a. 24/7 1:1 supports with inactive overnight support to assist the Applicant for up to 6 months while she finds and transitions into appropriate shared (2 person)

accommodation with SIL (with the SIL to replace the Applicant's existing funding for Core Assistance with Daily Living and Social, Economic and Community Participation);

b. 30 hours of level 3 Support coordination for 6 months while she finds and transitions into appropriate shared (2 person) SIL;

c. 24/7 SIL supports for the following 6 months (or such lesser period if the Applicant finds a suitable co-resident in less than 6 months) allowing:

ii. 13.5 hours of 1:2 support daily (inclusive of inactive overnight).

1. Therefore, the issues before the Tribunal are whether:

(a) the 26 hours of dietetic support per annum and 24/7 1:1 support worker assistance (with inactive overnight) are reasonable and necessary NDIS supports for the purposes of section 33 and subsection 34(1) of the Act, having regard to the Support Rules; > > (b) the Applicant is eligible to receive support for SDA pursuant to section 14 of the SDA Rules; and > > (c) if the Applicant meets the eligibility criteria for SDA, whether the SDA supports sought by the Applicant are reasonable and necessary supports for the purposes of section 33 and subsection 34(1) of the Act, having regard to the Support Rules.

What supports are currently provided to the Applicant?

1. The Applicant has sought review of a statement of supports that commenced on 15 June 2022.
2. On 29 March 2023 a statement of participant supports for a three month period was approved by a delegate of the CEO with total funded supports of $70,886.21.[5]
3. On 29 June 2023 a statement of participant supports was approved by a delegate of the CEO with total funded supports of $294,562.46.[6]
4. On 11 November 2024 a 12 month plan was approved, commencing on 28 October 2024 and ending on 27 October 2025 (2024 plan).[7] The total budget amount was $349,915.64 and included the following supports:

2. Low Cost AT - Communication Or Cognitive Support $600.00

1. Assistance With Self-Care Activities - Standard - Weekday Daytime 4 hours per day

2. Assistance With Self-Care Activities - Standard - Saturday 4 hours per day

3. Assistance With Self-Care Activities - Standard - Sunday 4 hours per day

4. Assistance With Self-Care Activities - Standard - Public Holiday 5 hours per day

5. House Cleaning And Other Household Activities 2 hours per week

6. Assistance With The Cost Of Preparation And Delivery Of

iii. Assistance with Social, Economic and Community Participation - $154,901.28

1. Access Community Social And Rec Activities - Weekday Daytime 5 hours per day

2. Access Community Social and Rec Active - Standard - Saturday 5 hours per day

3. Access Community Social and Rec Active - Standard - Sunday 5 hours per day

4. Access Community Social and Rec Active - Standard - Public Holiday 5 hours per day

5. $2,400.00 for Community Social and Recreational Activities for

attendance at the (disability related) Broughton Arts Program.

6. $3,614.00 for milage for transport to community activities (approximately) 3,650km per year to and from SCEP activities.

1. Plan Management And Financial Capacity Building - Set Up Costs

1. Assessment Recommendation Therapy or Training - Other Professional 24 hours

2. Assessment Recommendation Therapy or Training - Psychology 35 hours

3. Assessment Recommendation Therapy or Training - Speech Therapy 12 hours

1. Specialist Behavioural Intervention Support 92 hours per year

2. Behaviour Management Plan Incl. Training In Behaviour Management Strategies 32 hours per year

v. Support Coordination Level 2 - 100 hours $10,014.00

1. The Tribunal understands that the 2024 plan was "auto-extended" in the same terms on the expiry of the 12-month period. Of course, there is no provision in the Act to undertake an auto-extension or rollover. The only statutory mechanism available to achieve this is a section 47A plan variation and it was pursuant to this provision that new plan was approved on 28 November 2025 (2025 plan) in the same terms as the 2024 plan.
2. I have already referred to subsection 103(2) of the Act above. Practically, this means that the 2025 plan is also a reviewable decision pursuant to section 12 of the ART Act.
3. In determining this matter, the Applicant must put forward sufficient probative evidence to satisfy or persuade this Tribunal that the relevant statutory requirements are met.[8]

1. The Applicant has lived alone in public housing in a metropolitan city for about 15 years. The accommodation is a semi-detached, two-bedroom unit.[9] She met the access requirements on the basis of impairments arising from a moderate intellectual disability.
2. The Applicant's plan nominee and sister provided a statement of lived experience dated 26 March 2023[10] and the provision of additional details on 31 March 2023.[11]
3. In the statement of lived experience the sister wrote:

10. Sadly I have seen my sister regress from a happy individual to one who is fraught with

anxiety, fear and insecurity, yelling and arguing with SW's, and using language that was

never part of our home. Things she's learnt from the support workers over the last 4 or 5

years. She is clearly unhappy and her home, is to her, her place of safety. Any suggestion

that she must share her own home and supports with others to make it more cost effective, seems unfair and quite unethical as I believe it's against the premise that the NDIS was founded on. No other 'non disabled' person would be expected to do the same. Imagine if the housing trust imposed these sorts of 'conditions' on homeless people. There would be outrage.[12]

28. The Housing Trust complex was once a safe enclave, however more recently there are a number of drug addicts and a "drug house" which has resulted in a number of 'incidents' including fights, melees and drug addicts passed out in the car park. These incidents have cause [the Applicant] much fear and anxiety as she doesn't have the capacity to understand, or know how to deal with the situations, much as a toddler would react.

