails on 11 August 2025, and they were called Change of Circumstance (COC) email numbered 1 through to 7.[62]
     • COC#1 - removal of daughter as primary carer dated 9 July 2025.
     • COC#2 - son exemption from school attendance.
     • COC#3 - Why RPJJ seeks hydrotherapy documentation.
     • COC#4 - SDA.
     • COC#5 - Support RPJJ requests for her parental role.
     • COC#6 - Updated medical information.
     • COC#7 - Relocation - reimbursement of funds.
   • E-B-10 RPJJ leased property photographs after 7 July 2025.[63]
     • (Annexure A) Photo file IMG_3015.jpeg. Toilet.
     • (Annexure B) Photo IMG-3016.jpeg. Lawn.
   • EB-11 - Quote Onyx care for STA for 90 days.
2. Between the dates of 26 June 2025 and 11 August 2025, RPJJ lodged a large number of additional documents with the Tribunal. The Tribunal acknowledges that the Agency assisted the Tribunal by consolidating these documents into a physical bundle described at [41] so that the parties could navigate these documents on day four of the hearing. The Agency provided both RPJJ and the Tribunal a folder of these documents.
3. On 11 August 2025, RPJJ gave evidence[64] that she wanted more documents admitted into evidence. These documents are titled Bundle of Applicant's Further Materials ('the BAFM'). The Agency did not object to any of these further documents being admitted into evidence. I accept RPJJ's evidence on the transcript where RPJJ confirmed the Agency's table that indicated the documents that RPJJ requested to be considered in her application.[65]
   • EB-12 Current Plan - RPJJ 26 April 2024 - 26 April 2026.[66]
   • EB-13 Claim Line Items with 7 rows of line items.[67]
   • The BAFM[68] - Agency identified documents for RPJJ.[69]

1. RPJJ maintained three domains of issues at the hearing.
   • The first is that RPJJ seeks to have 'other conditions' recognised under the scheme. RPJJ stated she has submitted five changes of circumstances with the Agency regarding her diagnoses of these 'other conditions':[70]
     • Small Fibre Peripheral Neuropathy ('SFPN'),
     • Lymphoedema,
     • Lipoedema.
   • The second is that RPJJ seeks additional funding for 16 requested supports which are detailed under headings at [43] below.
   • The third is that RPJJ requests self-management of the funding for her supports. RPJJ does not want her funded supports to be plan managed.[71]
2. RPJJ seeks additional funding for 16 supports (the 'requested supports'):[72]

(i) Support worker assistance-personal care/personal domestic duties - 8 hours per day, Monday - Friday, 40 hours each week - Core support;[73] > > (ii) Support worker assistance - 8 hours per week at the Saturday rate - Core support [74] > > (iii) Support worker assistance - 8 hours per month at the Sunday rate to be used flexibly across the month - Core support.[75] > > (iv) Occupational therapy supports of '89 hours per year to produce a report for the home modifications or to assist us with the design of the Specialist Disability accommodation.' - Capacity Building ('CB') support [76] > > (v) Psychology of 57 hours per year - CB support; comprised of:

• 48 hours of telehealth appointments
  • 6 hours of support worker coordination; and
  • 3 hours of report writing[77]

(vi) Physiotherapy - CB support -- in the alternative comprised of:

• Three lots of one-hour sessions across the week, which equates to three hours per week for 48 weeks each year.[78] 48 multiplied by 3 totals 144 hours each year. This is if requested support number 13 (hydrotherapy pool) is not funded.
  • One hour of physiotherapy each week for 48 weeks per year, which totals 48 hours each year.[79] This is if requested support number 13 is funded.

(vii) Support Coordination hours - CB support - comprised of both:[80]

• Two hours per week for 50 weeks at the Level 1 rate
  • Four hours per week for 50 weeks at the level 3 rate.

(viii) NDIS Self Education expenses - CB support.

• RPJJ stated 'there's multiple courses that you can do online that actually help you with different courses in different areas. So ongoingly I would like to be able to do those courses. So basically, four at about $650 is more or less what they go for and what I would be seeing'[81]...[and] I can refer you to the website, but I just have to locate that.'[82]

(ix) Transport funding at the level 2 rate, - CB support.[83]

• RPJJ does not currently receive transport funding

(x) Specialist interest activities of 48 hours of funding for support worker assistance for capacity building to improve daily living skills - CB support [84] > > (xi) Art or craft therapy of an unspecified amount - CB support[85] > > (xii) Assistive technology ('AT') supports, capital support -, comprised of:[86]

• 'Computer AT' including a 'head tracking mouse', an adaptive 'stylus', 'dictation software such as Dragon Naturally Speaking' plus 'noise cancelling microphone'[87]- totalling $1,500[88]
  • Thermomix at a cost of $2,579[89]
  • Vela Tango 700 Chair - estimated quote $9,500[90]
  • Ultramatic adjustable electric bed, plus freight - $6,600[91]
  • Electric recliner chair, plus freight- $3,500[92]
  • Pneumatic compression pump $3,500[93]

(xiii) Hydrotherapy pool - Capital support[94] > > (xiv) Short Term Accommodation - request for 28 days per year, core support comprised of:[95]

• Monday to Friday 20 days at $2,098
  • Saturday for four days at $2,682
  • Sundays for four days at $3,396

(xv) 'Reimbursement towards relocation expenses'[96] - CB support.

• $1,500 - removalist cost[97]
  • $1,000 - three nights' accommodation and fuel during travel to Suburb E.[98]

(xvi) Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) - capital support.

3. It was uncontested that RPJJ was granted access to the scheme pursuant to section 24 of the NDIS Act on the basis of psychosocial impairments attributable to MDD and GAD.[99]
4. The Agency contends that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the evidence that the impairments attributable to RPJJ's 'other conditions' at [42] satisfy the statutory criteria in section 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act.
5. The Agency contends that RPJJ's 'requested supports' for funding of supports at [43] are not reasonable and necessary pursuant to section 34(1) of the NDIS Act.
6. The Agency contends that the funding for RPJJ's supports should remain plan-managed as currently listed in RPJJ's SOPS.
7. The Tribunal must determine whether RPJJ's contentions and the requested supports are:
   • Reasonable and necessary supports under section 34 of the NDIS Act to justify the spending of public funds; and
   • Capable of being funded by the scheme in order to be included in RPJJ's SOPS in compliance with the relevant scheme criteria and rules.
   • Appropriately plan-managed in accordance with the NDIS Act.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)

1. I have had regard to the NDIS Act objectives stated in section 3 and the general principles and guiding actions taken under the NDIS Act in section 4. I acknowledge that 'people with disability have the right to realise their potential for physical, social, emotional and intellectual development.'[100]
2. Section 34 of the NDIS Act sets out what is a 'reasonable and necessary support' under the Scheme.
3. When RPJJ applied to the Tribunal, section 34 of the NDIS Act stated:

Reasonable and necessary supports > > (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: > > (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 most appropriately funded or provided through the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and is not more appropriately funded or provided through other general systems of service delivery or support services offered by a person, agency or body, or systems of service delivery or support services offered: > > (i) as part of a universal service obligation; or > > (ii) in accordance with reasonable adjustments required under a law dealing with discrimination on the basis of disability. > > (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)(a) to (f).

4. However, on 3 October 2024, and also prior to this review the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No 1) Act 2024 ('Amending Act') commenced and made 'amendments' to the NDIS Act which will apply to RPJJ's review.[101]
5. The amended section 34 of the NDIS Act provides as follows:

Reasonable and necessary supports > > (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 (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). > > (Tribunal added underlining to emphasise relevant amendments.)

6. The section 34(1) criteria of the NDIS Act are cumulative; therefore, all the criteria must be satisfied. Moreover, the Tribunal must be positively satisfied about each criterion and the Applicant has a 'common sense onus to adduce sufficient evidence to satisfy the Tribunal that the criteria are met.'[102]
7. Section 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act imposes an additional criteria requirement. This involves a consideration of whether the support that RPJJ seeks is necessary to address her needs which arise from the impairment/s for which she met the disability requirements under section 24 or the early intervention requirements under section 25 of the NDIS Act.
8. The 'previous' section 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act has been replaced with 'new' section 34(1)(f) which requires that the support be a 'NDIS support.'
9. Section 10(1) of the NDIS Act provides a definition of what is a 'NDIS Support' pursuant to section 34(1)(f) of the amended NDIS Act if the support is declared by the scheme rules to be an 'NDIS support'. Section 10(4) of the NDIS Act states that the scheme rules may also declare that a support is not an 'NDIS Support.' The scheme rules that are relevant to section 10 of the NDIS Act are the Transitional Rules.
10. In Schedule 1 to the Transitional Rules the NDIS supports are identified, unless otherwise provided pursuant to section 10(1) of the NDIS Act.
11. In Schedule 2 to the Transitional Rules the supports that are generally not NDIS Supports pursuant to section 10(4) of the NDIS Act are identified.
12. In considering whether a support is a NDIS support, the requirements have been set out. The Tribunal's first task is to consider whether the support is not a NDIS support due to operation of Schedule 2 to the Transitional Rules. If the support does not fit within Schedule 2 to the Transitional Rules only then is it necessary for the Tribunal to determine whether the support falls within the scope of Schedule 1 to the Transitional Rules.[103]
13. There is also the consideration of section 34(2) of the NDIS Act which outlines that the NDIS rules may prescribe methods or criteria to be applied, or matters the CEO must consider, in deciding whether a requested support satisfies the criteria under section 34(1) of the NDIS Act.
14. Part 2 of the NDIS Act deals with a participants' plan. Division 2 of Part 2 concerns the preparation of participants' plans. Section 32(1) imposes a mandatory obligation on the CEO to facilitate the preparation of the participant's plan. Section 33 of the NDIS Act specifies the matters that must be included in a participant's plan: the participant's statement of goals and aspirations; the SOPS; and it may include any additional matters prescribed by NDIS rules.[104] Section 33(2)(d) of the NDIS Act provides that a participant's SOPS must include a statement regarding the 'management of the funding for supports under the plan'.
15. Section 35 of the NDIS Act allows for rules to be made with respect to the prescription of 'reasonable and necessary supports' or 'general supports' that will be funded or provided under the scheme.
16. For RPJJ's review the relevant rules include the:
    • National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 ('Supports Rules');
    • the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016 ('Access Rules');
    • National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) (NDIS Supports) Transitional Rules 2024 ('Transitional Rules');
    • Specialist Disability Accommodation Rules; and
    • NDIS Amendment (Management of Funding and Plan Management Rules 2025) ('Plan Management Rules').
17. Part 3 of the Supports Rules set out criteria that the Tribunal must consider. Part 5 contains general criteria regarding supports and the supports that will not be funded.
18. Relevantly in this case, Rules 3 and 5 of the Supports Rules state as follows:

Value for money > > 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. > > 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.

19. The Access Rules at Part 5 provide considerations for when a person meets the disability requirements.
20. In regard to supports rules, Mortimer J (as Her Honour then was) observed in McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency ('McGarrigle')[105]:

'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. There is no definition of 'reasonable and necessary' in the NDIS Act. The Full Court in National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF[106] ('WRMF') considered the meaning of reasonable and necessary supports, and stated as follows:

The phrase is a composite phrase. ... 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. However, the Parliament has chosen to use a composite phrase rather than to stipulate two distinct requirements, and therefore, as Gleeson CJ cautioned in XYZ v Commonwealth [2006] HCA25; (2006) 227 CLR532 at [19], '[t]here are many instances where it is misleading to construe a composite phrase simply by combining the dictionary meanings of its component parts'. > > ...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. > > 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. (Tribunal emphasis)

2. The Tribunal also needs to consider that the requested supports accommodate the participant's particular impairments in order for them to be a participating member of the Australian community, in light of the values that are set out in the guiding principles and objects of the NDIS Act.[107]
3. Chapter 3, Part 2, Division 3 of the NDIS Act sets out 'managing the funding for supports under participants' plans. Section 42(2) of the NDIS Act lists the alternatives available for participant plan management and lists:

(2) For the purposes of the statement of participant supports in a participant's plan, in specifying the management of the funding for supports under the plan as mentioned in paragraph 32D(2)(f) or 33(2)(d), the plan must specify that such funding is to be managed wholly, or to a specified extent, by: > > (a) the participant; or > > (b) a registered plan management provider; or > > (c) the Agency; or > > (d) the plan nominee.

4. RPJJ's request is within the meaning of section 43(1)(a) of the NDIS Act and section 43(3) of the NDIS Act is also relevant.

43 Choice for the participant in relation to plan management > > (1) A participant for whom a plan is in effect or is being prepared may make a request (a plan management request): > > (a) that he or she manage the funding for supports under the plan wholly or to the extent specified in the request; > > ... > > (3) If: > > (a) a participant makes a plan management request covered by paragraph (1)(a); and > > (b) subsection 44(1) applies in relation to the participant; > > the statement of participant supports in the plan must provide for the funding for supports under the plan: > > (c) if paragraph 44(1)(a) or (aa) applies - to be wholly managed by the Agency; and > > (d) if paragraph 44(1)(b) or (c) applies - to be managed by the Agency to the extent covered by that paragraph.

5. Relevantly to this decision under review, sections 44(1)(b)(i) and (1)(c) and 44(3) of the NDIS Act state as follows:[108]

44 Circumstances in which persons must not manage funding > > Participant > > (1) For the purposes of paragraph 43(3)(b), this subsection applies in relation to a participant if: > > (b) the CEO is satisfied that the participant's management of the funding for supports under the plan to a particular extent would: > > (i) present an unreasonable risk to the participant; or > > ... > > (c) the CEO is satisfied that section 46 (acquittal of NDIS amounts) would be unlikely to be complied with if the participant were to manage the funding for supports under the plan to a particular extent. > > ... > > (3) The National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may prescribe criteria the CEO is to apply and matters to which the CEO is, or is not, to have regard in considering whether any of the following would present an unreasonable risk to the participant: > > (a) a participant managing the funding for supports under the plan; > > (aa) a registered plan management provider managing the funding for supports under the plan; > > (b) a plan nominee managing the funding for supports under the plan.

46 Acquittal of NDIS amounts > > Requirement to spend money only on NDIS supports and in accordance with plan > > (1) A participant who receives an NDIS amount, or a person who receives an NDIS amount on behalf of a participant: > > (a) may spend the money only on NDIS supports for the participant; and > > (b) must spend the money in accordance with the participant's plan (subject to paragraph (a)). > > Note 1: A failure to comply with this subsection (including due to the operation of subsection (1A) or (1B)) may lead to a variation of the participant's plan under section 47A: > > (a) to change the management of the funding for supports under the plan (see sections 43 and 74); or > > (b) for a new framework plan - to specify a proportion of flexible funding that may be spent only on specified NDIS supports for the participant (or to change such a proportion); or > > (c) for any plan - to reduce the duration of funding periods for particular funding under the plan and the amount of funding that will be provided during any particular funding period. > > Note 2: See also subsection 182(3) (debts due to the Agency).

1. The Agency has issued Operational guidelines in regard to what are considered to be 'reasonable and necessary supports for participants.' Unless the Operational guidelines are inconsistent with the provisions or objects of the NDIS legislation, they are to be taken into account[109] in deciding what is a reasonable and necessary support for RPJJ.
2. I have considered the following NDIS Operational guidelines - 'reasonable and necessary supports,' 'principles we follow to create your plan', 'creating your plan,' 'your plan', 'transport funding,' Short-Term Accommodation or Respite,' and NDIA Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits 2024/25.[110]

1. I have considered all the accepted evidence filed within the accepted time frames provided by the Tribunal, the oral evidence provided at the hearing, and the parties' closing submissions that pertained to the material covered during the four-day hearing. I will refer in my decision to the most relevant evidence. The fact however that I do not refer to all parts of the evidence does not mean that I have not taken all evidence before the Tribunal into account in reaching my decision.

1. RPJJ previously resided in a regional area of Queensland from 2020 with her two children. The family moved to southeastern Queensland in January 2025 because Ms C was pursuing tertiary studies at F University.
2. Ms C is 18 years old, and she has provided substantial informal support to both RPJJ and Mr C since 2018, when she was 11 years old, after RPJJ was involved in an accident.[111] Ms C's statement and conduct at the hearing demonstrated that she has shown persistence, kindness and responsibility in helping her mother and that Ms C has developed skills in time management, adaptability, problem solving skills and a strong work ethic.[112]
3. Ms C's second statement of 15 January 2025 also indicates that Ms C carried a large load as an informal carer for her mother. The tasks undertaken by Ms C included:[113]
   • Typing for RPJJ;
   • Preparing medications for RPJJ;
   • Brushing RPJJ's hair;
   • Answering RPJJ's phone;
   • Reheating RPJJ's food;
   • Grocery shopping;
   • Assisting RPJJ with car transfers;
   • Watching RPJJ eat so she does not choke on her food and at times monitoring her sleeping;
   • Filling in when support workers are unavailable;
   • Helping with her distress, when RPJJ's hands are numb; and
   • Helping with her cognitive fatigue late in the day.
4. On 24 June 2025 RPJJ stated she was primarily assisted by her daughter Ms C and by funded support workers.
5. RPJJ advised the Tribunal on 11 August 2025 that on 7 July 2025, she and her children had moved to L Street in suburb E.[114]
6. On 11 August 2025, RPJJ read into evidence[115]
   • Ms C's 'notice of withdrawal' as the primary and informal carer for RPJJ with effect from 9 July 2025.[116]
   • RPJJ explained 'it is an unsustainable situation for Ms C...'[117] as Ms C is 'completely burnt out and exhausted.'[118] RPJJ noted her daughter, had fallen and broken her toe and suffers in her social life and has not had opportunity to make friends at all.
7. I refer to Ms C's 30 October 2024 'statement'[119] and the 15 January 2025 carer statement[120] in full. I accept Ms C's statements and find that she has admirably and consistently cared for her mother and brother for many years. I acknowledge Ms C's:
   • Visible care and support she provided to RPJJ at the hearing. It was apparent there was a relationship of love, kindness and trust between mother and daughter during the hearing.[121]
   • Long term informal carer role for both RPJJ and her brother.
   • Written statement that she is no longer an informal carer her mother and brother from 9 July 2025 due to exhaustion.[122]
8. RPJJ identified eleven goals in her NDIS plan at the hearing:[123]
   • To increase my ability to live independently;
   • To obtain SDA with fully accessible features so that I can live independently and safely with my family/supports;
   • To increase opportunities to experience enjoyment and increase capacity for enjoyment;
   • To increase opportunities and capacity to learn new fun/engaging/skill development activities;
   • To increase opportunities and capacity to make new friends and social activities;
   • To increase opportunities and capacity to establish friends and support network;
   • To increase opportunities and capacity to improve overall health and wellbeing (fitness, mental health) by access to a home hydrotherapy pool so I can undertake hydrotherapy program (independently and regularly at home) and engage in daily exercise program (independently and regularly at home);
   • To identify and support my special interest areas;[124]
   • To obtain assistance in putting in place proper and timely supports to decrease further nerve damage to my fingers and palms and other injuries (falls or burns);[125]
   • To support opportunities for normalising immediate family relationships between mother and daughter, mother and son and son and daughter so caring roles are not the defining feature of the relationship;[126]
   • To put in place supports to help us transition roles.[127]

1. RPJJ contended that she relies on the report of Dr Nicholas Teo, dated 13 September 2024[128] to confirm her diagnoses of lipoedema and lymphoedema.
2. When asked about her impairments RPJJ stated 'I think SFPN is my primary and my severe anxiety and depression are secondary.'[129] 'NDIA accepted my SFPN in December 2023 there is a lot of physical impairment in terms of balance and other things.[130] 'Also the swelling and the lymph and multiple other things now are a result of the SFPN.'[131] RPJJ stated:

'I wanted to provide this evidence from Google that shows...small fibre also impacts your automated system, so for instance, your breathing, your temperature, your blood pressure, your heartbeat. So there's other things that mightn't - it's not just in your feet, it's in the whole of your body. And for me, in my circumstance was that it started off prior to 2018. It was diagnosed in 2018 but it started up before that. And it started with numbness in my big toe. And then it moved into the soles of my feet, and I ended up with burning feet. And then the numbness, the tingling. The altered sensation, which is very, very important. It's not the pain, it's the altered sensation, it started affecting my balance.'[132] 'my feet are 'numb and cold most of the time.'[133] 'I have a tremor in my arms and I don't eat with my family because it is embarrassing if I choke on my food.[134]

3. RPJJ spoke to the information she compiled about SFPN[135] stating it is 'relatively rare' and the sensory issues and the automated systems, people aren't so aware of it...so 'we have to try and educate people, like my plan manager'.'[136] 'Fifty percent is idiopathic and there's nothing in conventional medicine that can be done.'[137] RPJJ also contended that she feels dizzy and is fatigued and has low blood pressure and low heart beat due to the '5 stages of neuropathy.'[138]
4. RPJJ contended these conditions should be accepted by the Agency because she 'did not receive Agency funds for her diagnosis of SFPN.'[139]
5. RPJJ stated that she started walking with hiking poles around 2016 because 'they can go longer than a walking stick and I can [use them] in that same fashion'[140] and RPJJ uses her Four Wheeled Walker (4WW).[141]
6. Regarding the hiking poles and 4WW RPJJ is able to
   • Use the equipment to attend a shopping centre
   • Stand up and sit down with the equipment for support
   • Use the 4WW to sit on as she 'can't stand up for very long.[142]
7. RPJJ is able to
   • Toilet herself.
   • Eat, albeit her support worker may cut up the food to smaller amounts.[143]
   • Independently transfer as RPJJ stated that her support workers do not help with transferring in or out of chairs or in and out of bed.[144]
   • Make decisions about her money and banking, albeit she receives assistance with research from her support workers.[145]
   • Her daughter helps her dress.
   • Independently bathe, however, her children 'listen out' in case she falls.[146]
8. RPJJ described a 'typical' day as:[147]
   • Waking around 7am.
   • 'Getting dressed is normal'.
   • 'Maybe spending three, four or five hours in the home office' undertaking life administration work which includes:
     • Organising cash flow funding;
     • Organising the warranty claim for her son's 2.5-year-old bed that had a manufacturing default;
     • Organising the 'warranty as her son's phone was dropped';
     • Organising insurance claims from cyclone X as there was damage to sewerage, septic carpets and mould on the walls;
     • Trying to arrange to get a support coordinator; and
     • Organising her son's medical and pathology appointments, perhaps every four to five days and we attend these '98% of the time with a support worker.'[148]
   • Sometimes attending the local pool. RPJJ noted she:
     • Is not attending the pool because 'I am almost a complete write off for the whole of the day.'[149]
     • Is suffering very badly [if she doesn't go to the pool] 'and then my arms go to sleep more...and it wakes me up multiple times a night.'
     • Later RPJJ stated 'we went to the pool recently on Sunday.'[150]
   • Eating her meals separate from the family;[151]
   • Watching television for an hour or two at night.[152]
9. RPJJ did explain she had attended, a house inspection and she was hopeful she would obtain a three-year lease [on another property].[153]
10. RPJJ sent in 37 pages of photographs[154] to provide images to the Tribunal of:
    • Her hand;
    • A hire 'wheelie walker';
    • Her fingers after an accident;
    • 'Bruising on my hand';
    • 'Painful arm areas from lipoedema removal';
    • Marking on her thumb, from using a stencil with the phone;[155]
    • Blisters on her fingers;
    • Finger creases and black marks;
    • 'Zip line' or face marks upon waking in the morning;[156]
    • Lumps on her legs that feel like bee stings;[157]
    • Fluid retention in feet, 'I may need amputation';[158]
    • Toenail issues.[159]
11. RPJJ provided some of her work and life history. She stated she 'had capacity to self-manage' her plan as she had the following experience as a person who has:[160]
    • Worked with honesty and integrity;
    • Qualifications from a teacher's college;
    • A Bachelor of Communications degree;
    • An Advanced Certificate in Business Management;
    • Completed part of a law degree;
    • Previously worked in financial management, managing large amounts of money;
    • Travelled extensively overseas;
    • Used excel spreadsheets to manage family finances;[161]
    • Managed her own bank account and financial affairs;[162]
    • Worked for a local council and invested funds; and
    • Conducted her own business.
12. RPJJ last reported working in 2009[163] and she currently receives a Centrelink pension.[164]

Support number 1 - Monday - Friday support worker at house 7:30-4pm each day.

1. RPJJ outlined that support workers usually attend her home from Monday to Friday from around 7:30am until 4pm[165] and clarified support worker 'S' helps with domestic tasks and sometimes works three days a week and support worker 'T' helps with 'office stuff and works around three days a week.'[166] RPJJ noted:
   • 'They are supposed to attend every day but sometimes it is only three out of four days.
   • Support worker 'S' used to assist me four days from 8am - 3pm. Now it is two days a week. She does not work Mondays and Wednesdays now.
   • 'T' he works 10am-2pm for three days a week because he is at uni studying. He helps with receipts and my insurance claims with four companies that have not paid me. I focus on my son's medical stuff, and I try do detailed cash flows.'[167]
2. RPJJ's requests support worker assistance with the following:[168]
   • Shopping;
   • Any meal preparation at all;
   • Cooking;
   • Dressing: 'my daughter has helped me previously. S may set up clothes on the bed for me;'
   • House Cleaning;[169]
   • Laundry;
   • 'Help to communicate with my son';
   • Transport and going places 'so I'm not driving because of my hands'. RPJJ has decided not to drive anymore;[170]
   • Having doors opened for her;
   • Helping her to remember things;
   • Helping her with research 'they help me find the mower man and find swimmers for Mr C';
   • Taking the dog to get washed, nails clipped and to the vet; and
   • 'Transporting me to appointments each week with the GP and specialists'/
3. RPJJ is independent in the following areas, and she stated that neither S nor T help her with:
   • Transfers out of bed or chairs;
   • Toileting;
   • Bathing; and
   • Banking.

Support number 2 -Saturday support worker assistance

1. RPJJ stated there is a problem with the availability of support workers and her funding and that she would like to address the following issues:
   • 'We have tried to get a Saturday support worker, and it has not worked because I am so absolutely exhausted on Saturday that things don't actually happen.'[171]
   • 'Maybe once a month we have a support worker on a Saturday and Sunday.'[172]
   • 'I want to attend the markets.'[173]
   • 'I want help get up as I am at a really high risk of a fall and for someone to get my purse, my jumper, put the walker in the car, pick up things I drop, make phone calls, find the library.'[174]
   • 'I want help me with organisation for going places - help me with the kids. My ambition is not to spend Saturday in bed but to have something to do.'[175]
   • 'I can't do things due to risk of fall. I want an interest or hobby - something I enjoy doing on the weekend.'
   • 'I need a support worker to help me get up and have breakfast - help to get ready'
   • 'I want to look after my health.'
   • 'I want to use Saturday hours to attend church or to be involved in scouts for her son and daughter.'[176]

Support number 3 - Sunday support worker assistance

1. RPJJ stated on Sunday there is infrequently a support worker - maybe once a month. RPJJ would like activities for her children 'to get out and do something'.

1. RPJJ stated that she has not attended ongoing occupational therapy treatment at Suburb A where she lived for 4.5 years[177] or in Suburb E.[178] RPJJ stated the occupational therapist who she consulted [in Suburb A] did assessments and made recommendations. However, they 'did not teach strategies about improving the way [RPJJ] does things or modifying the way she did things.'[179]
2. RPJJ seeks 'a one-off amount of 89 hours of occupational therapy funding for the purpose of producing a report about home modifications or to assist with the design of SDA accommodation.'[180]

1. RPJJ consults Dr Colston, psychologist once a week on telehealth.[181] RPJJ seeks 57 hours of psychology funding which is 48 hours of psychology support, and 'six hours of support for the support workers as a conduit' and three hours for report writing.[182]
2. RPJJ speaks with her psychologist about building her parenting capacity for her son due to his 'crisis with his medical condition'[183] and RPJJ seeks additional hours to:
   • Help her parent her son due to his medical conditions and his disability.[184]
   • Receive guidance from Dr Colson around how to speak to the support workers so they understand how best to assist RPJJ and her son.[185]
   • RPJJ confirmed that Dr Colston's summary dated 24 June 2024 was accurate and that some of 'the focus of our time is discussing the complex needs of RPJJ's son which is onerous and stressful for RPJJ.[186]
3. RPJJ acknowledged the Agency offer of 53 hours of psychology per year and she seeks 57 hours due to the difference in the 'conduit role' in order for 'helping the support workers make a connection with Mr C.'[187]

1. RPJJ stated that if she has a hydrotherapy pool funded, she seeks physiotherapy support to attend one-hour weekly session of lymph drainage massage each week.
2. RPJJ stated if the hydrotherapy pool was not funded, she seeks three sessions of one hour each week for 'hydrotherapy sessions.'

1. RPJJ seeks[188]
   • Two hours per week for 50 weeks of the year at level 1 support coordination funding.
   • Four hours for 50 weeks of the year at level 3 support coordination to assist with 'possibly SDA and also all home improvements or other complex issues'.
2. RPJJ explained she was not satisfied with the support coordinator she had in February 2025, because:[189]
   • 'We have not had good fortune finding a support coordinator at level 1 who does anything at all. They told us it was 5 hours to set up coordination and 5 hours to get started. 10 hours seemed excessive to set up.'
   • 'We got limited assistance, we had to fill in a ten-page application form to get the lawn mowed. It seemed to be beyond my capacity to fill in ten pages to get lawns mowed. They wanted to know all about my disabilities and there was 'no value' in filling in the form. This was my experience when we came to Suburb E.'
3. RPJJ currently has 40 hours per year of support coordinator funding at level 2.[190] RPJJ stated that 'we haven't successfully used any support coordinator for a very long time, I'm talking, you know, a year or two years. You know, we haven't had any - we've signed up with various different ones. We've probably paid the setup fees or whatever. I don't know exactly. Part of that would have been through the agency managed, I assume. But we really have not used the support coordination.'[191] RPJJ stated she is not using a support coordinator at the moment. RPJJ stated the last 'helpful support coordinator service she used was in August 2023.'[192]

1. RPJJ seeks four lots of $600 courses. RPJJ had a list of self-education courses that she sent to her plan manager on 22 April 2025.[193] These items were not in the tender bundle.[194]
2. RPJJ mentioned seeking a certificate of achievement for a previous self-education course.[195]

1. RPJJ seeks funding for level 2 transport. RPJJ stated she does not use her current core funding to flexibly acquire transport support[196] and that she has no transport funding at the moment.
2. Counsel for the Agency took RPJJ to line items.[197] These indicated RPJJ's plan money was spent on:
   • Transport for her daughter to travel to Brisbane by train.[198] RPJJ stated her daughter came to Brisbane with Mr C and RPJJ;
   • There was also a $377 fare for Ms C to visit Suburb E;
   • A claim for $273.29 for an 'Uber to an appointment'.[199]
3. RPJJ gave evidence that she is not working nor undertaking any education or study through an education provider. RPJJ plans to undertake some study as she commenced a course around 10 years ago.[200] RPJJ would 'like to go out into the community but she can't use public transport.'[201] RPJJ does not use taxis because she stated they will not lift her wheelie walker into the car. RPJJ stated she is transported as a passenger with her support worker in their car.

Support number 10 - Specialist interest activities

1. RPJJ seeks to explore what hobby she may be able to undertake.[202] RPJJ stated she seeks 48 hours, and a cost of $150 per annum[203] because:
   • 'I am limited to what I can do. I wanted funding towards that. I am not sure what materials I have. I am not permitted any time at all to experience anything outside of crisis management. I want to do specialist activities because I do not have a hobby or recreational activity. I have an interest in filmmaking and interest in movies.'

1. RPJJ stated since arriving in Suburb E in January 2025 she seeks to undertake art or craft therapy to 'explore what I can literally do.[204] I want to make things. I want to find out about art class - art therapy and I did a Google search to try to find things.'[205]

1. RPJJ was aware that her current plan has an amount of $1,400 in consumables for low cost, assistive technology including hearing and disability related health equipment.[206]
2. RPJJ stated she thought the 'consumables were for paper. It has been used I believe maybe $800 was used.'[207]
3. RPJJ currently uses the following assistive technology at home:[208]
   • An Airgo Fusion four wheeled walker inside the home that RPJJ prefers to call a 'wheelie walker;'[209]
   • A tipping jug;
   • Non-slip mats;
   • Heating pads;
   • Pop up top containers;
   • Two poles for inside; and
   • Two trekking poles for outside and to go to the swimming pool.[210]
4. RPJJ can walk on grass with her trekking poles and stated, 'I walk on grass anytime I can because if I do fall over the injuries are just going to be so much less.'[211]
5. Firstly, with respect to computer AT, RPJJ seeks to improve efficiency of computer usage through AT and described it as:[212]
   • The adaptive stylus wraps around the finger but it was not suitable... 'and I have not trialled the velcro sling stylus.'[213] RPJJ contends 'I need...someone to make up a custom one for a mouse or phone.'[214]
   • The dictation software she has used around 10 years ago was purchased by her university when she was studying but it was 'painful because of the corrections required and she had not used it since university.'[215]
   • The head tracking mouse was an alternative to the stylus but was not RPJJ's first option because she had surgery on her neck and spine.[216]
6. RPJJ then detailed several 'other AT' items.
7. Secondly, a Thermomix that costs $2,579.[217] If there is a support person there is less of a need for the Thermomix.[218] However, the OT recommended it and if Ms C is preparing the food, it would be a benefit to her 'in preparing food for us.'
8. Thirdly, a Vela Tango 700 Chair that costs $9,500.[219] 'It was recommended by another OT a few years ago. It can raise and lower and reach for things. My initial support coordinator recommended it.'[220] This chair was being investigated as it could be modified. RPJJ stated 'I was not measured or quoted for this chair.'[221]
9. Fourthly, RPJJ described the Ultramatic adjustable bed, at a cost of $6,600[222] as being 'critically important[223] because at the moment my arms keep going to sleep when I wake up I can't use them and if I put weight on them they collapse.'
10. Fifthly, an electric recliner chair[224] at a cost of $3,500 plus freight. RPJJ stated, 'I want to sit and put my feet up to lessen the fluid problem.'[225] RPJJ stated that further assessment is required and none of the further assessments have been done.[226]
11. Sixthly, a pneumatic compression pump[227] at a cost of 'around $5,000'. RPJJ stated that 'Dr Teo recommended this. At the STA we stayed at they had a pneumatic compression pump, I hired it a couple of times. A short version is it was not that great - need to use it on sustained basis. I tried it and it was not that useful I had once a week use of it.'[228]

1. RPJJ stated her request for a hydrotherapy pool is 'critically important [due to her SFPN].'[229] RPJJ elaborated this is because the [SFPN prognosis under stage 5 means that]:
   • 'Apart from falling, there's the risk of ulcers and amputation... is a very, very real risk it's one of the reasons why I would do so many laps in the pool willingly ... I am asking for intervention to at least try to slow the progress.'[230]
   • 'Extremely good care of the feet is really critically important. And I think of the objection to our podiatrist is completely unbelievable, considering it's a podiatrist. And we're talking about peripheral neuropathy and we're talking about amputation.'[231]
   • The community pool in Suburb E was not appropriate for her as it is 'too noisy there and the water temperature is too cold'.[232]
2. RPJJ selected J Provider for the hydrotherapy pool quote.[233] One report is dated 16 December 2024 around concreting and the 'letter of recommendation' for the hydrotherapy pool was undated and unsigned.[234]
3. On 25 June 2025, RPJJ sought $66,918.60 for the hydrotherapy pool.[235] This was comprised of:
   • Neptune spa $52,000, and power supply $1,614, and plumbing cost estimated at around $500.[236] This was a quote for the property at Suburb A.
4. On 11 August 2025, RPJJ stated she was seeking either [but] 'we're looking for the first one for Suburb E:'[237]
   • '$47,117.00 would be the sum total of what's required in terms of everything... a slab down, structural landscaping for $5,500 they also crane it in.'
   • RPJJ relies on the J Provider report.[238]
   • RPJJ has paid $1,000 deposit for her preferred hydrotherapy pool, so 'they will hold the price for six months'.[239] 'I want a smaller pool with an underwater treadmill as they have 20% off and it has a 10 year guarantee - they only take 8-12 weeks to deliver.'[240]
   • RPJJ stated it is better value for money for her to have a hydrotherapy pool.[241]
   • RPJJ stated that the decision of Spires and National Disability Insurance Scheme [2023] AATA 1230 17 May 2023 assisted her in her request.[242] It was unclear what part of the Spires decision assisted RPJJ in her request.
5. RPJJ gave evidence that due to her SFPN diagnosis:
   • Her local GP Dr [x] of Suburb E Medical, recommends a hydrotherapy pool[243] and he wrote a 2 July 2025 letter that '[RPJJ] has limited exercise options so needs cardiovascular exercise for at least 45 minutes and I would recommend at least five times a week.'
   • 'Her preferred option would be to undertake hydrotherapy in a home pool'.[244]
   • RPJJ had signed a 3 year lease at L Street now in Suburb E and the 'landlord is alright with a hydrotherapy pool going there.'[245]