29. She has had people knocking on her windows at night and yelling outside her unit in the early hours of the morning. She is fearful when these events occur as she doesn't know what to do.

30. Because [the Applicant] can't/doesn't know how to stop people from coming into her unit, there is the fear of theft and abuse. As such no cash is kept on [the Applicant]'s premises and a credit card which is locked away and used by SW's, is loaded with limited funds.[13]

57. [The Applicant] does not want to live in a group home and I think would not thrive and be very unhappy in that environment. A group home would be contrary to her desire and goals. As per the OT report, she may cope with one other person plus a support worker, however it would have to be a good match and the process of finding out, could result in more trauma. At present she does not like having the SW's there after 9pm. She says she's tired and doesn't want to go to bed while they're there. We were about to trial having the SW's go to the spare room to give [the Applicant] space and to get her used to them being there overnight, however as we've run out of funding we can't do this.

59. I would like to see [the Applicant] living in dignity in a home that she sees as hers, in a fully supported environment with people she trusts. This means consistency of supports, familiar support workers on a fixed roster, in a home that she feels safe and comfortable with with (sic) a team of people including allied health professionals who can help [the Applicant] work through her trauma (caused by previous SW's) and blossom again. Nothing more than any other person such as you or I would want or need.[14]

1. In her statement dated 31 March 2023 the sister stated:[15]

I wish to make it clear that [the Applicant] is not amenable, nor has requested, nor wishes to leave her abode to go into shared housing. She is content living on her own and it would be unfair to make her change at this stage of her life. > > ... > > In summary: > > * Due to pressure from the NDIS, I have 'considered' a shared arrangement, dependent upon the correct match for a housemate and dependent upon a vacancy in her local area which she is familiar with, as this is where she is familiar and comfortable. > * [The Applicant] shared a home with a 'boyfriend' in 1997-98 for a few months. It was unsuccessful as she was subjected to domestic violence and was unable to deal with the situation. Consequently she is very tentative and anxious about living with others. > * Medical reports indicate that [the Applicant] does not cope well with change and in fact that forcing her to live in a shared living arrangement would likely be very stressful and contribute to further deterioration in her mental health; > * My support coordinator has provided Mum and I with options over the last 6 years, as they arise; none have been suitable: they have been out of the geographical area familiar to [the Applicant], or sharing with males (not appropriate due to alleged previous abuse and due to fear in [the Applicant] - existent even prior to alleged assaults), or in larger RFS (eg [redated] nursing home independent living quarters) where staff wear uniform in a clinic-like setting (not suitable due to [the Applicant]'s phobia of medical staff).