1. RPJJ stated she could not remember when STA 'was [last] funded'[246] because:

'it sort of goes into this great void and you get nothing back. So we've had to take it out of our support hours, you know, on the basis that it's flexible. So we have had short term accommodation with the flexibility in our budget, which comes at a cost because it hasn't been additionally or separately sort of funded, which is why we put in this request specifically for STA.'[247]

2. RPJJ was asked if she sometimes uses the funding for support worker hours on short term accommodation because it's flexible and RPJJ responded:

Yes. We have used support worker because we have flexibility. So we miss out, like, we'll miss out on support hours. But STA also does cover support hours. So we miss out to a degree. Like, it doesn't take out all our support hours because we get support while we're doing the STA.[248]

3. RPJJ's current SOPS indicates[249] that for the assistance with daily life budget over a six-month period there was $52,838 in the SOPS.
4. RPJJ stated STA is 'critically important for respite.'[250] RPJJ seeks 28 days of STA funding each year.
5. RPJJ reported previously using STA in the following ways:
   • Overnight funding when Ms C took Mr C to Perth for one night.[251]
   • At STA Provider N, 'we used it to see how we would best help Mr C.'[252]we went there to get away with OTs for one-on-one support. We attended as a family before to try to work out how to work with Mr C[253] with ongoing issues to try to develop new skills and ways of doing things with respect to eating and cutlery.'[254]
   • In December 2023 at Property P. The family used STA to go to 'STA Provider O to work through the best help for Mr C as a family'.[255] Between 25 December 2023 and 4 January 2024 RPJJ used STA Provider O[256] and spent $28,008.50 on short-term accommodation. RPJJ attended the pool. The support workers were there for 8 hours each day.[257]
   • STA at 'modern cottage with spa'[258] from 26 January 2024 - 29 January 2024 at a cost of $1,132.07. The STA was for support while managing the carer burden.[259] RPJJ explained 'we could not find anyone who would work with us. And it was an emergency due to the cyclone we worked on goals and tried new things'.
   • December 2024 at Property P through Provider O, again for 28 days from 4 December 2024[260] to improve RPJJ's fitness and to get 'somebody to work with the kids on meal preparation'[261] and this was for a cost of $28,008.50.[262]
   • RPJJ attended STA in August 2024 and support worker travelled with RPJJ and her son.[263]
   • Maybe June 2024 for 7 days; and
   • September 2024 for 5 days.[264]
6. RPJJ was asked when she uses her core support toward STA how does she ensure there's sufficient funding left for support worker hours. RPJJ responded that:

'well we have a flood or a cyclone, or we have somebody sick or somebody's daughter sick, or we have, you know somebody even leave...at times we have more and then times we don't.'[265]

7. RPJJ was asked again by counsel for the Agency:

So if you're not funded for STA but you use your supports on STA, how do you make sure that that doesn't impact the funding for, say, support worker hours?... > > RPJJ: 'Well if S does not come for one week then she will make some meals for the next week...or freezing meals. Or you know. A lot of things just don't get done.'[266]

8. RPJJ stated she understands that STA goes through core funding, and it is not flexible.[267]
9. On 11 August 2025, RPJJ advised the Tribunal of the withdrawal of Ms C as her 'primary informal carer effective from 9 July 2025'. RPJJ explained that Ms C is exhausted and cannot continue in the role. Counsel for the Agency asked RPJJ what prompted the withdrawal and RPJJ's response was unclear.
10. RPJJ stated that she provided a quote for 90 days of STA because 'it shows value for money with regards to applying for SDA in case we were deemed eligible for SDA.'[268]

Support number 15 - reimbursement towards relocation expenses

1. RPJJ requested reimbursement for relocation costs from suburb A to suburb E in order for 'my daughter to be able to take up her offer at [F University] and her being my primary carer.'[269] RPJJ stated:
   • The NDIS does support carers like my daughter;
   • [My daughter], was supposed to get $5,000, for her relocation for her Austudy, for her moving down here. And she did get a scholarship, which she hasn't even got - she's only got $1,500 of that so far but we were surprised that she didn't end up being entitled to that with her relocating from a regional area to go to university. If she had of gone, you know, somewhere else, she would have got the $5,000. But because she's actually on a carer's payment, she wasn't on tertiary, she ended up completely missing out on her $5,000 that she would have got, you know, for her to relocate.[270]
2. RPJJ gave oral evidence that she had spent the following amounts of money to relocate.[271] However, the Tribunal notes that no receipts were filed. RPJJ stated the expenses were:

(a) Prime Group Movers, Prime Group Transport, dated 11 March 2025 $1,500.00.[272] > > (b) Three nights' accommodation: $145-at 'B', $227-at 'T', $170-at 'V'.[273] RPJJ stated 'we won't worry about fuel as there are no receipts.'[274] > > (c) Insurance paid to CARTS Insurance on18 January 2025, $311.74.[275] > > (d) These amounts totalled $2,353.74.[276]

'On 15 January 2025 did you think that you had funding for relocation expenses in your NDIS plan? > > RPJJ answered 'not relocation expenses as such, no. But to assist us with - me to stay with my primary carer, yes. As carer support, yes.'[277] > > What amount of carer support did you think you had funded in your NDIS plan? > > There is flexibility with core and all over my plan, which was only an interim plan; it has flexibility. So I believe there was flexibility. There wasn't additional funding for it. There was flexibility in it to pay for this, with it being critical, and I did put it, you know, all the correspondence together. And it says here, 'NDIS can fund', and I've got the link down the bottom here, 'NDIS can fund costs involved in moving to a more accessible rental property if the value for money is the most effective way to meet your disability support needs.' The most effective way for me to meet my disability support needs at that point in time, was for me to be able to travel with Ms C and for us to move house with, you know - and stay with my primary carer. This says on the NDIS - this is NDIS guidelines, it says, 'Can we help you move to a more accessible house?' It wasn't - it was more accessible in terms of the fact that we had more access to supports down here, whereas up there we did not. So that's actually on your own - NDIS's own deadlines. And with regards to reasonable and necessary, I had the - I addressed the issues of whether it was reasonable and necessary given the six criteria - five criteria that are usually addressed.'[278]

4. RPJJ stated that 'using your core funding flexibly' means:[279]

Yes, it means that if you have a disability need, a need that rises totally from your disability - and it would come under, you know - and there's a support that can actually assist you. But it also does address the carer issue, which I am just trying to locate here. Yes, this is in E, so 5E, under my CoC. > > It means you have flexibility with regards to the funds in core funding if it meets the criteria. And I have outlined how I believe it met the criteria in that letter, which I've mentioned. There's actually - so I mean, I've outlined it as best I can. It's not a day-to-day cost; it is reasonable and necessary. There is flexibility with taking into account, you know, staying with your daughter. I actually pointed you to the fact that it actually has a - it says, 'NDIS funds a range of support', this is at the bottom of page 74, which is the footnote. It says: > > NDIS funds a range of support services which may include living arrangements in line to help their wellbeing. And in order to be considered reasonable and necessary, a support must relate to the participant's disability.[280]

Support number 16 - Specialist Disability Accommodation

1. RPJJ contacted Ms B from K Provider[281] in order to undertake her SDA assessment.[282] Ms B assessed RPJJ on 31 March 2025 and provided a report on 21 April 2025 regarding the SDA application.[283]
2. RPJJ relies on Ms B's report'[284] and requests a 'fully accessible, three-bedroom house in the Suburb E area.'[285] RPJJ contended:
   • 'If I had SDA I don't need STA.'[286]
   • 'We have plans for SDA to be built.'[287]

1. RPJJ requested that her 'supports be changed back to self-managed'. No other materials were provided with regard to RPJJ''s request.
2. RPJJ seeks that her NDIS funding be self-managed because:
   • 'It helps our budget go - I won't say twice as far, but it makes it go a lot further.'[288] It means 'we can engage support workers for more like $35 an hour. That just gives us more support hours and in the way that we actually can use it best.'[289]
   • RPJJ is better able to manage the funding due to her background in financial management and her high ethical standards. 'I actually have every single thing documented and I have every single receipt. It allows us furthermore to actually budget more accurately.'[290]
   • RPJJ is '100% transparent and accountable with funds'.
   • Plan managers 'do not know about your condition there is an educational process involved in teaching them about my disability.'
   • The 'transport amounts were tiny'.
   • We 'suffered detriment because we could not use our funds, so we went and used the STA.'
3. RPJJ's plan from 1 September 2021 until 1 September 2022 sets out that her total funded supports were $47, 932.34.[291]
   • The core supports of $36,099.44 were NDIA-managed.
   • The capacity building supports of $5,824.50 were NDIA-managed.
   • The support coordination funding in the amount of $6,008.40 were NDIA-managed.
4. RPJJ's plan from 9 March 2022 until 9 March 2023 sets out that her total funded supports were $48,020.22.[292]
   • The core supports of $36,187.32 were self-managed
   • The capacity building supports of $5,824.50 were self-managed.
   • The support coordination funding in the amount of $6,008.40 were self-managed.
5. RPJJ's next plan was only for a 6-month duration, from 25 July 2022 until 23 January 2023 sets out that her total funded supports were $42,050.57.[293]
   • The core supports of $31,386.64 were NDIA-managed.
   • The capacity building supports of $10,663.93 were managed as follows:
     • $859.05 stated support for plan management were NDIA-managed
     • $5,799.28 Capacity building daily activity psychology were NDIA-managed
     • $4,005.60 support coordination - were plan-managed
6. RPJJ's next plan was only for a 12-month duration, from 5 December 2022 until 5 December 2023 sets out that her total funded supports were $77,296.59.[294]
   • The core supports of $62,773.28 were NDIA-managed
   • The capacity building supports of $14,523.31 were:
     • $859.05 stated support for plan management were NDIA-managed
     • $9,658.66 Capacity building daily activity psychology were NDIA-managed
     • $4,005.60 support coordination - were NDIA-managed
7. RPJJ was taken by counsel for the Agency to her SOPs.[295] RPJJ's plan from 5 December 2022 until 5 December 2023 was for a total funded support amount of $77,296.59[296] and this was NDIA-managed.
8. RPJJ was asked about the figures in her plan indicating that 73% of her assistance with daily life was spent for the 26 April 2024 plan. RPJJ stated 'because we lived in a rural area, we could not access our funding for our capacity building.'[297] RPJJ contended that 'nobody would do our lawn because we were in a regional area, and we were Agency-managed.[298]
9. RPJJ contended that she was 'flexibly' using her funded core supports such as her support worker supports on STA funding. I accept that core supports have flexibility in use because participants may need to use their respective supports flexibly at times.

Dr Peter Patrikios, neurologist, Nerve Conduction Studies & EMG

1. Dr Patrikios assessed RPJJ in person on 23 May 2018. Dr Patrikios was RPJJ's first neurologist.[299] Dr Patrikios wrote that 'I have suggested she would benefit from seeing a musculoskeletal GP.' [300]
2. Dr Patrikios consulted RPJJ by telephone on 30 November 2021 as RPJJ had moved to a more regional area. Dr Patrikios opined 'I do not think the peripheral neuropathy is treatable other than with pain relief, but she was keen to explore options here.'[301]
3. On 28 July 2022 Dr Patrikios signed an 'access request - supporting evidence form' for RPJJ.[302] Dr Patrikios wrote that the primary impairment for RPJJ was 'small fibre peripheral neuropathy' and that RPJJ has had this impairment 'since before 2015' and that the impairment is lifelong.
4. Dr Patrikios did not provide any responses to the questions of:[303]
   • 'are there early intervention supports that are likely to benefit the person by reducing their future needs for supports.'
   • 'section three: details of the functional impact of the impairment/s'
5. Dr Patrikios provided RPJJ a telehealth consultation on 30 May 2023, his opinion was:[304]

'I do not have a clear diagnosis for her. I still think the small fibre peripheral neuropathy is the most likely explanation. This is not covered under the blood bank criteria to give intravenous immunoglobulin. > > It is probably worthwhile that she gets referred down to the immunologists at Greenslopes Hospital in Brisbane. They might have some immune suppressive medications that may help her. I am really at a loss to offer her anything other than the usual neuropathic pain medications, which would not change the progression of the disease. I note that she had an MRI of the brain and whole spine on 8 May 2023 ...this did not show any evidence of white matter lesions in the brain or in the spinal cord. Therefore, she does not have multiple sclerosis.'

Dr Teck Tang, specialist general surgeon, Sunnybank Surgical Group

'[RPJJ] is complaining of what is fat pad in her lower limb and also in her left axilla. She does have a few lipomas that I can feel clinically, ...I am not aware of the condition called lipedema and I have look (sic) on the internet... but I have no knowledge about it. I cannot provide her with a definitive diagnosis.'[305]

Dr Nicholas Teo, Fellow Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Lipoedema Surgical Solution

1. On 13 September 2024, Dr Teo wrote to RPJJ's then GP Dr T. Dr Teo wrote 'I understand [RPJJ] will benefit from assistance to access continuous hydrotherapy in her area. Also I have recommended obtaining a lymphatic pneumatic compression pump due to the lack of manual lymphatic draining services in her area.'[306]

Dr Rosemary Colston, psychologist, Innovated Life

1. Dr Colston has been RPJJ's psychologist since December 2011.[307]
2. Dr Colston provided a 23 June 2022 'change of circumstances application.'[308]
3. Dr Colston provided a 25 October 2024 'NDIS funding recommendations for capacity building' letter for RPJJ. Dr Colston reported that RPJJ engages in weekly to fortnightly telehealth session to build capacity in self-care and self-management and the management of her children's needs.[309] Her physical symptoms, relative to her SFPN, mobility, balance and endurance are progressively worsening, all of which is compounding her mental health conditions, relative to depression and anxiety.[310] Dr Colston recommended STA for RPJJ to enable opportunities for her son and for the family to exercise and develop hobbies and access new opportunities and give respite.

1. Dr T completed an access request supporting information form for RPJJ on 16 January 2023.[311] Dr T wrote that RPJJ's diagnosis of SFPN was 'since 2015 and that it was 'lifelong.'
2. Dr T wrote that RPJJ requires the following equipment for mobility:
   • Wheelie walker,
   • Electric adjustable bed,
   • Electric chair lift,
   • Kitchen perching stool,
   • Kitchen utensils,
   • Compression stockings.
3. Dr T wrote under the heading of social interaction that RPJJ 'needs health worker support podiatry and OT.'
4. Dr T wrote that RPJJ requires special equipment for self-care for showering/bathing and eating/drinking. RPJJ requires
   • 'unclear words' mobility
   • 'Ready to eat meals'
   • Stationary for writing/computer
   • Kitchen utensils
   • Bathroom needs to be modified, bath and bath stool
   • Dental caries, mouth splint for teeth grinding.
5. Dr T wrote that RPJJ requires assistance from other persons in self-management
   • Support workers including social worker support.
   • 'unclear word' dependent children.

1. Ms R assessed RPJJ on 12 March 2024 and reported that 'RPJJ attended physiotherapy under both an Enhanced Primary Care Program and NDIS funding since 18 October 2023 for lymphatic massage for oedema and pain secondary to her diagnosis of SFNP'. Ms R noted:
   • RPJJ had progressed from walking with a 4WW to now walking with a mobility aid most similar to a hiking stick between the appointments of 4 December 2023 until 5 March 2024.
   • Ms R recommended 'should hydrotherapy be RPJJ's main exercise modality of choice she should aim for 7.5 hours per week as per the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care guidelines'.[312]

Ms I and Ms H, occupational therapists, J Provider

1. On 10 May 2024, at RPJJ's request, Ms I and Ms H assessed RPJJ via telehealth for an initial consultation to explore assistive technologies to improve her access to her computer. The occupational therapists signed a report on 7 June 2024.[313]
2. The occupational therapists wrote that RPJJ reported she:[314]
   • Mobilises unaided independently at home. However, she still continues to experience increased fatigue and reduced endurance to complete tasks.
   • Has difficulty with tasks that involve fine motor skills as they cause her significant pain and could result in further nerve damage.
   • Will likely need a seating review for improved seating support.
   • The following options were considered but further assessment is required to recommend appropriate products. The occupational therapists listed various items such as an adaptive stylus, headtracking mouse and dictation software.
3. The occupational therapists recommended that:[315]

[RPJJ] would benefit from engaging with J Provider to determine suitable assistive technology solutions to enable RPJJ to achieve her identified goals.

4. After assessments on telehealth on 10 September 2024, 30 September 2024 and 5 December 2024, Ms I provided a 'NDIS Minor Home Modification Guidance Document for Building Services Professional' for RPJJ. The report was dated 16 December 2024 regarding guidance for concreting.[316]
5. There was also an unsigned and undated 'Assistive Technology Letter of Recommendation' under the J Provider letterhead. The final page of the report had the typed name of Ms I at the end.[317] The letter recommends a hydrotherapy pool for RPJJ at Suburb A.

Ms Claire Pritchard, occupational therapist, National 360.