2. At hearing the sister reported that though she is an "informal guardian" she has minimal telephone contact with the Applicant and sees her about twice a year, when the Applicant comes to her home and stays for a couple of days. Their mother occasionally speaks to the Applicant on the telephone.
3. When asked to give her opinion about the Applicant's current housing the sister explained that the environment where the unit is located has changed significantly. She gave examples of recently released prisoners and those with poorly controlled mental health having moved into the unit complex, an incident where the Applicant was (falsely) accused of stealing items and at least one occasion where a neighbour entered the Applicant's property and went through her belongings. Unfortunately, the Applicant will not remember to lock her doors unless prompted to do so by support workers. The sister is of the view that SDA is more suitable than the Applicant's current housing given that it is more likely that other residents in the complex will be better matched with the Applicant. Further, the building amenities would enable the Applicant to assist with cooking tasks and have sufficient safety measures which would allow the Applicant opportunity to be alone.
4. The sister was invited to give her views of the Applicant's capacity to share accommodation. She explained that such an arrangement was suggested a few times to the Applicant, but she does not understand the concept and she likes living alone. Whilst the Applicant has not necessarily verbalised her wants and wishes, the sister's observations of the Applicant in social settings together with the Applicant's reluctance to live in a group home some years ago lead to the conclusion that the Applicant would struggle in a shared environment. Further, the Applicant does not understand concepts of boundaries, shared space or personal. She is concerned about the impact that the change in her living situation would have on the Applicant. She noted that the Applicant has blossomed with having more support worker hours. If a support worker was available on-site overnight, but not necessarily sleeping in a room next to her, it would be adequate given she would have some privacy but still have someone she could call for assistance. It is important for the Applicant to have a place into which she can "retreat".
5. In response to the clinical evidence that shared accommodation may be beneficial, the sister stressed that even when with others the Applicant has limited interaction. A co-resident would have to be someone "she clicks with" as the Applicant has been bullied in the past because she is so quiet and amiable. She is pessimistic about finding a suitable co-resident, particularly in the six months suggested by NDIS.
6. As to the Applicant's binge eating, the sister stated that no formal diagnosis of an eating disorder was pursued. She is concerned about the restrictive practices in place being maintained in a shared environment.
7. The Tribunal had the benefit of a report authored Ms Vaishnavi Thirumanickam, psychologist, dated 17 December 2014.[16] Ms Thirumanickam administered the Adaptive Behaviour Assessment System II and the results were consistent with the Applicant having a mild level of intellectual disability.[17]
8. In evidence are multiple reports from Ms Gillissen, psychologist.
9. The first report is dated 11 April 2014.[18] Ms Gillissen reported that the Applicant's family were concerned about lack of supervision, which resulted in the Applicant gaining a very significant amount of weight as she impulsively consumes all food in her home, including a tub of margarine or frozen foods, and so leaves herself without food for a significant period of time.[19] Restrictive practices were employed, whereby the freezer that stores her frozen meals remains locked and she is given limited access to only a small portion of food.[20] It was noted that some attempts at psychoeducation about healthy eating and meal preparation had been trialled.
10. Ms Gillissen went on to state that the Applicant struggles with impulse control and regulating her urge to consume available foods. It was recommended that support hours would be increased to permit the daily purchase and preparation of foods, thus limiting available food in the home and allowing for the gradual reintroduction of additional food over time. Behaviour change strategies were also recommended, as part of a "longitudinal and programmatic approach to bringing about behaviour change over a period of time".[21]
11. A report dated 27 March 2023[22] was prepared by Ms Gillissen for an upcoming review of the Applicant's home and living supports, as the NDIS has recommended she live in Supported Independent Living (SIL) with another resident. A marked change in the Applicant's presentation was noted, indicative of possible trauma or psychological distress.[23] She described the Applicant's behaviours of concern as seeking reassurance, generally avoidant of social engagement, belligerence and an increase in controlling behaviours.[24] Ms Gillissen advocated maintenance of sole occupancy for the Applicant on the basis that the Applicant's preference is to live alone, the stress that would be induced if she moved into a shared residence may contribute to a further deterioration in the Applicant's mental health and that the Applicant is currently residing in her own home with established staffing supports, where she is successfully integrated in her local community. Ms Gillissen opined that moving the Applicant from her home for reasons not related to the unsuitability of her accommodation is unjust.
12. In evidence is also a report prepared by Ms Gillissen dated 29 May 2023 in respect to "Interaction Guidelines".[25]
13. Ms Gillissen also provided a report dated 16 August 2023 outlining the requirement for the Applicant to receive ongoing psychological support.[26] Ms Gillissen noted that the Applicant has a moderate intellectual disability: "though her overall IQ scores place her on the cusp of the mild and moderate level of intellectual disability, her level of adaptive behaviours, receptive language and executive dysfunction, all indicate that she has impairments in her daily functioning that are more consistent with a moderate intellectual disability". The description by Ms Thirumanickam of a mild intellectual disability "has been a mischaracterization based on limited (inadequate) data and spurious reasoning." Instead, Ms Gillissen prefers the report prepared by Ms Dutch on 29 March 2022 as providing the most valid and contemporaneous representation of the Applicant's needs.[27]
14. In her most recent report dated 14 March 2024[28] Ms Gillissen opines that given the Applicant's moderate intellectual disability the Applicant's behaviours of concern are more evident when she is unsupported.[29] She also stated that the Applicant requires a significant period of time to adapt to changes but remains firm with her preference to be alone in her own home.[30]
15. The Tribunal had the benefit of Ms Gillissen's oral testimony. She described the Applicant as very "sociable" and "affable" when she first engaged in 2014. She then reengaged with the Applicant from March 2022 to March 2024, meeting monthly. She noted a significant deterioration in the Applicant's functioning, potentially explained by unsubstantiated but highly likely sexual abuse perpetrated by a carer. From 2022 the Applicant presented as much more socially anxious, fearful of people generally and of people coming into her home and also fearful of being "the respondent communication partner", which Ms Gillissen explained as being worried about saying the right thing and prone to wanting to shut down communication.
16. Ms Gillissen recalls raising the option of living in shared accommodation with the Applicant. The Applicant was adamant that she wanted to remain living alone in her own home. In her clinical opinion the Applicant would find sharing accommodation "very stressful" and a "struggle". This is because the Applicant has lived on her own for a very long time, finds social interaction generally very stressful and is concerned about her privacy and prefers to retreat into a "safe space". Anything that requires change "induces fear" in the Applicant, and this would include changing her accommodation or changing her living arrangements to share with another. She tends to avoid and retreat when she feels demands are placed on her. There would be "hurdles to overcome" regarding her "enthusiasm and willingness" to share accommodation. Further, she would require her own bathroom; a preoccupation that has developed in recent years around privacy concerns. She is highly fearful of someone walking in on her when she is in the bathroom and so she may avoid attending to her self-care if she had to share a bathroom with another.
17. Ms Gillissen stated that sharing with a suitably matched housemate, with appropriate transition programs and additional supports, may possibly bring benefits as the Applicant requires social engagement and community participation. Ms Gillissen commented that for a long period of her life the Applicant lived a very institutionalised life and this was a source of comfort for her. Ms Gillissen's view is that the Applicant's need for social engagement could be achieved by more active engagement in the community rather than sharing a home.
18. Ms Gillissen noted that the social housing complex in which the Applicant resides is populated with people with high mental health and drug and alcohol issues. She described the neighbourhood as "not an ideal environment for her" and she shares the concerns held by the family regarding its suitability. Her living environment has engendered fear in the Applicant, shown by her barricading herself into the home. However, the Applicant has expressed a desire to stay in her current environment. Those safety concerns are somewhat obviated by the presence of a support worker, though the Applicant is still exposed to the noise from neighbours. Her current living environment is also very small.
19. A behaviour support plan was authored by Ms Megon Kalicinski, behaviour support practitioner, Healthy Minds Australia and implemented from 8 February 2021.[31] It noted that one behaviour of concern was compulsive eating of food, with high intensity and if left unsupervised the Applicant will eat all available food. It is noted that low risk occasions are when she is supervised, distracted or engaged.[32] Environment restraints for accessing food had been employed for about five years. It was recommended to continue with the provision of frozen meals, noting it was the Applicant's nominee's preference that support workers, with the assistance of a dietician, could eventually prepare fresh meals for her.[33] Another behaviour of concern was completing personal hygiene, the impact being moderate to severe, with lowest risk when she is supervised and not asked to undertake household chores.[34] It was also recommended that support workers assist her with personal hygiene tasks, including showering.[35]
20. Ms Kalicinski undertook a Vineland-3 Adaptive Behaviour assessment of the Applicant on 2 August 2022[36] and 9 August 2022.[37] The Applicant scored low in all adaptive behaviour areas.[38] Ms Kalicinski authored a further report dated 22 August 2022 after undertaking in-home observations on 4 March 2021 and 16 August 2022.[39] The only behaviour concern noted was compulsive eating of food and that the intensity of the behaviour is high. High risk scenarios remain unchanged when compared with the plan implemented on 8 February 2021. A comprehensive positive behaviour support plan was started on 22 August 2022 with a review date of 18 July 2023 addressing the Applicant's food intake and hygiene, amongst other strategies.[40]
21. Ms Kalicinski provided a further report dated 17 May 2024,[41] attaching a comprehensive positive behaviour support plan.[42] She supported the recommendation of 26 hours of dietetics per annum.[43] A further (draft) comprehensive positive behaviour support plan was authored on 25 October 2024 and due to commence on 10 October 2024.[44] The risk of harm identified was compulsive eating of food, including the Applicant going through neighbours bins to retrieve food.[45]
22. Ms Kalicinski's report dated 30 January 2023[46] confirms that overnight support is required for the Applicant to potentially assist in eliminating restrictive practices and ensure that she is safe overnight.[47] On 3 April 2023 Ms Kalicinski provided a statement about alternatives that have been trialled in lieu of increased support hours to address the Applicant's behaviours of concern.[48] She noted that the Applicant has expressed a wish to no longer have Lite n Easy meals (this arrangement having been in place for three years at that time). It was recommended that a dietician oversee the Applicant's meals and ensure they provide sufficient micronutrients as she ages.[49]
23. Ms Natalya Meiring, occupational therapist, conducted an in-person functional capacity/care needs assessment of the Applicant on 17 July 2019.[50] It was noted that restrictive practices regarding the Applicant's food were in place.[51] It was recommended that the Applicant receive 16 hours per day/7 days per week support worker assistance (including overnight passive support of 9 hours per day). It was also recommended that the Applicant move into 24/7 SDA.[52]
24. A functional capacity assessment in respect of the Applicant's support and accommodation needs was conducted by Ms Jenna Dutch, a senior occupational therapist and a report issued on 30 March 2022.[53] It was noted that a diagnosis of Prader-Willi syndrome has been considered, but has been unable to be medically confirmed.[54] A Montreal Cognitive Assessment was undertaken to review the Applicant's cognitive functions which indicated possible severe cognitive impairment.[55] An Adaptive Behaviour Assessment System was administered, which indicated that the Applicant's conceptual, social and practical skills were in the extremely low range.[56] A Functional Independence Measures assessment indicated that the Applicant required supervision in all self-care tasks, except for toileting where she is independent.[57] She was independent in all mobility tasks, except for stairs where she requires supervision.[58] As for cognitive tasks it was noted that the Applicant required assistance.[59] The World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule was noted to be generally consistent with the functional capacity assessment. Ms Dutch concluded that the Applicant presents with "significant disability and extreme functional impairment, with communication, cognition, social skills and engagement in life and community activities seriously impacted, without appropriate levels of support".[60]
25. Ms Dutch opined that the Applicant required 24/7 supervision for safety, noting assistance is required for the majority of daily activities and that the Applicant is placed at high risk of abuse and neglect without appropriate supervision.[61] Dietician oversight was recommended to ensure that the Applicant's dietary needs were met and regular behaviour practitioner review regarding the ongoing suitability of restrictive practices regarding access to food.[62]
26. As to the Applicant's housing needs, Ms Dutch advised:

The above assessment and available collateral information confirms that [the Applicant] requires 24/7 supervision and support to ensure safety and her disability needs are met. [The Applicant] also requires transition from her current residence to a suitably set up shared disability accommodation, as her current environment is not suitable for her long-term needs. The assessment above has determined that [the Applicant] is not able to live independently, due to the risks associated given her communication and cognitive impairments and reduced safety awareness.

[The Applicant] 's mother agrees that [the Applicant] requires supported accommodation, living with clients with similar needs (no behaviours of concern, males or loud/chaotic environments). OT recommends that consideration is given to sharing with 1 other female with SIL shared supports for overnight and general supervision. It is very important that [the Applicant] gets along with the other NDIS participant in the house to support quality of life and facilitate communication and social engagement.

[The Applicant] does not have significant physical impairments, therefore living in a disability accommodation which is under the improved liveability category appears suitable. OT would advocate for [the Applicant] to have her own bedroom and ensuite bathroom and shared living spaces.

1. In relation to continuing to live in her current public housing, Ms Dutch stated that this was not appropriate because:[63]

[The Applicant] is living in a housing trust property at present, however as it is isolated and

there is a cluster of units adjacent, [the Applicant] is at risk from the neighbours who

communicate with her and have been reported to attempt to enter her residence with possible ill intent. This heightens the risk of potential abuse and neglect, as well as the limited visibility from the street, increases isolation and concealment of behaviours.

In addition to the above, living independently in the community with 24/7 supervision is not a cost effective option, when shared living is reasonable and costs can be shared between NDIS participants.