1. Ms Pritchard assessed RPJJ via telehealth on three occasions, on 9 July and 26 July and 2 August 2024. Ms Pritchard provided a 14 August 2024[318] functional capacity assessment for RPJJ. RPJJ selected Ms Pritchard from National 360 for the functional capacity assessment as the organisation had provided a report for her son previously.[319]
2. Ms Pritchard reports RPJJ receives 30 hours support a week, four hours twice weekly for cleaning and washing. Four hours six times week for meal preparation and community access.
3. Ms Pritchard used the WHODAS tool and rated RPJJ as experiencing severe impact in the areas of mobility and self-care.
4. Ms Pritchard recommended that RPJJ requires:[320]
   • Assistance with domestic tasks two hours per day for 7 days per week;
   • Assistance with social and community participation for three hours per day seven days per week;
   • Cleaning for four hours per week;
   • STA for a maximum of 28 days per year;
   • Ongoing assistance from an OT with 95 occupational therapy hours recommended over a 12-month period. This includes assessment, intervention, report writing, case management and travel;[321]
   • Physiotherapy;
   • Psychology;
   • Level 2 support coordination;
   • Mid cost AT to consider an electric bed and electric recliner chair;
   • High-cost AT as RPJJ has requested a hydrotherapy pool;
   • Speech therapy for a swallow test.

1. Ms B assessed RPJJ at her home on D Street in Suburb E on 31 March 2025 and provided a 21 April 2025 'home and living suitability report.'[322] I note that RPJJ moved to a different house on L Street in Suburb E in July 2025.
2. Ms B wrote the 'functional assessment is intended to review RPJJ's eligibility for SDA to meet her disability support needs.'[323]
3. Ms B opined that RPJJ has an 86.04% WHODAS score indicating 'extreme negative impact on her daily functioning.'[324]
4. Ms B reported that RPJJ is able to:
   • Use an Airgo Fusion 4WW inside the home;
   • Mobilise with the 4WW for around 30 metres and will then sit down to recover;
   • Sometimes use furniture to assist with mobilising;
   • Independently transfer sit to stand, to her bed and toilet but RPJJ requires another person's assistance to enter and exit the car. [325]

Dr Richard White, consultant neurologist, MLCOA

1. Dr White, at the Agency's request, provided a report on the papers regarding RPJJ dated 18 December 2023. This was because RPJJ was unable to attend an appointment in person.[326]
2. I accept Dr White's evidence based on his review of RPJJ's materials and accept his opinions that:[327]

'Validated and universally accepted diagnostic criteria for small fibre neuropathy are yet to be finalised or standardised. ... > > In my opinion, RPJJ has sufficient information to support the diagnosis of small fibre peripheral neuropathy. ... > > RPJJ has had repeated investigation, and I think she can be considered to have exhausted mainstream health treatments. ...'

Ms Phi-Van Houston, Occupational Therapist, Crosslinks Rehabilitation Services

1. Ms Houston was the only expert called to give evidence. Ms Houston prepared an 'on the papers' review regarding RPJJ's functional capacity dated 2 June 2025 as RPJJ was not available for an in-person assessment.[328] At the hearing, Ms Houston confirmed there were no changes or corrections to her report.'[329]
2. I accept Ms Houston's evidence. She gave her evidence in a credible, honest and independent manner.[330] I am satisfied her report provided a thorough exploration and evaluation of the material before the Tribunal.[331] I do not accept RPJJ's submissions that Ms Houston was 'legally prepared by the Agency to give evidence'.
3. To summarise, RPJJ asked Ms Houston several questions. In particular there were questions around RPJJ's diagnosed condition of SFPN, and four of the requested supports for support workers, STA[332], the hydrotherapy pool, and some assistive technology.
4. Regarding SFPN, I was satisfied with Ms Houston's response that she had assisted people with 'similar conditions to SFPN, for example people living with multiple sclerosis and other neurological conditions' and that Ms Houston [in her work] looks at assessments of people [living with disability] 'holistically.' [333]
5. RPJJ questioned Ms Houston about support worker hours.[334] Ms Houston responded that her understanding was that RPJJ was appropriately funded for her disability support needs which included:[335]
   • 40 hours per week in total.
     • 5 of these hours was for social, community and economic participation - two hours per week to access the pool and two hours per week for travel and one hour for dressing.
     • 35 hours was for personal care broken into two hours per day, seven days a week (14 hours) and then there is 21 hours per week for domestic care.
     • And an additional 2 hours per week for house and yard maintenance.
6. RPJJ asked Ms Houston about whether she would recommend STA for RPJJ. I understand this was because RPJJ had not requested this support prior to the hearing and Ms Houston had not offered a written recommendation around STA.[336] RPJJ explained to Ms Houston that she 'needs STA because of my son's needs and my carer burden.' RPJJ explained to Ms Houston she wanted to attend a camp called 'STA Provider N' to 'help me have respite, help me focus on what sort of interests or hobbies or joys of life I might be able to introduce to my lifestyle to decrease my stress etcetera. Given my problems with my fingers and hands and my mobility and also with the small fibre going into my tongue now.'[337]
7. In summary, Ms Houston was not able to recommend STA for RPJJ because RPJJ's request for STA had changed and Ms Houston had not had the opportunity to review the information.[338]
8. RPJJ asked Ms Houston about hydrotherapy.[339] Ms Houston stated:

Installation of a hydrotherapy pool is not applicable as the applicant is now renting. However, even if she was not renting, this is not something that would be cost-effective when there are more suitable and cost-effective options available.[340]

9. Ms Houston elaborated that 'cost effective' is 'not just about the financial component.'[341] Ms Houston explained why her opinion was that it was more cost effective and more beneficial for RPJJ to attend supervised hydrotherapy sessions at a community pool because of considerations for a hydrotherapy pool also around:
   • The requirement for infection control which is a safety issue.
   • Ms Houston opined there was greater benefit in RPJJ attending hydrotherapy classes for:
     • Physiotherapist supervision, and
     • Socialisation aspects and for networking.
10. Ms Houston raised the issue of risk assessment for RPJJ. This was explained as the risk of injury to RPJJ in the pool if she was exercising unsupervised, with or without a physiotherapist.[342] Ms Houston also mentioned the need for the fencing of the pool and ingress and egress risks for RPJJ.[343] Ms Houston opined that after reading RPJJ's materials another reason she would not recommend a hydrotherapy pool is due to what she read about RPJJ's 'falls risk.'
11. RPJJ put to Ms Houston that she spends 1.5 hours 'getting to the pool taken up in getting changed and being caught in traffic' and that time and energy could contribute 'towards my health in hydrotherapy due to my circulation problems stemming from lymphatic problems'. RPJJ stated it would be 'better to not rely on someone taking me to pool.'
12. RPJJ put to Ms Houston that it did not matter if she lived in a rental property regarding the hydrotherapy pool because she had a 3-year lease, the pool was portable, a power point could be changed, and there was already a concrete slab at the residence. Ms Houston's response in summary was 'I think hydrotherapy is good - I disagree with the location of pool at your home'. Ms Houston did not recommend a hydrotherapy pool for RPJJ.[344]
13. When asked about hours of hydrotherapy each week, Ms Houston responded a physiotherapist would be better placed to make the recommendation. However, Ms Houston also stated that due to RPJJ's fatigue and co-morbid issues Ms Houston would not recommend more hours of hydrotherapy for RPJJ each week.
14. RPJJ asked Ms Houston if her opinion had changed regarding the assistive technology recommendations. Ms Houston recommended an electric bed and not the electric recliner for RPJJ.[345] Ms Houston maintained her original position and stated that if RPJJ's situation changed she could seek another review.
15. Ms Houston opined it would be better for RPJJ to trial the recommended Vela 700 tango chair because:[346]

'I have trialled that with many clients and ones who have more functional mobility than what you are describing in terms of your movement around there, and so forth, and they struggled to use it. So, I know about the chair and that's why I made the comment there, is that the manual version that is - and that particular one would be a manual version'.

1. The Tribunal notes RPJJ's evidence on 24 June 2025 she stated, 'I would like to put in a closing submission whether it's three sentences, and orally or put in written submissions.[347] RPJJ also stated that [oral submissions] is 'an easy way for me too. [The counsel for the Agency] has been incredibly generous in letting me say what I need to say'.[348] On 26 June 2025, RPJJ stated she wanted to file written closing submissions.[349]
2. On 11 August 2025, when asked about closing submissions RPJJ stated 'I'm happy to do an oral submission.'[350] Later that day RPJJ stated 'I would like to make this the last day and I have tried to put together a minor submission'[351] and 'my final position is I am happy to put this as my final submission.'[352] The Tribunal considered 'this final position' it was an email that RPJJ 'sent [to the Tribunal] on 10 August 2025 at 1052pm.'[353]
3. In RPJJ's 'final submission' she stated that she believed the proceedings should be 'in good faith.'[354] RPJJ also contended the importance of the Agency's standard of evidence being 'good evidence.'[355]
4. The Agency's closing submissions were due on 3 October 2025. However, due to a myriad of factors the closing submissions were 11 days late. Parties received the Agency closing submissions on 14 October 2025.
5. RPJJ requested that she wanted to 'respond' to the Agency's closing submissions. RPJJ was given leave until 12 pm on 27 October 2025 to file a response to the Agency's closing submissions. The Tribunal notes that this was 12 calendar days. RPJJ's response was not received by this time.
6. The Tribunal resolved the decision in a timely manner in light of the Tribunal's objectives under section 9 of the ART Act.

1. I consider that RPJJ gave a forthright account regarding her submissions, circumstances, and needs.
2. I accept RPJJ's evidence that she experiences pain, altered sensations to her hands, feet and face, and that she mobilises independently, albeit with some muscle weakness, and some loss of balance and coordination.[356] I give weight to RPJJ's lived experience and her views that the requested supports would be beneficial for her.
3. I also give weight to the lived experience of Ms C and acknowledge her admirable care and support for her mother and brother over many years.

Are RPJJ's requested supports necessary to address her needs arising from the impairments in relation to which she met the disability requirements pursuant to section 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act?

1. It was uncontested and I accept that RPJJ lives with psychosocial impairments from MDD and GAD for which RPJJ consults with Dr Colston 'once a week'.[357]
2. I understand RPJJ's contentions to be that she meets the section 24 NDIS Act 'disability requirements' on the basis of her filed material stating that she has been diagnosed with:
   • lipoedema and lymphoedema, and
   • SFPN.
3. RPJJ did not contend that she met the early intervention requirements under section 25 of the NDIS Act with respect to lipoedema, lymphoedema or SFPN. I note that Dr Patrikios did not complete the early intervention sections of the access form for SFPN.
4. I understand RPJJ's contentions to be that she relies on the letter of Dr Nicholas Teo, dated 13 September 2024[358] to confirm her diagnoses of lipoedema and lymphoedema. I understand RPJJ contends she has additional physical impairments from these conditions.
5. I note that neither Dr Teo nor Dr Tang were available to give evidence about these diagnoses. Neither were available to give evidence about how the conditions impact on RPJJ's functional capacity. I note that Dr Tang wrote he was 'not aware of the condition called lipedema.'
6. I turn to consider whether RPJJ satisfies section 24(1) of the NDIS Act. The section 24(1) criteria of the NDIS Act disability requirements are cumulative:

24 Disability requirements > > (1) A person meets the disability requirements if: > > (a) the person has a disability that is attributable to one or more intellectual, cognitive, neurological, sensory or physical impairments or the person has one or more impairments to which a psychosocial disability is attributable; and > > (b) the impairment or impairments are, or are likely to be, permanent; and > > (c) the impairment or impairments result in substantially reduced functional capacity to undertake one or more of the following activities: > > (i) communication; > > (ii) social interaction; > > (iii) learning; > > (iv) mobility; > > (v) self‑care; > > (vi) self‑management; ...

7. Even if I accept RPJJ's diagnoses of the conditions of lipoedema and lymphoedema result in physical impairments[359] and even if I accept these physical impairments are permanent[360], there was insufficient probative evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that RPJJ's physical impairments from lipoedema and lymphedema satisfy the requirements of section 24(1)(c) of the NDIS Act.
8. There is limited probative evidence to positively satisfy me that RPJJ has a substantially reduced functional capacity with respect to any of the activities in section 24(1)(c) of the NDIS Act that occur as a direct result of her conditions of lipoedema and lymphoedema. There were no appropriately qualified witnesses called that could assist the Tribunal in making a finding in this regard.
9. Therefore, pursuant to section 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act supports that address RPJJ's needs resulting from her physical impairments due to lipoedema and lymphoedema cannot be included in her SOPS.
10. I accept Dr Patrikios' and Dr White's diagnosis of SFPN for RPJJ. I accept that RPJJ experiences sensory impairments of pain and altered sensations in her face, limbs and feet.[361] I accept that RPJJ also experiences fatigue and that she may forget things. I also accept Dr White's evidence that these sensory impairments are likely to be permanent for RPJJ.[362]
11. However, there was insufficient probative evidence to indicate that RPJJ's sensory impairments from SFPN satisfy the requirements of section 24(1)(c) of the NDIS Act. There were no appropriately qualified witnesses called that could assist the Tribunal in making a finding in this regard.
12. I cannot be positively satisfied on the evidence of Dr Patrikios, Dr Teo, and Dr T that RPJJ's sensory impairments satisfy the statutory criteria. There is limited probative evidence to positively satisfy me that RPJJ has a substantially reduced functional capacity with respect to any of the activities in section 24(1)(c) of the NDIS Act that occur as a direct result of her condition of SFPN.
13. Therefore on this basis, for the purposes of subsection 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act, only supports that are necessary to address RPJJ's needs that arise as a result of her psychosocial impairments due to MDD and GDD can be included in her SOPS at this stage.
14. I find that:
    • without sufficient evidence to satisfy section 24 or section 25 of the NDIS Act regarding lipoedema, lymphoedema or SFPN I cannot be satisfied that these conditions can be recognised as secondary disabilities; and
    • RPJJ cannot access 'reasonable and necessary supports' for the impairments attributable to lipoedema, lymphoedema and SFPN in accordance with section 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act.
15. I acknowledge that RPJJ was not available to participate in an in person functional capacity assessment with Ms Houston and an on the papers report was provided.
16. In Mulligan v National Disability Insurance Agency ('Mulligan'),[363] Justice Mortimer (as Her Honour then was) observed the importance of detailed functional assessments.[364] I find that these assessments may be equally applied when considering reasonable and necessary supports for a participant because they are 'avowedly functional, and multi-faceted' which is 'why a detailed functional assessment is so important'.[365] I must turn my mind to what RPJJ can and cannot do, not just what she is doing at the moment. I consider that a detailed functional capacity assessment considers not only what a participant's needs are, but whether those needs are based on what the participant can and cannot do because of the impairments.
17. Section 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act requires an assessment of whether a support is necessary to address RPJJ's needs that arise from those impairments for which she met the disability requirements. I find that I cannot be satisfied on the functional capacity assessments provided in the materials. I consider that neither Ms Pritchard's nor Ms B's assessments addressed whether the supports requested by RPJJ arise from her accepted impairments or her 'other conditions.' I was not assisted by either report in understanding RPJJ's supports needs arising from scheme accepted disabilities or from non-scheme accepted disabilities.
18. I consider that:
    • the word 'necessary' outlined in s34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act carries a higher threshold than other factors in section 34 of the NDIS Act such as whether the support would 'assist' or be 'beneficial' to the participant;
    • 'necessary' on its plain meaning means essential, or something that a person could not do without;
    • This is why a 'functional capacity assessment' is so important to understand whether the support is not just of assistance or would be beneficial but whether a support is 'essential' or 'necessary.'
19. It follows that I cannot be satisfied on Ms B's report from 21 April 2025, nor on Ms Pritchard's or Ms H or Ms I's reports that the supports they recommend for RPJJ satisfy the section 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act requirement.
20. I cannot be satisfied on the evidence available to approve RPJJ's requested supports. I note the decision of the Tribunal in MDCT and National Disability Insurance Agency [2020] AATA 6036 ('MDCT').

A request under section 36 of the NDIS Act is made for the purpose of gathering information about matters to be included in the participant's plan. An unsurprising natural consequence of refusing a request to gather further such information may be that, in some cases, the decision-maker will conclude that it does not have sufficient information to approve particular supports sought by the participant be included in the plan. On review, the consequence of an applicant continuing to refuse to consent to the gathering of certain evidence may lead the Tribunal to conclude that it does not have sufficient information to determine that particular supports sought to be included in the plan are reasonable and necessary and should be funded by the NDIS. It may therefore be in the interests of an applicant for review to participate in the gathering of any relevant evidence.[366]

21. I am not satisfied on the evidence that RPJJ's impairments as a consequence of SFPN, lipoedema or lymphoedema satisfy either the disability requirements or the early intervention requirements. This means that section 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act is not satisfied.

Issue number two - RPJJ's 16 requested supports

1. I turn now to consider RPJJ's requested supports under headings.
2. I note that RPJJ was dissatisfied that the podiatry request was not included in the list of 16 requested supports. However, RPJJ is currently funded for podiatry.[367] It is open to RPJJ to request review of this support from the Agency at any time.

Supports 1 - 3 Support worker funding (core supports)

1. I am satisfied the reports of Ms Pritchard, Ms B, Ms I and Ms H[368] assisted the Tribunal. In particular, Ms Houston's report was persuasive as it provided detailed analysis and assessment of RPJJ's functional capacity. I also note this was based on Ms Houston's over-30-years of experience as an occupational therapist.[369]
2. RPJJ seeks 40 hours per week at the weekday rate. 8 hours per week at the Saturday rate and around 2 hours per week at the Sunday rate which totals 50 hours per week.[370]
3. RPJJ is currently funded for the following:[371]
   • Assistance with Daily Life (ADL) in the amount of $109, 900.44 comprised of:
     • Personal domestic activities for 35 hours per week at 52 weeks per year at the weekday rate of $57.23 per hour;
     • Household tasks at 2 hours per week for 52 weeks per year at the weekday rate of $55.21.
   • Assistance with social, and community participation (SCP) in the amount of $32,668.32 comprised of:
     • 8 hours per week for 52 weeks at the weekday rate of $67.56; and
     • 4 hours per month which equates to 1 hour per week at the Saturday rate of $95.07.
4. I find that Ms Houston was an honest and independent witness. I do not accept RPJJ's contentions that Ms Houston's evidence was to be given less weight as Ms Houston 'prepares reports for the NDIA'.[372]
5. I acknowledge Ms Houston's recommendations regarding appropriate support worker hours for RPJJ in her report.[373]
   • 35 hours of supports from support workers across 7 days a week for the Assistance with Daily Living category.[374]
   • 10 hours of supports from support workers in the SCP category which is to assist RPJJ with attending hydrotherapy sessions at 2.5 hours per day for 3 days per work totalling 7.5 hours. In addition, there is another 2.5 hours per week for social participation.
6. I observe that Ms Houston's recommendations were slightly less favourable than RPJJ's current level of support worker funding and this reinforces the independence of Ms Houston's evidence.[375] The difference was Ms Houston believed RPJJ was funded for '5 hours' of SCP. However, RPJJ's plan includes '8 hours' of SCP funding.[376]
7. Ms Houston clarified that RPJJ's daughter was listed as her formal carer with Centrelink which meant Ms C received a carer payment and allowance. [377] It was unclear after RPJJ provided Ms C's 'notice of withdrawal from an informal carer role' whether the Centrelink payments had also ceased. I make no finding in this regard.
8. I find that RPJJ's current support worker funding is marginally more generous than Ms Houston's recommendations. I am satisfied that RPJJ's support worker funding should remain extant.[378] I prefer the Agency submissions, and I accept that RPJJ should continue to receive 14 hours each week of support worker hours for personal care.[379] This is in consideration of RPJJ's evidence that Ms C was no longer her informal carer since 9 July 2025.
9. RPJJ is currently funded for her total supports in the amount of $201,473.54.[380] This is broken into:
   • Core support funding for assistance with daily life in the amount of $109,900.44 for personal domestic activities comprised of:
     • Assistance with personal domestic activities totalling $104,158.60.
     • Household or yard maintenance totalling $5,741.84
   • Core support funding for assistance with social, economic and community participation in the amount of $32,668.32 comprised of.
     • Access to the community at the weekday rate total of $28,104.96
     • Access to the community at the Saturday rate total of $4,563.36.
   • Core supports consumables totalling $1,400.00 for low-cost assistive technology.
   • Capacity building supports for choice and control for plan management in the amount of $1,485.75.
10. I accept the Agency submissions that it is within the Tribunal's discretion to leave RPJJ's support worker funding unchanged, and I note that the Agency appropriately conceded this point.[381]
11. I am satisfied when considering the NDIS Supports Transitional Rules that funding for support worker assistance is a support contemplated by item 14 in Schedule 1 as being a NDIS Support for section 10 of the NDIS Act.
12. I am not satisfied on the evidence that RPJJ's request for more support worker funding demonstrates that section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act is met. I am not satisfied there is value for money in RPJJ receiving additional support worker funding at this time as the evidence does not bear this out. As the criteria are cumulative, I will not consider section 34(1) further.
13. The requested additional support worker hour supports, therefore cannot be included in RPJJ's SOPS as a 'reasonable and necessary' support.
14. I note that it is open to RPJJ to request the Agency conduct a reassessment of her plan at any future time, if required.

Support 4 - Occupational Therapy - CB support

1. RPJJ is currently funded for 54 hours per year of occupational therapy support at $193.99 per hour totalling $10,475.46.[382] RPJJ seeks 89 hours per year of occupational therapy support including assessment and report writing.[383] At the same rate above, this equates to $17,265.11.
2. RPJJ clarified that the 89 hours of OT supports included report-writing time and that she did not 'see OT supports as an ongoing thing.'[384]
3. I accept RPJJ's evidence that she:
   • Has not engaged with an OT in Suburb E 'for the purpose of treatment.'[385]
   • Described the purpose of the OT support funding to 'produce a report for the home modifications or to assist us with the design of the SDA.'[386]
   • Does not have on ongoing treatment relationship with any of the OT report writers whose evidence she relies upon in her application.[387]
   • Whilst living in suburb A, RPJJ stated that 'OTs provided assessments and then [an OT] made recommendations from that.'[388]
4. I find that the purpose of the OT supports requested by RPJJ appear to be for the purpose of performing assessments and then to investigate recommendations for other supports including potential home modifications and for the potential design of a future SDA accommodation if RPJJ were to be eligible for such a support.
5. I accept Ms Houston's recommendation for RPJJ that she receive fortnightly occupational therapy, gradually reducing to monthly sessions.[389]
6. I cannot be satisfied on the evidence that the one-off funding for 89 hours of occupational therapy funding meets the section 34(1) criteria of the NDIS Act because:
   • RPJJ is currently funded in her SOPS for 54 hours of OT support. I am not satisfied on the evidence that further funding for OT supports is value for money pursuant to section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act considering RPJJ's evidence for the purpose of the OT funding.
   • RPJJ did not provide evidence that additional OT supports will substantially improve the life stage outcomes for and be of long-term benefit to her pursuant to Rule 3.1(b) of the Support Rules.
   • I am not satisfied that the additional OT support will be, or is likely to be, effective and beneficial for RPJJ having regard to current good practice pursuant to section 34(1)(d) of the NDIS Act.
7. I find that the current funding for OT support is sufficient, and I cannot be satisfied on the evidence that additional support would have benefit for RPJJ.
8. It is open to RPJJ to request a reassessment of her plan if she concludes that further OT supports are required in order to determine what her occupational therapy needs may be.

1. RPJJ is currently funded for 53 hours of psychology support each year at the rate of $222.99 pe hour.[390] RPJJ seeks 57 hours of funding for psychology support each year.
2. I accept Ms Houston's evidence that the 'proposed 53 hours per year is adequate'[391] for RPJJ as the sessions are 'provided regularly via telehealth.'[392]
3. RPJJ was asked about the difference between supports for her disabilities versus supports that relate to her parenting responsibilities for her son. RPJJ's responses indicated it was unclear whether RPJJ understood, and RPJJ's evidence remained unclear.
4. I cannot be satisfied on the evidence that an increase of four hours per year is required for RPJJ or that it 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 pursuant to section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act.
5. I accept the Agency submissions that support worker training with a psychologist would not satisfy the section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act value for money criteria.
6. It is open to RPJJ to obtain a psychological report in order to determine her current psychological support requirements and then request a reassessment of her plan.

1. RPJJ is currently funded for 44 hours per year of physiotherapy support (including report writing and assessment) at the rate of $193.99 per hour which totals $8,535.56.
2. RPJJ did not particularise her request however, I understand it to be that she seeks:
   • 100 additional funded hours of physiotherapy supports if the hydrotherapy pool were not funded. This totals 144 requested hours per year.
   • 4 additional hours of physiotherapy supports if the hydrotherapy pool were funded. This totals 48 hours per year.
3. I am not satisfied on the evidence that RPJJ's request for 144 hours per year of physiotherapy for 'lymphatic drainage if a hydrotherapy pool is not funded' satisfies section 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act. I am not satisfied that RPJJ's physical conditions of lipoedema and lymphoedema satisfy the disability or the early intervention requirements of the NDIS Act.
4. I find that it is unclear whether RPJJ's planned lymphatic drainage procedure is a health service that relates to the ongoing treatment of a health condition. If so, a procedure such as this is not a NDIS support pursuant to section 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act. This is because it is precluded from being so due to the Transitional Supports Rules found in clause 1, schedule 2, item 12 and paragraph (a).

(a) The diagnosis, early intervention and clinical treatment of health and dental health conditions, including ongoing or chronic health conditions;

1. I accept the Agency's contentions that these supports are for physical impairments. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that RPJJ has physical impairments attributable to a physical disability pursuant to section 24(1) of the NDIS Act or that there are no known, available and appropriate evidence-based clinical, medical or other treatments that would be likely to remedy the physical impairment pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Access Rules.
2. I accept as persuasive Ms Houston's independent evidence regarding the physiotherapy support request. RPJJ was provided opportunity to cross-examine Ms Houston.[393]
3. I note that Ms Houston qualified her scope of practice as an OT.[394] However, I accept Ms Houston's observations regarding the requested support of physiotherapy that her opinion was that there are lower cost alternatives available rather than the intensive levels of physiotherapy sought for RPJJ such as:
   • RPJJ's preferred form of exercise hydrotherapy which RPJJ is funded to attend three times each week;[395]
   • The current 44 hours per year of physiotherapy support is 'sufficient to develop and monitor a hydrotherapy program for RPJJ at her local community pool with assistance from support workers.'[396]
   • Recommended multimodal low-cost options including:
     • 'elevation techniques of affected limbs',
     • maintaining a balanced diet to assist with the management of inflammatory responses,
     • manual self-massage throughout the day,
     • compression wear and bandages, and
     • further investigation into pneumatic compressions pumps.[397]
4. I accept Ms Houston's evidence that it was unclear exactly what RPJJ's physiotherapy goals were based on the provided reports.[398]
5. I accept the Agency submissions that it remained unclear at the end of the hearing whether RPJJ's physiotherapy supports are directed at impairments attributable to SFPN or lipoedema or lymphoedema.[399] I am not satisfied on the evidence of the co-occurrence of these conditions despite Ms Houston stating it was 'possible' that SFPN symptoms result from peripheral nervous system compression.[400]
6. I am not satisfied that the additional hours of physiotherapy support represent value for money as the costs of the support are not reasonable relative to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alterative support pursuant to section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act. This is because the current funding RPJJ has for physiotherapy is sufficient to enable RPJJ to undertake physiotherapy including through her preferred modality of hydrotherapy-based physiotherapy.
7. I am also not satisfied on the evidence that the additional physiotherapy support is likely to be effective and beneficial for RPJJ having regard to current good practice based on Ms Houston's evidence around duplication and potential fatigue risks pursuant to section 34(1)(d) of the NDIS Act.[401]
8. I am satisfied that the current 44 hours per year of physiotherapy support should continue to be included in RPJJ's SOPS as a 'reasonable and necessary' support.

Support 7 - Support Coordination - CB support

1. RPJJ gave evidence that she required level 3 support coordination funding to assist with SDA, home improvements and other 'complex issues.'[402] SDA will be dealt with under a separate heading. The home improvements and complex issues were not specified by RPJJ.
2. RPJJ seeks 300 hours per year of support coordination:
   • Two hours per week for 50 weeks at the level 1 rate, which totals 100 hours;
   • Four hours per week for 50 weeks at the level 3 rate, which totals 200 hours.
3. RPJJ is currently funded for 40 hours of support coordination at the level 2 rate for twelve months and this is plan-managed.[403] RPJJ stated she:
   • Has not used a support coordinator for a year or two years.[404]
   • Believes that support coordinators required 10 hours as a 'set up fee'.
   • Has no information about this because her plan was 'Agency-managed'.'[405]
4. I accept the Agency closing submissions that:
   • Set-up fees charged by a plan manager is an initial charge, not an ongoing charge. It was unclear whether RPJJ has chosen a current support coordinator.
   • RPJJ did not provide a rationale as to why she has requested 300 hours per year of support coordination across the level 1 and 3 rates.
   • The request is partly based on supports which form no part of RPJJ's current application for review - in particular home modifications.
5. I cannot be positively satisfied on the evidence that RPPJ's requested funding increase for support coordination levels at [281] is effective and beneficial pursuant to section 34(1)(d) of the NDIS Act because:
   • There was limited evidence to indicate that RPJJ satisfies the description of Level 3 Specialist Support Coordination;
   • There was limited evidence of specific high complex needs or high-level risks in RPJJ's situation as stated in the NDIS Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits of 2024-2025.[406]
6. I am not satisfied on the evidence that RPJJ's request for additional support coordination funding satisfies the criteria in section 34(1) of the NDIS Act.
7. I am satisfied that RPJJ's current funding of 40 hours at level 2 for support coordination services is sufficient to assist RPJJ to understand her SOPS, connect with supports and services and also increase RPJJ's capacity to maintain relationships with service providers. I note that RPJJ, despite not having a current support coordinator, has currently engaged two support workers who 'usually' assist her on a weekly basis.

Support 8 - NDIS self-education expenses - CB support

1. RPJJ seeks a total amount of funding of $3,800.00 totalled from '12 x $100 for subscriptions and 4 x $650 - course'[407] to learn more about the NDIS.
2. RPJJ's oral evidence regarding this issue may be summarised that:[408]
   • There are several courses available for an amount of approximately $600.
   • RPJJ provided the quotes to a person called 'Jackie' who may have been employed by an entity known as 'Plan Hero.'
   • The quotes were not produced in EB-1.
3. I accept the Agency submissions that:[409]

'the requested support is unclear. The Respondent contends that, absent further evidence, this requested support likely duplicates the supports that can be provided to the Applicant through a Support Coordinator (s 34(1)(c)).'

4. RPJJ was provided an opportunity between day three of the hearing, 26 June 2025, and day four of the hearing, 11 August 2025, to provide additional documents to the Tribunal. RPJJ stated that she would avail herself of this opportunity as she believed her material was incomplete. I note that no quotes for self-education expenses were provided.[410]
5. I am not positively satisfied that RPPJ's requested support for funding satisfies section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act because:
   • It is a duplication of the support provided by support coordination.
   • There is no evidence to ascertain what the self-education courses are designed to achieve, who runs the courses or what they cost.
6. The requested support, therefore, cannot be included in RPJJ's SOPS as a 'reasonable and necessary' support pursuant to section 34(1) of the NDIS Act.

1. RPJJ initially requested level 3 transport funding and at the hearing stated she seeks level 2 transport funding.[411] RPJJ confirmed the following in her evidence:
   • She is not working.
   • She plans to study 'one unit' of a law course at ('G University').
2. The Agency provides Operational guidelines regarding transport funding:[412]
   • 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.
3. I accept the Agency submissions that it was unclear what RPJJ was requesting. I accept that RPJJ is not currently 'working or studying part-time' up to 15 hours a week. Therefore, there is no evidence that transport funding at any level is a reasonable and necessary support for RPJJ. My reasons for this are that RPJJ:
   • Stated she does not use taxis.[413]
   • She is transported by motor vehicle with her support worker.
4. I find that RPJJ is able to be transported by her support workers. If RPJJ also received funding for transport in addition to these supports from support workers or informal carers it would be duplicative and not value for money pursuant to section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act.
5. I accept Ms Houston's evidence that if RPJJ's daughter transported RPJJ in her motor vehicle this is a reasonable expectation for a family member assisting RPJJ to undertake an activity they may be doing together pursuant to section 34(1)(e) of the NDIS Act.
6. I find that RPJJ's current transport budget appears sufficient to meet any reasonable and necessary transport costs. I accept the Agency contentions that RPJJ has not produced evidence to suggest that she meets the criteria for level 2 transport support. In these circumstances I am not satisfied that RPJJ's transport costs should be increased as it is inconsistent with the Agency's Operational guidelines.[414]
7. I am not satisfied that the requested transport funding support satisfied section 34(1) of the NDIS Act. Therefore, the additional transport funding cannot be included in RPJJ's SOPS as a 'reasonable and necessary' support.

Support 10 - special interest activities - CB support

1. RPJJ's table of requested supports describe this support as 'special interest activities, classes and materials'[415] and the supports are calculated as '48 x $150 p/a totalling $7,200.'
2. RPJJ's evidence may be summarised that she seeks funding to pursue:[416]
   • A hobby or interest.
   • 'I'd like to work out what I could do, I might need special materials ...I'm not sure at this stage.'
3. It is unclear what evidence RPJJ relies on to support this request. If RPJJ seeks funding the costs of an activity, then I must be satisfied that the special interest activity is a NDIS support before it can be specified in RPJJ's SOPS pursuant to section34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act. There is no evidence to specify the activity. Therefore, I cannot be satisfied whether the activity would satisfy section 10 of the NDIS Act and the Transitional Support Rules.
4. For example, clause 1 of Schedule 2 of the Transitional Supports Rules, regarding standard recreational equipment and tools are not NDIS supports at item 4, paragraph (g). Furthermore, the costs associated with recreational sports and activities themselves including membership costs, venue hire fees, uniforms and footwear are also not NDIS supports at item 4, paragraph (h).
5. This means that section 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act is not satisfied on the basis that the special interest activities are not a NDIS support for the purposes of section 10 of the NDIS Act and the Transitional Rules so it cannot be included in RPJJ's SOPS as a reasonable and necessary support.
6. I refer to schedule 2, item 4(h) of the Transitional Support Rules which lists day-to-day living costs - lifestyle

(h) costs associated with recreational sports and activities, including membership costs, venue hire fees, uniforms and footwear.

7. I accept that 'special interest activities may be categorised and excluded under schedule 2, item 4(h) of the Transitional Support Rules which excludes costs associated with recreational sports and activities'.
8. I find that RPJJ is seeking support for the assistance with the tasks required to participate in the recreational activity itself rather than assistance to give RPJJ the skills or means to participate in the activity itself. I find that this support is excluded as a scheme support pursuant to section 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act.[417]
9. I concur with the conclusion in the recent decision of Morley and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 1905 ('Morley').[418]

[61] Likewise, the Tribunal has no power or discretion to direct the inclusion of a support in a participant's SOPS which is specifically excluded under the scheme by the operation of Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules. > > [62] The Tribunal's decision making ability is prescribed only by the legislature. (underlining in the original decision)

10. There was insufficient evidence to positively satisfy me that RPJJ's request for this support is addressing RPJJ's disability related needs. I also cannot be satisfied that this support addresses the needs of RPJJ arising from the impairments in relation to which she met the access criteria pursuant to section 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act.
11. This means that section 34 of the NDIS Act is not satisfied. Funding for special interest activities therefore cannot be included in RPJJ's SOPS as a reasonable and necessary support.
12. If RPJJ seeks funding for supports to assist her to undertake or participate in an activity there is no probative evidence before the Tribunal to demonstrate that RPJJ requires assistance to participate in activities and that RPJJ's current support worker funding would be insufficient to undertake this. Therefore, I cannot be satisfied that the requested special interest activities are value for money pursuant to section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act.
13. Furthermore, I cannot be satisfied on the evidence that the claimed support represents value for money in that the costs are reasonable, relative to the benefits achieved pursuant to section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act.
14. This means that section 34(1) of the NDIS Act is not satisfied. This support therefore cannot be included in RPJJ's SOPS as a reasonable and necessary support.
15. I note that RPJJ currently has funding for social community and civic participation which allows her to be supported to investigate and participate in special interest activities if she so chooses.