1. Similar concerns were held in relation to the Applicant residing in community housing and an aged care facility was not considered appropriate as it would not provide 1:1 care which Ms Dutch assessed was required. Only SIL and SDA were considered appropriate:[64]

[The Applicant] requires supported independent living, due to needing assistance for the majority of her daily living tasks. This level of support is therefore likely most appropriate for [the Applicant]'s needs.

SDA Support Category: Improved Liveability is recommended for [the Applicant] to optimise her independence and safety. The specialist design features in an improved liveability SDA properties appear to meet [the Applicant]'s short and long term needs, which includes the need for improved wayfinding and other sensory/cognitive features which would be beneficial.

1. Ms Dutch made the following statements in respect to Rule 14 of the SDA Rules:[65]

SDA Rule 14(a) SDA funding will support the person to pursue their goals

Having a disability accommodation, will support [the Applicant] to pursue her NDIS goals, including maintaining an appropriate residence, building her social and communication skills, optimising her capacity to engage with others and attend valued community events. [The Applicant]'s adaptive functioning skills are low and therefore he (sic) is unable to initiate and complete necessary daily tasks herself, without appropriate prompting and support. [The Applicant] has limited financial options to fund her own property and she is therefore reliant on disability accommodation to provide the bricks and mortar for a safe environment and therefore enable her to work towards supported and safe independent living.

SDA Rule 14(b) SDA funding will support the person to maintain or improve their functional capacity

Having a consistent environment and supports, will assist [the Applicant] to maintain or improve her functional capacity, because she will be encouraged to engage in necessary and valued activities in a supportive environment. [The Applicant] has limited initiation, which limits her capacity to independently engage and complete daily activities without support. SDA funding will provide the consistent and appropriate bricks and mortar to support a stable residence, which will assist [the Applicant] in conjunction with SIL supports, to reduce the risk of functional deteriorations (which are highly likely to occur without appropriate accommodation and consistent formal care support). Also having a secure property will be imperative to reducing exposure to unscrupulous individuals and therefore minimising risks of harm or neglect, which could impact on her capacity to build her functional capacity.

SDA Rule 14(d) SDA funding will promote stability and continuity of supports

Accommodation in the private market is largely unaffordable and inappropriate for participants with disabilities. It will be less disruptive to ensure that [the Applicant] moves to an accommodation that can accommodate her needs both now and into the future. SDA properties are designed, and purpose built for disability needs, which highlights the importance for [the Applicant] for continuity and stability, given she has a permanent condition which is not expected to improve over time.

SDA Rule 14.1(e) SDA funding represents value for money

[The Applicant] is suitable to live with others with similar disabilities, which means that supports can be shared between NDIS participants at the residence. This reduces the cost to the NDIS and represents value for money, in comparison to private or independent living arrangements, in which support workers need to come into the property and travel (as there is only 1 x client in the house), which increases the cost of the support.

Due to [the Applicant]'s cognitive impairments and her restricted capacity to manage changes to her routine, it is recommended that she only lives with one other NDIS participant, to minimise the risk of behaviour escalations (which could occur in a noisy and busy environment with multiple clients). [The Applicant] is recommended to share with a female NDIS participant, who has similar needs to [the Applicant], as long as they are able to build rapport and manage spending time in shared spaces.

1. Ms Dutch recommended that the Applicant live in a house or villa with one other NDIS participant with similar disabilities.[66] A comprehensive transition program was recommended.[67] It was also noted that a dietician would be beneficial to provide advice and regular reviews regarding diet strategies "given her distorted eating patterns and restrictive practices in place".[68]
2. A support coordinator report dated 27 January 2022 authored by Ms Kathryn Soar, social worker, Soaring Sparrows is in evidence.[69] It was noted that following various complaints against the Applicant's previous core support provider a report of neglect was eventually made to the NDIS Commission and a new provider commenced in January 2022.[70]
3. Ms Soar provided a letter of support in respect to the Applicant's application dated 29 January 2023, noting that it should be read in conjunction with Ms Kalicinski's report dated 30 January 2023 (above).[71] Ms Soar noted behaviours of concern overnight, including that the Applicant cannot recognise or seek assistance if she requires medical attention nor take protective steps to minimise unwanted interactions with her neighbours.[72] It was noted that these vulnerabilities align with the two Vineland assessments undertaken in 2022.
4. Ms Soar also provided a report dated 3 April 2023 outlining the Applicant's weekly activities and providing an analysis of current support worker deficits.[73] It referred to support worker notes that indicate regular incidents of emotional dysregulation, including that the Applicant spoke inappropriately to, or loudly about, members of the community and becomes distressed if there are changes to her environment.[74]
5. On 21 May 2023 Ms Soar reported that there was a change to the Applicant's support worker arrangements and that she become "highly distressed as a result" and there is a concern that she is permitting strangers into her unit. There is also in evidence an undated report authored by Ms Soar in respect of support coordination funding.[75]
6. At hearing Ms Soar testified that the recent increase in support worker hours has shifted the onus from the Applicant to manage her external home environment. The Applicant has indicated to her that she wishes to live alone, however she also stated that the Applicant is highly suggestible and will often take on the opinion of others. Her observation is that the Applicant enjoys social interactions during the day, but also benefits from returning to her own home where she does not need to engage and so can reduce her cognitive load. She has observed the Applicant in a meeting with her allied health professionals shut down because she cannot follow the discussion. In her view, the key is to find the balance for the Applicant to engage in social activities and also to have downtime when she is not called upon to engage socially. Her view is that this could not occur in a shared living environment.
7. Ms Soar testified that the Applicant does not qualify for a transfer within public housing. She noted that SDA housing would reduce the cognitive load on the Applicant. She was of the view that it would take at least six months to locate a suitable home for the Applicant if she was funded for SDA and even longer if she was to share SDA with another. To adequately transition the Applicant to shared SDA would require an increase of 60 support coordination hours.
8. A housing needs and functional capacity assessment was undertaken by Ms Laura Kirchhoff, occupational therapist, Equipt to Thrive dated 19 September 2024.[76] Mr Kirchhoff determined that the Applicant is eligible for SDA as she presents with both an extreme functional impairment and very high support needs. A house or villa in the improved liability SDA design was deemed appropriate, shared with one other female participant, suitably matched with similar capacities and interests. SDA was identified as the best suited housing option for the Applicant.[77]Whilst the Applicant requires 1:1 support for a considerable amount of the day, she can share support at a 1:2 ratio outside these times.[78] It was noted that the Applicant has lived alone for many years and is not accustomed to sharing her living environment and she can become anxious and avoidant in crowded environments. Sharing a home with a suitably matched participant may provide the Application with additional social connection and friendship. [79]
9. Ms Kirchhoff gave evidence at hearing. She testified that SDA - Improved Liveability has features that are well suited to the Applicant's needs currently and into the future, though the Applicant's current property also has the same modifications. The Applicant uses a grab rail when navigating steps at her current home. It was noted that the Applicant's mobility will not improve given her age and an SDA will not have steps and also increased circulation space in the bathroom and kitchen. Overall, it is Ms Kirchhoff's view that SDA would "match" the Applicant's current living arrangement "but improved" and will minimise the need for her to relocate as she ages. Her view is that it would not make sense to move the Applicant into a SIL "mainstream" home as it is likely that she would have to move her other accommodation as she ages.
10. Ms Kirchhoff acknowledged that the Applicant's goals are to live independently. She does not understand that to mean that the Applicant's goal is to live alone. She lived with family and then trialled living with another person that was not successful, but this failure was not because the Applicant cannot share with others. Ms Kirchhoff recalled that the Applicant spoke fondly of her work friends, reported that she liked to go out into the community, but did not have friends beyond paid support workers. One of the Applicant's goals was to spend more time with friends and with people. Ms Kirchhoff wondered whether the Applicant wandering outside her unit was her attempt to engage socially because she was lonely. Therefore, in her view if the Applicant was matched with suitable female with shared interests such as craft this would meet her social engagement needs.
11. As to restrictive practices and living with another resident Ms Kirchhoff stated that with adequate 1:1 support a reduction in restrictive practices should result, which is consistent with best practice. In any event, the use of restrictive practices would not be prohibitive in sharing accommodation. She is not aware of any clinical reason as to why the Applicant must live alone. The most challenging aspect of sharing accommodation would be transitioning to the new living arrangement. However, she noted that the Applicant had made numerous successful transitions in her lifetime (moving out of the family home, working, retiring, moving into her current accommodation). She stated that there was less risk of misadventure if she was to stay in her current environment given the increase in 24/7 support, but she would miss the opportunity to engage socially with a co-resident.
12. Ms Kirchhoff was of the view that a transfer into another public housing property is unlikely given the waiting lists, particularly given the Applicant's specific access needs. As to a SIL property, Ms Kirchhoff thought it unlikely that a property with the access requirements required by the Applicant (non-slip surfaces, level throughout, non-hob shower) could be secured. Her recommendation for SDA accommodation is to reduce fall-risk, provide adequate circulation space for support workers, noting that open plan design makes supervision easier in addition to the provision of access features that the Applicant currently requires. The value for money is evident as SDA will reduce the risk of injury to the Applicant given her mobility deficits. SDA would also increase accessibility for staff and minimise their manual handling. Also, in the future it is probable that the Applicant will require mobility or other aids. If she remains where she is or moves into SIL this means that either home modifications would be required or another house move in the future. SDA will minimise the need for future relocations.
13. Ms Savage, clinical dietician, gave evidence at hearing. In 2023 Ms Soar had referred the Applicant for assessment to ensure that she maintains her current weight, that she had adequate food available to meet her nutritional requirements and took into account her history of her "obsessive eating". She only had two consultations and has not have any contact at all for 2.5 years. The goals discussed were to introduce home cooked meals and clearly ongoing provision of Lite n' Easy did not meet this goal. Ms Savage stated that she does not deal with the behavioural issues associated with binge eating.
14. Ms Savage confirmed that to reengage and provide assistance with nutritional advice she would require six hours of funding to undertake an assessment and develop a and then monthly 30 minute sessions on an ongoing basis (about 12 hours in total).
15. In a statement dated 17 December 2024 Ms Olivia Cahill, positive behaviour support practitioner, provided her support for dietitian services of about 30 minutes per fortnight for the Applicant.[80] Ms Cahill noted that whilst restrictive practices have effectively managed the Applicant's weight and mitigated binge episodes, professional input from a dietitian is essential to address the underlying factors contributing to her eating behaviours and will enable the development of sustainable strategies for her nutrition and overall wellbeing. The aim is to minimise reliance on restrictive practices.[81]
16. On 27 May 2025 Ms Cahill wrote in support for SDA with 1:1 support, with overnight passive support.[82] She went on to state that the Applicant requires consistent, familiar supports and "[t]hese supports cannot be effectively or safely delivered in a shared living arrangements".[83] In particular the food restrictive practices would impact on another resident sharing her home. Further, in her opinion, "[i]ntroducing the unpredictability and stress of shared living would compromise the progress she has made and could severely limit her access to the community, independence, and sense of security."[84]
17. The Tribunal had the benefit of oral testimony from Ms Cahill. She confirmed that she was the Applicant's former behaviour support worker and spoke to the restrictive practices then in place, being locking all food items in a box that can only be accessed by support workers and the management of all the Applicant's finances.
18. In Ms Cahill's opinion the restrictive practice in relation to food will make sharing accommodation difficult; it would either require that person with whom she shares having restrictive practices imposed on them or no longer restricting food access which would place her health at risk. She understood when the case was transferred to her that restrictive practices around food was the only successful intervention to curb the Applicant's binge eating.
19. Ms Cahill supports the funding of a dietician to get some more direction around curbing her food impulses to attempt to reduce restrictive practices. She is not aware of whether the Applicant has sought support from a dietician. A guide for support workers has been developed to ensure that the Applicant and her support workers have consistency. At the moment Lite n Easy meals are provided to the Applicant, who does not prepare her own meals because she has a "fear of the kitchen". Ms Cahill opined that even with a support worker present at all times it could not be certain that the Applicant would not access food if restrictive practices were no longer continued; it is not realistic to expect constant vigilance from a support worker given the support worker's tasks.
20. Ms Cahill is firmly of the view that making the Applicant share accommodation would not support her "living her best quality of life". She does not respond well to change, but she can adapt with the right support system. Ms Cahill confirmed that changing the Applicant's environment would be a "difficult", but framed in the correct way she would adapt.
21. Ms Cahill supports SDA accommodation, stating that her understanding of such accommodation is "small, easily maintainable, has access to other people around her so she's not isolated". Ms Cahill conceded that, to some extent, this is being met by the Applicant's current accommodation though she does have issues with residents in the complex, which has made the Applicant unsafe.
22. Ms Bernadette Walsh, occupational therapist, was engaged by the Respondent to provide an independent report dated 29 July 2025.[85] Ms Walsh stated that the Applicant requires paid personal support during the day and overnight. She went on to recommend that the Applicant's disability related needs should be met through SIL, SDA and capacity building supports.
23. Ms Walsh assessed the Applicant to have extreme functional impairment for self-management and self-care and very high need for person-to-person support. She stated that the provision of SDA in combination with other supports would be more effective in providing the Applicant with stability and continuity of support, when compared to other supports alone in a standard residence, particularly given that it would meet her longer-term needs.[86]
24. While acknowledging that her current housing environment places her at heightened risk of unwanted social contact and exposure to behaviours from other residents which compromise her safety, Ms Walsh opined: [87]