Support 11 - art or craft therapy - CB support

1. RPJJ seeks funding to 'do art therapy ...it's therapeutic...it's a different type of therapy.'
2. I accept Ms Houston's evidence regarding surveyed literature relating to the evidence base for art therapy. I accept Ms Houston's conclusions that she 'does not believe that it can be considered evidence based.'[419]
3. I accept Ms Houston's evidence that due to RPJJ's deficits in her fine motor skills, with consideration for the reported risks for further nerve damage with touch contact, would indicate that she would require significant modifications or additional AT to be able to engage in most modes of art therapy.[420]
4. Therefore, I cannot be positively satisfied that art therapy would be reasonable and beneficial for RPJJ having regard to current good practice pursuant to section 34(1)(d) of the NDIS Act. Furthermore, if the art therapy were considered a recreational activity, I cannot be positively satisfied that the support is a NDIS support pursuant to section 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act.
5. As the particulars of RPJJ's request for art and craft therapy are unclear I cannot be satisfied that the therapy can be funded pursuant to section 34(1)(d) of the NDIS Act.
6. There is no evidence regarding the cost and the benefits that RPJJ would achieve through art or craft therapy therefore I am not satisfied that the support satisfies the section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act criteria.
7. There is no probative evidence of the cost and the benefits that would be achieved by such art or craft therapy pursuant to section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act. I cannot be positively satisfied that the support is a NDIS support without some evidence of its therapeutic benefit (as distinct from, say, a course involving art) pursuant to section 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act.

Support 12 Assistive technology items - capital support

1. I understand RPJJ's AT request to have two categories. Firstly, 'computer AT' and secondly, 'other AT.' RPJJ relies on the reports of two occupational therapists identified as Ms H and Ms I, both employed by an entity called J Provider.[421]

1. I find that RPJJ was assessed via a telehealth consultation with Ms H and Ms I on 10 May 2024. The recommendation for RPJJ was for three pieces of computer AT[422] with priority one being 'improving efficiency of keyboard and mouse use.'[423]
2. I accept the Agency submissions that the recommendations in the J Provider report are not directed at funding particular AT. Rather, what is described is a number of hours (13 in total) for OT funding[424] for RPJJ to conduct further investigation into each of these items to evaluate the computer AT.
3. In fairness to RPJJ she was taken to this evidence and regarding the adaptive stylus RPJJ stated 'I think I need someone to make up a custom one.'[425] RPJJ also stated that previous styluses she had used were not suitable for her. There is no probative evidence from a suitably qualified person in orthotics to provide this evidence to the Tribunal.
4. Regarding the head tracking mouse, RPJJ indicated it was an 'alterative to the stylus but that it was not her first alternative as she had undergone spinal fusion surgery.'[426] I cannot be satisfied on the evidence that either the stylus or head tracking mouse are recommended for RPJJ.
5. Regarding dictation software, RPJJ gave evidence she had used 'Dragon Naturally Speaking' in 2016. I am not satisfied on the evidence that RPJJ has trialled the current dictation software which is proposed to be funded. There is no evidence regarding the cost of this support. The amount of $1,500 is a global amount.
6. Therefore, this computer AT cannot be funded in RPJJ's SOPS pursuant to section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act, nor pursuant to section 34(1)(d) of the NDIS Act.
7. It is open to RPJJ to trial the recommended products through a provider of her choosing using her existing OT funding and if RPJJ wishes she may seek supports directed at trialling computer AT.

1. I accept Ms Houston's recommendation that a Thermomix is not clinically justified noting that RPJJ requires support with even simple meal preparation.[427] I cannot be positively satisfied that the provision of a Thermomix is effective and beneficial having regard to current good practice pursuant to section 34(1)(d) of the NDIS Act.
2. I accept Ms Houston's recommendation that a Vela Tango 700 chair is not clinically indicated for RPJJ as Ms Houston noted 'the applicant would benefit from continuing to walk using her 4WW for as long as she is able to from a health maintenance perspective.'[428] I am not positively satisfied that the funding of a Vela Tango 700 chair is effective and beneficial having regard to current good practice pursuant to section 34(1)(d) of the NDIS Act.
3. There is no supporting evidence for an electric bed or the recliner that RPJJ seeks therefore it is open to RPJJ to seek these items at a later time. I am not positively satisfied that the funding of these two items is effective and beneficial having regard to current good practice pursuant to section 34(1)(d) of the NDIS Act.
4. I am not satisfied on the evidence that RPJJ requires a pneumatic pressure pump as there is limited probative evidence to indicate that RPJJ satisfies the disability requirement or the early intervention requirements for this support pursuant to section 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act. I also note there is limited probative evidence for a pneumatic pressure pump, so I am not positively satisfied that the funding of this item is effective and beneficial having regard to current good practice pursuant to section 34(1)(d) of the NDIS Act.
5. Therefore, these items of 'other AT' cannot be funded in RPJJ's SOPS pursuant to section 34(1) of the NDIS Act.

Support 13 - Hydrotherapy pool - capital support

1. RPJJ seeks funding for the construction and installation of a hydrotherapy pool at her leased residence in Suburb E. RPJJ relies on a 12 April 2024 report prepared by J Provider.[429] The recommendation in this report relates to installation of the pool at Suburb A and the cost is $52,000 plus associated works that were not fully particularised.
2. In the BAFM a letter dated 3 February 2025 attached the 12 April 2024 report and it completed the missing units of associated costs for the installation of a hydrotherapy pool.[430]
3. RPJJ moved from Suburb A to Suburb E in January 2025. On 26 June 2025, RPJJ was living at D Street in Suburb E. By 11 August 2025, RPJJ was living at L Street in Suburb E after RPJJ had signed a three-year-term private lease.[431] RPJJ's lease indicates a 'special condition' for the L Street property. The landlord indicated permission for the installation of a hydrotherapy pool.[432]
4. RPJJ produced a quote dated 23 June 2025 for a 'Juno Pro - Swim Spa - Greystone and Sterling Silver' from a company trading as Company M.[433] The quote provides a total cost for the installation of the Juno Pro to be $21,495.00. I note that the quote is not current as the address is for D Street, not RPJJ's current address of L Street.
5. I refer to the Transitional Support Rules clause 1, schedule 2, item 1 paragraph (d) which provides that the following are generally not NDIS supports: pools, pool heating and maintenance, spa baths, saunas and steam rooms.[434]
6. I also note that in order to be a NDIS support it would need to be within the meaning of a 'home modification in clause 1 of schedule 1 of the Transitional Supports Rules. As the Operational Guidelines (Home Modifications) explain, the scheme does not fund 'swimming pools pool, heating and maintenance, spa baths, saunas and steam rooms including hydrotherapy.'[435]
7. Senior Member French set out in FSWN and National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 114, ('FSWN') a 'two stage approach' to determine whether a support is a NDIS support or not[436] and I refer to stage 1 and step 1 where it relevantly states:

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)...

8. I find that a hydrotherapy pool is not a NDIS support pursuant to section 10 of the NDIS Act. For this reason, it cannot satisfy section 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act, and it is unnecessary to continue to stage 2 as enunciated in FSWN. This is because the support is not a support for RPJJ therefore it is unnecessary to consider whether the criteria found in other sections of 34(1) of the NDIS Act are satisfied.
9. I cannot be satisfied on the evidence that the request for the construction and installation of a hydrotherapy pool is a NDIS support pursuant to section 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act. I also accept Ms Houston's evidence that another consideration is that RPJJ is currently renting her home.[437]
10. I find that RPJJ has access to a community swimming pool in conjunction with funding for a support worker to assist her to implement a physiotherapist led exercise program and this is value for money pursuant to section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act. I also note that Ms Houston referred to other practical options available to RPJJ to explore.[438]
11. I acknowledge RPJJ's question to Ms Houston that if RPJJ had a hydrotherapy pool at home she would save time in travelling to the pool.[439] However, I prefer and accept the evidence of Ms Houston that RPJJ's fatigue due to her reported chronic and comorbid conditions may make it difficult for RPJJ to attend RPJJ's preferred number of five hydrotherapy sessions each week.[440]
12. I accept Ms Houston's evidence that a hydrotherapy pool was not cost effective because it was not just about the financial component, there are also the considerations of infection control and safety issues. I also note the importance of a physiotherapist supervising the activity and the importance of socialising and networking opportunities for RPJJ that accord with some of her goals at [85].
13. I accept Ms Houston's evidence regarding duplication and fatigue. I also accept that the physiotherapy support may be provided at the hydrotherapy pool and that it was better value for money for RPJJ to attend a hydrotherapy pool as a physiotherapist may be available there to provide guidance and design an appropriate program based on RPJJ's conditions and circumstances.[441]
14. This means that section 34(1) of the NDIS Act is not satisfied. Funding for a hydrotherapy pool therefore cannot be included in RPJJ's SOPS as a reasonable and necessary support.

Support 14 - Short-Term Accommodation (STA) - core support

1. Neither RPJJ's list of requested supports from February 2025[442] nor April 2025[443] included STA.[444] At the hearing RPJJ stated she seeks funding for 28 days per year for STA for respite and support. RPJJ is not currently funded for STA but was previously as she resided in a more regional area in Suburb A. RPJJ now resides in a more metropolitan area in Suburb E.
2. RPJJ stated STA was:
   • 'Critically important.'[445]
   • Previously used to allow her to stay with her son and Ms C and this allowed her respite from her role as primary carer for Mr C.
3. It was unclear on the evidence what RPJJ intends to use STA for as she described using it on a 'family basis' and also using it for respite for herself or for her informal carer Ms C. RPJJ explained that her daughter had assisted with her personal care 'since she was around 11 years old.'[446]
4. I refer to the Agency operational guidelines about STA, which relevantly state:[447]

What is Short Term Accommodation, including respite? > > Short Term Accommodation, including respite, is support for when you need to live out of home for a short period. Short Term Accommodation funding can be used for respite to support you and your carers. This gives your carers a short break from their caring role. > > Sometimes a short stay away from home: > > • gives you the chance to try new things > > • can be a place to make new friends or develop new skills > > • may help to maintain your current living situation by giving your informal supports a break. > > Short Term Accommodation may suit your needs if your usual support network isn't available for a short period.

5. I find that RPJJ has previously used STA at multiple locations.[448] When asked about whether she had achieved her goals during the 25 December 2023 until 4 January 2024 stay at Provider O, Property P, RPJJ responded her children had used jet-skis, attended a show and were visited by a friend from Suburb A.[449]
6. Similarly, RPJJ also described accessing another STA through:
   • STA Provider N during tropical cyclone x to avoid the potential path of the cyclone.[450]
   • STA in June 2024 for around 7 days.
   • STA in September 2024 for around 5 days when attending medical appointments for Mr C.[451]
7. I refer to the NDIS Pricing Arrangements which[452]

...provide integrated support for self-care, accommodation, food and activities in a centre or group residence for short periods...[for] participants [who] may require temporary comprehensive supports that are different from their usual arrangements...and may include a period of respite, which aims to support ongoing caring arrangements between participants and their carers. STA/respite allows the opportunity for the participant to be supported by someone else whilst providing their carer with short term breaks from their usual caring responsibilities.

8. The Operational guideline 'Short-Term Accommodation or Respite' outlines that STA, including respite, is a funded support for a time when a participant needs to live out of home for a short period and may be used for respite to support the participant and the participant's carers. The purpose is to give carers a break from their caring role and to allow the participant an opportunity to try new things or develop skills or make new friends. The guidelines also note that STA is 'not for holidays.'
9. I accept the Agency contentions that the primary purpose of STA is for situations where the participant or informal carer need to be away from the usual living arrangements for a 'transient period of time' for reasons such as respite or giving informal carers a break. I find that developing skills and making new friends are of an ancillary benefit because there are other supports available to RPJJ to develop social relationships through assistance in accessing social and recreational activities and through occupational therapy and psychological supports.
10. I accept Ms Houston's oral evidence[453] and the Agency submissions that 'the use of STA is not relevant to support [RPJJ] to increase her function or meet her NDIS goals'.[454] This is because I find that RPJJ has access to other supports such as psychology which assists RPJJ in managing her parenting responsibilities.[455]
11. I accept the Agency submissions that RPJJ's evidence indicates her primary use of STA has been for family holidays and as a temporary shelter from a potential natural disaster. I find that when used for either of these purposes the STA support is not a NDIS support pursuant to section 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act.
12. I accept the Agency submissions that RPJJ may require respite as a primary carer for Mr C as he lives with his own disability. This STA is more appropriately funded through Mr C's NDIS plan and SOPS. I find that section 34(1)(aa) of the NDIS Act requires that the support for RPJJ be necessary to meet RPJJ's needs arising from her impairments. Therefore, STA cannot be funded as a NDIS support for RPJJ by reason of her son's disability.[456]
13. Between day three and four of the hearing, RPJJ lodged Ms C's signed 'Notice of Withdrawal from NDIS caring role.' I acknowledge that from 9 July 2025 Ms C was no longer an informal carer for RPJJ nor Mr C. RPJJ also stated that Ms C's withdrawal as her informal carer was one of the change of circumstances forms.[457] RPJJ was asked about this. Despite these questions, it remained unclear as to why the withdrawal notice had been provided at this juncture and how it had impacted RPJJ.
14. I cannot be satisfied that RPJJ's requested support for STA is directed at improving the capacity of Ms C as an informal carer or providing Ms C with respite from her caring role as she is no longer undertaking this role. Therefore, STA would not serve a purpose in providing Ms C with respite.
15. On the evidence I cannot be satisfied that the cost of STA represents value for money pursuant to section 34(1)(c) of the NDIS Act because it is unclear what benefits are to be achieved and against which criteria to weigh the value for money requirements given the evidence noted above. It is not necessary for me to proceed to consideration of the remaining mandatory criteria under section 34(1) of the NDIS Act.
16. The requested STA support, therefore, cannot be included in RPJJ's SOPS as a 'reasonable and necessary' support.

1. RPJJ seeks reimbursement for past expenses incurred by reason of her move from Suburb A to Suburb E.
2. RPJJ stated the costs were:[458]
   • Removalist costs totalling $1,500.00.
   • Accommodation and fuel travelling from Suburb A to Suburb E.
3. I do not accept RPJJ's contentions on the fourth day of the hearing that 'she could submit this documentation at a later date'[459] and that she had submitted 'all receipts.'[460] RPJJ was put on notice that the Agency made a call for receipts relating to this requested support.[461] I am satisfied that counsel for the Agency explained what a call meant for RPJJ and that it must be answered. RPJJ did not produce any further receipts.[462]
4. The Agency Operational guidelines for Home Modifications explain that:

Usually, we won't fund the costs of moving house, unless we decide it's value for money and it's the most effective way to meet your disability support needs. This is because everyone has to pay moving costs, whether or not they have a disability.[463]

5. I am not satisfied on the evidence that RPJJ has provided the receipts for the purpose of funding this requested support. It was unclear why they were not provided. Therefore, I cannot be satisfied on the evidence that there is any expense to reimburse.
6. I cannot be satisfied that RPJJ has particularised the specific items that she seeks, and it is not known whether those items are able to meet the criteria pursuant to section34(1) of the NDIS Act.
7. I note that with respect to the fuel and accommodation expenses in the form of temporary housing while moving home that this is not a NDIS support:
   • Fuel is excluded by schedule 2, 'day-to-day living costs - travel and transport' item 6 (h) (petrol); and
   • Accommodation is excluded by item 19, (b) 'Housing and community infrastructure' housing for people with disability, other than participants eligible for specialist disability accommodation.'
8. The requested relocation costs support cannot be funded as these are not NDIS supports pursuant to section 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act therefore they cannot be included in RPJJ's SOPS.

1. Ms B's assessment of RPJJ took place at D Street on 31 March 2025.[464] RPJJ relied on Ms B's 'Home and Living Suitability Report' dated 21 April 2025 to support her application for SDA.[465] Ms B was not available to give evidence.
2. I note that RPJJ negotiated and signed a new three-year lease with special conditions in the tenancy agreement from the landlord to install a hydrotherapy pool. RPJJ also moved to the L Street property in Suburb E after 26 June 2025.[466]
3. RPJJ contends she is eligible for SDA and that it is a reasonable and necessary support for her pursuant to section 34(1) of the NDIS Act.
4. SDA is defined as follows:[467]

accommodation for a person who requires specialist housing solutions, including to assist with the delivery of supports that cater for the person's extreme functional impairment or very high support needs.

5. The issues before the Tribunal regarding SDA are as follows:
   • Firstly, whether RPJJ is 'eligible' for SDA under rule 11[468] of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Specialist Disability Accommodation) Rules 2020 (Cth) (SDA Rules) and in consideration of the Operational guideline (Specialist Disability Accommodation);
   • Secondly, on the basis that RPJJ is 'eligible,' whether SDA is a 'reasonable and necessary support' for RPJJ under section 34 of the NDIS Act; and
     • Thirdly, on the basis that RPJJ is 'eligible' for SDA, and it is also a 'reasonable and necessary support' for her, whether the following features of SDA are most appropriate for what RPJJ seeks under Rule 15 of the SDA Rules which is:
       • Building Type:[469] a three-bedroom separate dwelling;[470]
       • Design Category:[471] Accessible, robust design;
       • Location:[472] In 'suburb E.'
6. The Agency contends that RPJJ is not eligible for SDA pursuant to the SDA Rules and that it is not a reasonable and necessary support for her pursuant to the statutory scheme.
7. Section 11 of the SDA Rules states: (Tribunal underlining for emphasis)

Eligibility to receive support for specialist disability accommodation > > A participant is eligible to receive support for specialist disability accommodation under the National Disability Insurance Scheme if the CEO is satisfied that:

(b) The participant:

(i) has an extreme functional impairment (see section 12); or

(ii) has very high support needs (see section 13); and

(c) the participant meets the SDA needs requirement (see section 14).