Based on the information available to me through my on-the-papers assessment, I have not identified any evidence indicating that the Applicant's ordinary place of residence is unable to meet her disability specific needs in relation to the residence's structure and design. > > ... > > There is evidence that the Applicant's current residence, in the context of her Intellectual Disability, increases her risks to personal safety. > > The Applicant currently resides in public housing, where the social environment presents increased vulnerability due to her disability-related impairments She is at heightened risk of unwanted social contact, boundary violations, and exposure to behaviours from other residents or community members that may compromise her personal safety and emotional wellbeing. The current setting lacks the environmental and support safeguards needed to appropriately mitigate these risks. She has impaired capacity to keep herself safe in her own home. Such impairments and risks cannot be mitigated by assistive technology, home modifications or construction in accordance with construction codes.

25. Ms Walsh noted risks associated with the Applicant sharing accommodation, including to her mental health.[88] She went on to state that SDA would provide the Applicant opportunities for social engagement[89] and also prevent cognitive overload by provision of a predictable environment.[90] Ms Walsh is of the view that SDA accommodation would ensure more efficient use of support hours, avoid tenancy support issues, improve delivery of support, increase the Applicant's community engagement, prevent her functional decline and lower the risk of her family experiencing burnout.[91]

1. In my view the Respondent properly conceded that the Applicant currently meets the requirement in sections 12 and 13 of the SDA Rules and I find accordingly. The functional capacity assessment reports undertaken by occupational therapists Mses Dutch, Kirchhoff and Walsh all support such a finding.
2. I must consider various factors when determining whether the Applicant meets the SDA needs requirements, as set down in section 14 of the SDA Rules.
3. I note the Applicant's stated goals, as outlined in her 2024 plan, are that she would:[92]

...like to continue living independently in my own home through having support with my daily care and living needs...

...like to explore all living and accommodation options.

Her other stated goals are centred around exploring day programs, group and community activities (including transport to engage in these activities), assistance with skill building that will support her to have positive relationships, improving her communication and managing her impulsive eating.