1. I accept the Agency closing submissions that even if I accept Ms B's assessment and conclusions in part C[473] of her report about RPJJ's functional impairments the conclusions that Ms B has given do not satisfy me that RPJJ has either an 'extreme functional impairment' or has 'very high support needs' pursuant to either section 11(a) or 11(b) of the SDA Rules.
2. I do not accept Ms B's assessment that RPJJ 'has a primary diagnosis of SFPN' as the evidence does not bear this out. RPJJ was granted access to the scheme for psychosocial impairment. There is limited probative evidence before the Tribunal to positively satisfy me that RPJJ's impairments from SFPN or lipoedema or lymphoedema satisfy the criteria in section 24(1)(c) of the NDIS Act. I do not accept Ms B's conclusions. Ms B was not available to provide evidence.[474]
3. I am not satisfied on the evidence that RPJJ experiences:
   • 'An extremely reduced functional capacity' in the activities of mobility, self-care or self-management pursuant to section 12(1)(a) of the SDA Rules;
   • A 'very high need' for person-to-person supports in undertaking the activities of mobility, self-care or self-management pursuant to section 12(1)(b) of the SDA Rules;
   • A 'very high need' for person-to-person supports either immediately available or constant, for a significant part of the day pursuant to section 13(1)(b) of the SDA Rules. I note that section 13(1)(a) of the SDA Rules is not relevant as RPJJ has never previously lived in SDA.
4. I find that Ms B's report does not provide sufficient supporting evidence to demonstrate RPJJ's 'extreme functional incapacity' eligibility criterion in section 11 and 12 of the SDA Rules. Examples of this include:
   • Ms B explains that RPJJ receives 6 hours of support worker assistance for five days per week and 'heavy support' from Ms C;[475]
   • Ms B explains 'very high need' for person-to-person supports as assistance with access to the community (this was not linked to mobility) I note Ms B also refers to matters such as 'keyboard typing';
   • Ms B did not set out her opinion about the role of AT, equipment, or home modifications for RPJJ as required by section 12 of the SDA Rules.
5. I note the decision of Burrows and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 607 ('Burrows') where I accept SM French's analysis that tasks such as domestic cleaning may not be considered as part of 'self-care'.[476]
6. I accept the Agency submission that the description of the activity of 'self-care' in the SDA rules should be interpreted in a way that is consistent with section 24(1)(c) of the NDIS Act given that the extreme functional impairment criterion is imported from the language in section 24(1)(c) of the NDIS Act.[477]
7. I find that RPJJ is able to use the following AT including:
   • Mobilising with an Airgo Fusion four wheeled walker;[478]
   • Using a tipping jug;
   • Using nonslip mats;
   • Mobilising with two trekking poles used for shorter distances;
   • Using food container ware with more 'user friendly' lids.
8. RPJJ's own evidence, which I accept was that she does not have 'grab bars' in her current bathroom and that she is able to transfer herself to toilet and to bathe.
9. I find that since 9 July 2025 RPJJ does not have an informal carer.[479] Counsel for the Agency asked RPJJ about the context for this situation. RPJJ did not answer the question, though it was asked multiple times, and RPJJ did not answer when asked to describe the difference in care arrangements before 9 July 2025 and after 9 July 2025.[480]
10. I am not satisfied on the evidence that RPJJ provided regarding how she uses her funded support worker supports. This was highly relevant to the SDA Rules relating to a participant's need for person-to-person supports.[481]
11. I cannot be satisfied on the evidence in Ms B's report. This report did not consider whether modifications or low-cost modification could remedy any potential accessibility issues in RPJJ's previous or current rental property.
12. Pursuant to section 34(2) of the NDIS Act I find that as RPJJ does not meet the criteria in the SDA Rules within the meaning given in section 11 of the SDA Rules then RPJJ is not a participant who is likely to have this support stated in her plan.[482]
13. I cannot be satisfied on the evidence that SDA is a NDIS support for RPJJ within the meaning of section 10 of the NDIS Act in order to satisfy section 34(1)(f) of the NDIS Act. This is in light of section 10(4) of the NDIS Act as expressed in the Transitional Supports Rules, at item 19, paragraph (b).
14. I also note the Operational guidelines where it is expressed that 'other government and community services are responsible for providing housing and accommodation if you don't need specialist disability accommodation for your disability support needs. They need to make sure you have access to accessible, affordable and appropriate housing, including social housing.'[483]
15. In conclusion for issue number two, for the reasons outlined above, I find that none of the 16 requested supports that RPJJ seeks can be specified in RPJJ's SOPS. This is because they are not reasonable and necessary supports pursuant to section 34(1) of the NDIS Act. Therefore, they cannot be funded under the scheme.

1. RPJJ's current SOPS indicates that her core supports, and capacity building supports budget are 'plan-managed' pursuant to section 42(2) of the NDIS Act.
2. RPJJ seeks to have this changed to 'self-management' pursuant to section 43(1)(a) of the NDIS Act.
3. The Agency contends that RPJJ's SOPS should remain plan-managed due to the history of RPJJ's previous plan management decisions.
4. RPJJ contended that she was 'flexibly' using her funded core supports such as her support worker supports on STA funding. I accept that core supports have flexibility in use because participants may need to use their respective supports flexibly at times. However, I do not accept that RPJJ has used her core supports funding for supports for which she was funded.
5. I find that RPJJ's responses to questions about her plan overspend were unclear. This was despite RPJJ being taken to her current plan breakdown.[484] Two examples were when RPJJ was unable to clarify:
   • Why her core supports in the social and community participation funding had been used at the amount of 89% of the plan at the date of 11 August 2025. It was unclear why this had occurred after only 4 months had passed into the current 12-month plan duration.
   • Why RPJJ's plan identified that she had used her funded supports on six paid and one attempted but subsequently rejected line items between the dates of 1 December 2023 and 15 August 2024.[485] RPJJ also confirmed she was not currently funded for transport.
6. I accept the Agency's submission that STA was not a funded support for RPJJ.[486] When RPJJ's plan had no provision for STA funding, RPJJ incurred $29,140.57 on STA funding over the Christmas period of December 2023/January 2024 comprised of:
   • An 11-day stay at Property P at a cost of $28,008.50;
   • A 4-day stay with a different STA provider in late January 2024 at a cost of $1,132.07.[487]
7. Under section 33(2)(d) of the NDIS Act a participant's SOPS is to specify the management of the funding for the support under the plan, that is whether such funding is to be 'self-managed', 'plan-managed or 'Agency-managed'.
8. The Agency submitted that RPJJ's self-management of her funds presented an unreasonable risk to her that would result in section 46 of the NDIS Act regarding the acquittal of NDIS amounts not being complied with pursuant to section 44(1)(c) of the NDIS Act.
9. RPJJ's 5 December 2022 plan pursuant to section 33(2)(d) of the NDIS Act[488] specified that the management of the funding for the supports in RPJJ's plan would be Agency-managed. RPJJ received 40 hours of support coordination services to provide education regarding the use of NDIS funding in line with the impairments for which RPJJ met access to the scheme.
10. As part of RPJJ's internal review decision request of 16 December 2022,[489] RPJJ sought the management of her funding for supports be changed from Agency-managed to plan-managed.[490] The internal review decision dated 25 January 2023 confirmed that the funding should remain Agency-managed. The delegate reasoned that:

'2022 invoices display that supports provided within the plan have not been used in the manner they were intended and not been used for your disability related needs and significant appliances, tennis coaching, pet grooming, fuel, home repairs and school uniforms. A support coordinator can provide education around what is the responsibility of the NDIS to fund and what represents an everyday cost. Previously, 12 months of plan funding has been spend in 4 months. This presents an unreasonable risk to you. The plan is 12 months in duration, so that you can have more frequent reassessment meetings where plan management changes can be considered.'

11. RPJJ applied to this Tribunal on 21 February 2023 and requested funding for supports and that her core supports budget be self-managed. On 2 August 2023, RPJJ lodged a certificate of achievement in relation to a course on self-management of NDIS funding.
12. The 12-month interim plan was issued on 17 November 2023 pursuant to a remittal under section 42D of the AAT ACT.[491] RPJJ's core supports budget became self-managed and RPJJ requested a further replenishment of funds in relation to her core supports budget during the Tribunal proceedings.
13. On 13 April 2024 the Agency provided an interim budget replenishment of a six-month pro-rata duplication of RPJJ's current plan plus any additional capacity building supports and that RPJJ's core supports budget would be plan-managed to ensure RPJJ had flexibility to access unregistered providers.
14. At this time the Agency concerns were that RPJJ was:
    • Approximately 40% of the way through the budget year of 17 November 2023 to 17 November 2024 with 98% of core supports budget used.
    • Invoices received by the Agency had raised concerns regarding RPJJ's ability to appropriately plan and budget her core supports funding to ensure funds were expended in accordance with RPJJ's NDIS plan, including across the duration of the plan.
15. I find that RPJJ spent the following amounts as invoiced:
    • $28,008.50 to STA Provider O dated 1 December 2023 for STA and Assistance from 25 December 2023 to 4 January 2024.
    • $460.76 to Wild Earth dated 28 December 2024 for men's hiking shoes, women's socks, men's socks and trekking hiking poles.[492]
    • $1,132.07 to 'Modern Cottage with Spa' dated 25 January 2024 in relation to an entire holiday home two-bedroom house from 26 January to 29 January 2024.[493]
    • $2,200 to V Provider dated 2 February 2024 for the cost to supply men and machines to finish doing trees and clean up around yard.[494]
16. On 26 April 2024 RPJJ's plan was replenished to provide RPJJ with core supports funding on a plan-managed basis to ensure continuity of funding during the Tribunal proceedings.
17. Section 43 of the NDIS Act indicates the Agency is not obliged to give effect if any of the matters specified in section 43(2A) to 43(6) of the NDIS Act exist.
18. Sections 43(1), (1)(a) (3) and also sections 44 and 46 are set out in full at [72]-[74] under the heading of the legal framework.
19. On 13 December 2024, the Minister produced the Funding Management Rules. The version of the Rules which apply in this review commenced on 4 March 2025.[495] I accept the Agency submissions that many of the matters prescribed in the Funding Management Rules mirror pre-existing criteria that were specified in the repealed NDIS Plan Management Rules 2013 (Cth).[496]
20. The Agency raised concerns that RPJJ's previous expenditure was not aligned with RPJJ's SOPS plan. I refer to section 46 of the NDIS Act.

46 Acquittal of NDIS amounts > > Requirement to spend money only on NDIS supports and in accordance with plan

(1) A participant who receives an NDIS amount, or a person who receives an NDIS amount on behalf of a participant:

(a) may spend the money only on NDIS supports for the participant; and

(b) must spend the money in accordance with the participant's plan (subject to paragraph (a)).

1. I am not satisfied that RPJJ's funding for supports would be spent in accordance with her plan or managed appropriately for the duration of the plan. I find that the safeguards implemented by the Agency to mitigate against the risk of RPJJ expending her funding for supports otherwise than in accordance with her plan are appropriate based on the evidence.[497] Rule 6(2)(a) of the Plan Management Rules states:

Part 3 - Unreasonable risk > > 6 Considering whether there is an unreasonable risk to the participant - matters to which the CEO must, and must not, have regard > > (1) This section is made for the purposes of subsections 44(3) of the Act and 74(6) of the Act. > > Matters to which the CEO must have regard - participant > > (2) The following are matters to which the CEO must have regard in considering, for the purposes of subsection 44(1) of the Act, whether a participant's management of the funding for supports under a plan to a particular extent would present an unreasonable risk to the participant: > > (a) whether, and the extent to which, any identified risk could be mitigated by: > > (i) particular supports, safeguards or strategies that are, or will be, included in the participant's statement of participant supports to which the plan management request relates; > > (ii) any informal, community or mainstream supports that the participant has in place; > > ... > > (e) the participant's ability or capacity to make decisions or to appropriately manage finances, taking into account any support or assistance the participant is likely to receive to do so;

2. I note that the Agency has provided RPJJ with funding for support coordination services to provide education regarding the use of NDIS funding and RPJJ was provided with an opportunity to self-manage the core supports budget in her interim plan dated 17 November 2023 and then in RPJJ's interim plan dated 22 November 2023.
3. I find that despite these safeguards and strategies there was a significant amount of expenditure made that was not in accordance with the SOPS that continued to occur. I am satisfied that the evidence demonstrates there is a risk to RPJJ's capacity to appropriately manage her supports funding pursuant to rule 6(2)(e) of the Funding Management Rules.
4. I note that the over expenditure set out above has not been repeated since 26 April 2024 which was the date when RPJJ's funding returned to being plan-managed. I am satisfied that RPJJ's plan should remain plan-managed at this stage.
5. I find that section 44(1)(c) of the NDIS applies as when read in conjunction with section 46(1) of the NDIS Act it requires RPJJ to acquit NDIS amounts by:
   • Spending money provided by way of funding only for NDIS supports; and[498]
   • Spending money in accordance with RPJJ's plan.[499]
6. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied:
   • There is a risk that RPJJ may not comply with section 46(1) of the NDIS Act if she were to self-manage her funding.[500]
   • A plan manager is the 'minimum safeguard that should be implemented.'
   • The oversight of a plan manager may be able to assist RPJJ in utilising her core supports flexibly.[501]
7. I accept the Agency's submissions that plan management is not likely to disadvantage RPJJ for the following reasons because plan management means:
   • A plan manager pays providers on behalf of RPJJ.
   • A plan manager assists RPJJ to keep track of her funds and assists RPJJ to ensure that her funds are spent in accordance with the plan as required by section 46(1) of the NDIS Act.
   • A plan manager can reject an invoice if it is not in accordance with the plan, and RPJJ can appeal against that decision if she is dissatisfied. I understand this to mean that RPJJ may then be able to appropriately budget and mitigate against the risk of funds being prematurely exhausted as has previously occurred.
   • RPJJ can discuss her choices with her plan manager ahead of an expenditure to ensure the expenditure is within the plan limits, particularly where more innovative ways of spending funds may be sought. This would allow RPJJ flexibility in relation to how her funds are used whilst still maintaining the budget of the plan.[502]
   • RPJJ is not restricted in selecting and engaging providers of her choosing, she may choose unregistered providers if she so wishes.[503]
   • There is no additional work for RPJJ to undertake for plan management, other than to present her invoices for payment. I understand that only in circumstances where there is a query from the plan manager about an invoice would RPJJ be contacted to discuss the invoice. Furthermore, a plan manger would usually provide information regarding the levels of funding remaining to allow RPJJ to track her own plan expenditure.
   • RPJJ may choose which plan manager she wishes to use and RPJJ has the opportunity to change plan managers if she so wishes.
8. I note that it is open to RPJJ to request the Agency undertake a re-assessment of her plan management at any time.
9. I am satisfied that RPJJ's SOPS should remain plan-managed as the self-management request is likely to result in one of the matters in sections 44(1)(b)(i) or 44(1)(c) occurring. I accept that the risk of either occurring is minimised to the greatest extent practicable whilst also allowing RPJJ to flexibly use unregistered providers if the management of her funds is conducted by a registered plan manager.
10. The Tribunal acknowledges RPJJ's view that she believes she was treated unfairly and discriminated against. For the reasons already stated the Tribunal does not accept RPJJ's contentions. The Tribunal formed the view that RPJJ was treated with dignity and respect and that she was afforded procedural fairness during her application.
11. For the reasons given, the Tribunal pursuant to section 105 of the ART Act affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the preceding 424 (four hundred and twenty-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member S Smith.

[1] Mr C is represented by RPJJ in a separate proceeding before the Tribunal.

[2] T5, Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 12, lines 30-31.

[3] Pursuant to section 33(2) of the NDIS Act. EB-1, p. 260.

[4] Pursuant to s100 of the NDIS Act. H8/T4.

[7] 19 October 2023 and 20 October 2023.

[9] TDH #1 - 8 October 2024; TDH #2 - 8 January 2025; TDH #3 - 25 February 2025; TDH #4 - 4 April 2025; TDH #5 - 17 April 2025; TDH #6 - 9 June 2025.

[12] The Tribunal made a typographical error it should have read 'under direction 3.'

[13] Agency closing submissions, p. 36, Attachment A.

[14] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 52, lines 35-37.

[15] Transcript, 26 June 2025, pp. 52-54. Transcript, 26 June 2025, from p. 62, line 29 -

[16] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 53, lines 5-6.

[17] Transcript 26 June 2025, p. 62, lines 29 - 40.

[18] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 58, lines 35-37.

[19] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 59, lines 29 - 41.

[20] The Tribunal understands that RPJJ is referring to Dudgeon and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2024] ARTA 154 (20 December 2024). ('Dudgeon').

[21] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 62, lines 43 - 44. P. 63, lines 1-6.

[22] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 63, lines 9 -11.

[23] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 63, lines 23 -24.

[24] RPJJ's closing submission with the date of 11 August 2025 on 6 pages. The Tribunal received this email on 10 August 2025.

[25] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 63, lines 16 -20.

[26] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 63, lines 38 -43.

[27] Transcript, 26 June 2025, pp. 63-64, lines 46-47, lines 1-2.

[28] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 64, lines 4 -8.

[29] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 64, lines 8 -21.

[30] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 18, lines 34-39.

[31] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 64, lines 27 -36.

[32] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 65, lines 1 -11.

[33] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 65, lines 12 -15.

[34] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 65, lines 17 -20.

[35] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 65, lines 26 -32.

[37] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 19, lines 25-30.

[38] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 66, lines 1 - 12.

[39] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 66, lines 37 -1.

[40] Transcript, 26 June 2025, pp. 66-67, lines 45-47, line 1.

[41] Transcript, 24 June 2025, pp. 52-53, lines 46-47, lines 1-2.

[42] BMCX v CEO of the National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 199 ('BMCX') at [8].

[44] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 67, lines 17-27.

[45] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 64, lines 9 -21.

[46] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 68, lines 10 -15.

[47] EB-1, A20, dated 30 October 2024. A26, dated 15 January 2025

[48] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 40, lines 15 - 26.

[49] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 44, lines 1 - 6.

[50] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 44, lines 1 - 6.

[51] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 63, lines 38 - 45.

[52] Previously section 37 of the AAT Act.

[53] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 50, lines 33 -40

[54] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 49, lines 16 - 46.

[55] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 18, lines 1-16

[56] Transcript, 26 June 2025, pp. 74-75, lines 31 -46, lines 1 - 15.

[57] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 76, lines 41-47.

[58] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 12, lines 42-45.

[59] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 13, lines 43-44. The T docs were lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ('AAT Act'). This now corresponds to section 23 of the ART Act.

[60] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 16, lines 1-46.

[61] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 16, lines 4-13.

[62] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 2, lines 31-33.

[63] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 16, lines 1-28.

[64] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 35, line 15 through to p. 37, line 24.

[65] Agency closing submissions, Attachment B, pp. 37-41.

[66] Agency closing submissions at [15].

[67] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 86, lines 4 - 25.

[68] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 35, begins line 15 and concludes at p. 37, line 24.

[69] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 36, lines 10-36. The EB-9 documents were included in the BAFM.

[70] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 40, line 20.

[71] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 100, lines 23 - 47.

[72] Transcript, 11 August 2025, pp. 4-5, lines 27-45. Lines 1 ff. Also see EB-1, A28 and A33.

[73] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 22, lines 17-22.

[74] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 22, lines 35-38.

[75] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 22, lines 40 - 46.

[76] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 23, lines 34-36.

[77] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 24, line 2.

[78] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 24, lines 14-20.

[79] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 24, lines 39-42.

[80] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 25, lines 38-42. Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 3, lines 36-38.

[81] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 26, lines 1-4.

[82] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 26, lines 36-37. Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 5, lines 34-45.

[83] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 27, lines 9-16. Originally requested at level 3. EB-1, A28. Also at 22 April 2025 EB-1, A33.

[84] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 27, lines 39-45.

[85] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 6, lines 18-25.

[86] EB-1, pages 188 - 189. Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 29, lines 33 - 47.

[87] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 70, lines 14 - 34. EB-1, pp. 34-35. Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 30, line 38.

[88] EB-1, A33, was originally a 'To Be Advised' amount.

[89] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 30, lines 24-27.

[90] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 30, lines 18-21. EB-1, A28.

[91] EB-1, page 125. Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 31, lines 22-23.

[92] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 31, lines 31-34.

[93] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 31, lines 41-44.

[94] EB-1, A28. Original quote $66,918.60.

[95] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 36, lines 26-30. EB-1, p. 188. Note STA was not requested at 25 February 2025. EB-1, A28. Nor at EB-1, A33, at 22 April 2025.

[96] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 39, lines 31-32.

[97] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 42, lines 22-24. Prime removalists. Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 43, line 1.

[98] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 43, lines 35-36.

[101] Section 129 Amending Act. NDIS Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No 1) Act 2024.

[102] See Beezley v Repatriation Commission (2015) FCAFC 165 at {68}. Per North, Tracey and Mortimer JJ. See also National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF [2020] FCAFC 79; (2020) 276 FCR 415 at [201].

[103] FSWN v NDIA [2025] ARTA 114 at [43]. See also Mills v NDIA [2025] 1410 at [48].

[104] Section 33(1), 33(2) and 33(7) of the NDIS Act.

[105] McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency [2017] FCA 308 ('McGarrigle') [43].

[106] National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF [2020] FCAFC 79 ('WRMF') [149]-[151].

[107] WRMF [141]. Cited with approval in NDIA v KKTB, by her litigation representative CVY22 [2022] FCAFC 181 [129].

[109] See SCHW and National Disability Insurance Agency [2021] AATA 591 [13] where DP Constance referred to Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 2 ALD 634.

[110]Operational guidelines: 'Reasonable and necessary supports' on 22 September 2024; 'Principles we follow to create your plan' on 22 September 2024; and 'Creating your plan' on 28 February 2025, Transport Funding on 3 October 2024. Short Term Accommodation or Respite on 24 June 2022. NDIS Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits 2024.25 on 1 October 2024.

[114] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 15, lines 35-37.

[115] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 20, lines 37-8. CoC#1.

[116] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 74, lines 8-12. BAFM, document 17, p. 139 of 204 pages.

[117] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 75, lines 1-20.

[118] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 26, lines 26-43. BAFM, p. 165.

[121] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 39, lines 3-5.

[123] Filed 22 April 2025 NDIS Schedule of support. EB-1, pp. 179-190. In particular, p. 184. Transcript, 24 June 2025, pp. 45-46, lines 17- 47. Lines 1- 10.

[124] Transcript 24 June 2025, p. 47, lines 44-45.

[125] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 48, lines 34-37.

[126] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 49, lines 4-26.

[127] Transcript, 24 June 2025, pp. 50-51, lines 37-47, lines 1-4.

[129] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 54, lines 6-9.

[130] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 54, lines 17-18.

[131] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 54, lines 22-23.

[132] Transcript, 24 June 2025, pp. 54-55, lines 44 - 47, lines 1-9.

[133] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 56, lines 37-38.

[134] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 63, lines 1-3.

[136] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 31, lines 13 - 27.

[137] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 32, lines 10 - 17.

[139] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 65, lines 2-15.

[140] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 55, lines 13 - 25.

[141] Transcript, 24 June 2025, pp. 55-56, lines 31 - 46, lines 1- 5.

[142] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 56, line 5.

[143] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 79, lines 30-37.

[144] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 78, lines 46-47.

[145] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 79, lines 1-3.

[146] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 80 lines 5-9.

[147] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 57, lines 21-47, p. 58, lines 1-4.

[148] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 59, lines 4-7. Page 64, lines 39-41.

[149] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 59, lines 23 - 31.

[150] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 59 lines 33-39.

[151] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 63, lines 1-3.

[152] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 64, lines 3-5.

[153] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 64, lines 13-14.

[155] Transcript, 26 June 2025, pp. 24 - 25, lines 41-47, lines 1 -

[156] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 27, lines 1-45.

[157] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 28, lines 12 - 14.

[158] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 28, lines 15-17.

[159] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 29, lines 5 - 8.

[160] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 33, lines 21 - 47. Page 34, lines 1 - 47.

[161] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 37, lines 8 - 29.

[162] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 36, lines 6 - 10.

[165] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 75, lines 26-32.

[166] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 77, lines 10-19. P. 78, lines 26-32.

[167] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 58, lines 6-23.

[168] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 56, lines 25-38.

[169] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 75, lines 40-45. P. 76, lines 28-35.

[170] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 91, lines 42-47. See also T2, T5, p. 33. RPJJ has a drivers licence but stated she does not drive now. T2, T7, T10,

[171] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 75, lines 34-37.

[172] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 76, lines 7 - 41.

[173] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 80, lines 2-4.

[174] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 82, lines 5 - 45.

[175] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 83, lines 15-41.

[176] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 81, lines 7 - 43.

[177] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 91, line 5.

[178] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 90, line 1-2. P. 90, lines 39-47.

[179] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 91, lines 7-10.

[180] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 92, lines 6-9.

[181] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p, 96, lines 5-6.

[182] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 94, lines 5-7. EB-1, pp. 187-188.

[183] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 94, lines 28 - 31.

[184] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 27, lines 39-46. COC2. BAFM, p. 193/204. Also BAFM p. 185.

[185] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 99, lines 9 - 46.

[186] EB-1 - p. 89. Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 97, lines 29-31.

[187] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 98, lines 17-39.

[188] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 3, lines 31-46

[189] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 4, lines 1-28.

[190] EB-5, p. 2. Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 5, lines 1-47.

[191] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 5, lines 5-11. Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 6, line 38

[192] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 7, lines 28-30.

[193] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 14, lines 6 - 25.

[194] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 15, lines 1 - 2.

[195] EB-1, p. 94. Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 16, lines 41-43.

[196] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 85, lines 38 - 39.

[197] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 86, lines 23 - 47. EB-12.

[199] Item 6 on line item 2/2/2024 RPJJ - claim.

[200] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 17, lines 3 - 12.

[201] Transcript, 25 June 2025, pp. 17-18, lines 41-45, 6-19.

[202] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 19, lines 6-11.

[203] EB-1, p. 188. Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 18, lines 25- 46.

[204] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 19, lines 15-16.

[205] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 20, lines 4 - 26.

[206] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 21, lines 38-41.

[207] Transcript, 25 June 2025, pp. 21-22, lines 45 - 8.

[208] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 68, lines 31-47.

[209] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 68, lines 6 - 17.

[210] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 69, lines 1-3.

[211] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 69, lines 33-34.

[213] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 71, lines 11-16. P. 72, lines 29 - 32.

[214] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 73, lines 4-8.

[215] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 74, lines 19-34. EB-1, pp. 34-35.

[216] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 73, lines 45-47.

[217] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 30, lines 11-13. EB-1, p. 188.

[218] Transcript, 24 June 2025, pp. 22-23, lines 15-46, lines 1-2.

[219] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 31, line 47.

[221] Transcript, p. 23, lines 4- 47. EB-1, p. 35 Transcript, p. 24, lines 19 - 47. Transcript, p. 25, lines 1- 35.

[223] Transcript, p. 25, lines 41 - 47.

[224] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 31, lines 1-47.

[225] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 26, lines 25 - 47. Bed and recliner A16, EB-1, pp. 81-82.

[226] Transcript, p. 28, lines 7 - 33.

[228] Transcript, pp. 28-29, lines 35 - 47, lines 1-7.

[229] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 32, lines 11-12.

[230] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 32, lines 36-41.

[231] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 33, lines 2 - 5.

[233] Transcript, p. 32, lines 19 - 43. EB-1, p. 129.

[234] EB-1, A31, pp, 132ff. Transcript, p. 10, lines 36-38.

[235] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 31, line 34.

[236] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 33, lines 1-17.

[237] Transcript 11 August 2025, p. 28, lines 38 - 47. Also p. 29, line 1.

[238] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 30, lines 14 - 33.

[241] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 28, lines 3 - 46. COC#3.

[242] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 30, lines 31 - 33.

[243] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 29, lines 1 - 18.

[244] EB-9, p. 157. Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 29, lines 1-9.

[245] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 46, lines 3 - 6, 8-24.

[246] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 80, lines 12 - 14.

[247] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 80, lines 16 - 21.

[248] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 80, lines 26 - 32.

[250] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 34, lines 38-47.

[251] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 80, lines 39 - 42.

[252] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 36, lines 38 - 45.

[253] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 42, lines 18-19.

[254] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 36, lines 39 - 44.

[256] EB-1, p. 191. Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 38, lines 37-45. Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 83, lines 36 - 40. EB-1, R1

[257] Transcript 25 June 2025, p. 39, lines 34-46. Transcript, 25 June 2025, pp. 41 - 42, lines 43 - 12.

[258] EB-1, p. 193. Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 43, lines 1-21.

[259] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 46, lines 6 - 12.

[260] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 81, lines 1 - 47.

[261] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 81, lines 13 - 41.

[262] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 83, line 39. Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 84, lines 11 - 13.

[263] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 43, lines 33 - 46.

[264] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 44, lines 17-24, lines 26 - 46.

[265] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 82, lines 19 - 23.

[266] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 82, lines 17 - 41.

[267] Transcript, 11 August 2025, pp. 90-91, lines 47 - p. 91, lines 1 - 7.

[268] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 41, lines 15-42.

[269] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 41, lines 20-21. COC#7.

[270] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 59, lines 36-47. P. 60, lines 1-2.

[271] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 46, lines 32 - 47. P. 47, lines 20-23. Transcript, p. 50, lines 33-41.

[272] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 55, lines 13-14.

[273] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 55, lines 15-16.

[274] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 55, lines 19-20.

[275] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 55, lines 17-23.

[276] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 56, lines 18-21.

[277] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 63, lines 5-7.

[278] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 63, lines 20-36.

[279] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 64, lines 1-6.

[280] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 64, lines 30 - 43.

[281] Transcript, 11 August 2025, pp. 66-67, lines 17-18, lines 1-4. EB-1, A32.

[282] Transcript, p. 8, lines 30 - 44.

[285] Transcript, p. 33, lines 3 - 16.

[286] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 97, lines 44 - 45.

[287] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 31, lines 34-44.

[288] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 100, lines 45 - 47.

[289] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 101, lines 1-3.

[290] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 101, lines 5-8..

[297] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 87, lines 23 - 47.

[298] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 88, lines 7 - 40.

[319] Transcript, pp. 8-9, lines 46-47, lines 1 - 16.

[329] Transcript, pp. 56-57, lines 43 - 46. Lines 1-44.

[330] Transcript, p. 61, lines 24 - 36.

[332] Transcript, 25 June 2025 from pp. 80 - 82.

[333] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 60-61, lines 10 - 47, lines 1 - 12.

[334] Transcript, p. 66, lines 7 - 45. EB-1, pp. 241-242.

[337] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 80, lines 11 - 24.

[338] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 82, lines1-22.

[339] EB-1, p. 255. Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 84, lines 1-22.

[340] EB-1, p. 255. Transcript, p. 84, lines 1-4.

[341] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 84, lines 10-22.

[342] Transcript, pp. 89-90, lines 1-47, 1-36.

[343] Transcript, p. 97, lines 40 - 47.

[345] EB-1, p. 255. Transcript, p. 93, lines 2-12.

[346] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 94, lines 13 - 17.

[347] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 104, lines 29 - 45.

[348] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 105, lines 41-42.

[349] Transcript, 26 June 2025, p. 55, lines 2 - 4.

[350] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 54, line 13.

[351] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 92, lines 26 - 40.

[352] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 98, lines 45 - 46.

[353] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 99, line 17. This was a 6-page document titled 'Summary NDIS Hearing 11Aug25'

[355] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 103, lines 13-23.

[356] This also corresponds to Ms B's report, EB-1, pp. 156- 175.

[357] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 96, lines 5-6.

[359] Section 24(1)(a) of the NDIS Act. EB-1, p. 179.

[360] Section 24(1)(b) of the NDIS Act.

[361] Section 24(1)(a) of the NDIS Act.

[362] Section 24(1)(b) of the NDIS Act.

[363] Mulligan and National Disability Insurance Agency [2015] FCA 544.

[364] The Mulligan decision was with respect to an access application.

[366] MDCT and National Disability Insurance Agency [2020] AATA 6036 [25]. See also NJSC and NDIA [2022] AATA 4449 [100], [105]. TMJV and National Disability Insurance Agency [2022] AATA 2053 [42].

[368] Also the OT reports in EB-2 T5, and T10.

[370] Different total to Agency total of 52 hours per week in closing submissions at [18].

[372] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 61, line 14.

[374] This 'personal care' is divided into 2 hours per day, 7 days per week or 14 hours. In addition domestic or instrumental activities are 3 hours per day 7 days per week totalling 21 hours.

[375] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 69, from line 1. EB-1, p. 241.

[376] EB - 5. Agency closing submissions at [27].

[379] Transcript, p. 22, lines 4-6. EB-1, p. 266 at [39].

[381] Agency closing submissions at [28].

[384] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 23, lines 31-43. Agency closing submissions at [29].

[385] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 89, lines 46 - p. 90, line 2.

[386] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p 23, lines 34-35.

[387] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p 90, lines 4-5.

[388] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p 90, lines 42-43.

[393] The cross examination commenced at transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 58.

[394] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 56, lines 43 ff.

[399] Agency closing submissions at [46].

[401] Rule 3.1(b) of the supports rules. Agency closing submissions at [52].

[402] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 3, lines 36-38.

[404] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 14, lines 14 ff.

[405] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 5, lines 5-13.

[406] NDIS Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits 2024-2025, p. 67.

[408] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 13, lines 37-38.

[410] Agency closing submissions, at [64] - [65].

[411] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 16, lines 45 - p. 18, line 21.

[412] Operational guidelines Transport funding.

[413] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 18, lines 11-12.

[414] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1970 46 FLR 409 [420]-[421].

[416] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 18, lines 28-40.

[417] Section 10 of the NDIS Act and the Transitional Rules. See WVGM v Chief Executive Office of the National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 47 at [208].

[418] Morley [2025 ARTA 1905 at [61]-[62].

[420] EB-1, p 252. See Support Rules 5.1.

[425] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 72, line 34 to p. 73, line 8.

[426] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 73, line 33.

[430] BAFM, document 15, p. 78 of 204.

[432] BAFM, document 32, p. 182 (Addendum A). I accept that the 'special conditions' listed are not material to this decision under review.

[434] I also refer to the Transitional Supports Rules section 5(2).

[435] Operational guidelines (Home Modifications) dated 7 April 2025, p. 3

[436] FSWN and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 114, ('FSWN') at [43].

[439] Transcript, 25 June 2025, pp. 89- 90.

[440] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 90.

[441] Agency closing submissions at [49].

[445] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 34.

[446] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 35, lines 1 -10.

[447] NDIS Operational guideline Short Term Accommodation or respite, as at 11 November 2022, p. 1.

[448] EB-1, p. 191. STA Provider O, 25 December 2023 - 4 January 2024. Property P.

[449] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 40, from line 17. Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 42, lines 1-12.

[450] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 42, line 21 ff.

[451] Transcript, 25 June 2025, p. 43, line 30 ff.

[452] NDIS Pricing Arrangements page 47.

[454] Pursuant to section 34(1)(b) of the NDIS Act.

[455] Agency closing submissions, p. 28 at [120].

[456] Agency closing submissions, pp 28-29.

[457] BAFM, document 12, p. 68 of 204.

[458] Transcript, 24 June 2025, p. 43, lines 34-36.

[459] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 21, lines 5-9.

[460] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 46, lines 26 ff.

[461] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 48, line 43.

[462] Agency closing submissions, p. 30, at [131].

[463] NDIS Operational guideline Home modifications, 4 June 2025.

[466] Addendum A to RPJJ's tenancy agreement.

[467] National Disability Insurance Scheme (Specialist Disability Accommodation) Rules 2020 (Cth) r 5.

[468] See also SDA rules s 10 this describes the purpose of part 2 of the rules under the heading 'eligibility to receive support for SDA.

[480] Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 71, line 19. P. 75. Lines 4-25. See also Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 75, lines 32 ff.

[481] SDA rules, ss 11(a)(ii) and 13(1)(b) in the 'very high support needs' criterion.

[482] Transitional Supports Rules, clause 1, schedule 1, item 29, column 3.

[483] Operational guidelines, SDA, p. 8.

[484] EB-12. Plan 26 April 2024 - 26 April 2026.

[485] EB-13, claim line items with 7 rows of line items. Transcript, 11 August 2025, p. 86, lines 4 - 25.

[486] EB-5, the auto extended plan following the 17 November 2023 remittal by the AAT.

[488] Read with the provisions in chapter 3, part 2, division 3 of the NDIS Act, in particular section 42(2)(c) of the NDIS Act.

[490] Section 42(2)(b) of the NDIS Act.

[491] 19 October 2023 and 20 October 2023

[495] See the NDIS Amendment Management of Funding and plan management rules 2025 rule 2, to the table, item 1 (the Amendment Rules were made on 27 February 2025 and were registered on 3 March 2025.

[497] Funding Management Rules, rule 6(2)(a).

[498] Section 46(1)(a) of the NDIS Act.

[499] Section 46(1)(b) of the NDIS Act.

[500] Rule 6(2)(a) of the Funding Management Rules.

[501] Agency closing submissions at [147].

[502] AS required by section 46(1) of the NDIS Act.

[503] This is contrasted to Agency-managed funds.