1. I am not satisfied that provision of SDA, when compared with the provision of around the clock support worker assistance alone, as conceded by the Agency, better assists the Applicant to pursue the statement of goals and aspirations as set out in her 2024 plan.
2. It was asserted on behalf of the Applicant that the unanimous opinion of all treating practitioners and the occupational therapists that the provision of SDA will improve the Applicant's functional capacity, prevent deterioration of her current functioning, promote her independence and help her develop skills. In my view this overstates the more nuanced and considered opinions of these professionals.
3. Ms Dutch refers to the need for stable and secure housing. The Applicant is a long-term resident of public housing. There is no evidence that her social housing tenancy is at risk. Respectfully, I do not accept the premise that her current housing is neither stable or secure.
4. Ms Kirchhoff noted that the Applicant's current unit has non-slip flooring, grab handles in situ and non-hob shower, features that are replicated in SDA. The oral evidence from Ms Kirchhoff is that the only features in SDA not provided in the Applicant's current public housing unit is better circulation space for support workers in its kitchen and bathroom and a step free entrance.
5. I accept that the Applicant's current unit is small and the bathroom and kitchen have poor circulation space which may hinder support worker assistance in self-care tasks and with the Applicant assisting in the preparation of meals. However, the support worker notes and reports in evidence indicate that the Applicant does not allow support workers to attend to her in the bathroom when she is showering and she is independent in all toileting tasks. Therefore, circulation space in the bathroom is not an existing issue. Further, the evidence demonstrates that the Applicant, despite attempts to build her skills in meal preparation, has shown no interest in doing so and this is no longer pursued in any capacity building strategies. Again, the lack of circulation space is not an existing issue. I accept that the steps at her front door are not ideal, but the evidence is that the Applicant can navigate this without injury by using the grab rail in place, notwithstanding references to mild balance issues.
6. Ms Dutch asserts that SDA would reduce the risk of functional deterioration because it will encourage the Applicant to engage in necessary and valued activities. Ms Dutch did not further elaborate on these activities and how her current accommodation prevents this from occurring. I do not accept this statement without provision of reasoning to substantiate it.
7. Mses Dutch, Kirchhoff and Walsh advocate for SDA given the Applicant's age and expected deterioration as she ages. It is my view that future deterioration, however probable, is not a satisfactory reason to fund SDA when the Applicant is residing in accommodation that by all accounts meet her access needs.
8. I accept the consistent evidence that the Applicant's current neighbours have caused her to be fearful and there have been incidents where she has been unsafe. However, this has occurred in a context where she had limited support worker assistance during the day and none overnight. Ms Kirchhoff conceded that the Applicant was at less risk of misadventure if she were to remain in her current environment given the increase in support worker support. I find this concession persuasive.
9. I am persuaded that the risks associated with the Applicant's placement in her current housing complex is largely mitigated by the Applicant being provided with increased support worker care. This accords with Ms Soar's evidence that the concerns regarding the Applicant's neighbours had diminished somewhat with the provision of 24/7 care as it moved responsibility from the Applicant having to navigate the environment alone. For completeness, I note that the provision of SDA provides no guarantee that the Applicant will be placed in a neighbourhood without social challenges.
10. The expert evidence before me does not persuade me that the provision of SDA would alleviate the impact of the Applicant's impairments on her functional capacity, prevent the deterioration or improve the Applicant's functional capacity nor maintain or promote the participant's opportunities to build capacity or develop skills[93] or reduce her future need for supports.[94] Certainly, there is no persuasive evidence before me to indicate that the provision of SDA would address the Applicant's impairments in the domains of self-care or self-management.
11. I am also not persuaded that SDA, together with the other supports provided, will substantially improve the Applicant's life stages outcomes as required by paragraph 14(2)(a) of the SDA Rules. At its highest, the evidence suggests the only benefit for the Applicant immediately transferring to SDA is that it will reduce the likelihood that she will have to move into SDA at a later life stage.
12. I next turned my mind to paragraph 14(1)(e) of the SDA Rules which requires consideration of whether, when compared to other supports alone, these supports combined with SDA would represent better value for money. That is, I must be positively satisfied that the provision of SDA would represent better value for money than other accommodation and supports, having regard to the benefits to the participant and any reduction in other supports that flow from the provision of SDA.[95] I also had regard to subclause 7.1 in Schedule 1 to the Support Rules which state that the Act limits supports to be funded by the NDIS to supports that "are not more appropriately funded or provided through other service systems".
13. Ms Dutch states that a residential aged care facility is not appropriate for the Applicant. The Applicant resides in public housing and this accommodation currently meets the Applicant's disability needs. I am not persuaded that it represents value for money to have the Applicant move to SDA when she is currently provided with social housing by the state in which she resides. I conclude that SDA together with the provision of 24/7 support worker assistance does not represent better value for money.
14. Subsection 14(1) of the SDA Rules and paragraph 34(1)(c) of the Act are not established. Accordingly, the Applicant is not eligible for SDA. Therefore, the funding for SDA is not to be included in the Applicant's plan.
15. For completeness, I note the following. I accept the evidence that the Applicant's housing needs will change as she ages. It may also become apparent with the provision of increased support worker assistance that further evidence is gathered about the suitability of the Applicant's current accommodation. In such circumstances an application for SDA could be lodged again.

Is 24/7 1:1 support a reasonable and necessary support?

1. The Respondent contends that 24/7 1:1 support worker assistance is not reasonable and necessary in the long-term and that instead, the Applicant could share 13.5 hours of care if placed in SIL accommodation with a suitably matched female. Instead, it is proposed to provide 1:1, 24/7 support worker care (with passive overnight) for up to six months whilst the Applicant secures, and transitions to, shared accommodation with SIL (replacing the Applicant's existing funding for core assistance with daily living and social, economic and community participation), along with 30 hours of Level 3 support co-ordination to assist with the transition. The Respondent then proposes to fund a 24/7 SIL support at the ratio of 1:1 supports for 10.5 hours per day and 13.5 hours at a ratio of 1:2 for the duration of the plan.
2. The term 'reasonable and necessary support' is not defined in the Act. In the matter of McGarrigle v National Disability Insurance Agency[96] Mortimer J (as she then was) relevantly stated: [97]

Whether a support is "reasonable" requires a different assessment to whether a support is "necessary". Again, it is not necessary in the context of this proceeding to be definitive about the nature and extent of the meaning of the phrase, or its components. It is enough to observe that using the concept of necessity would appear to tie one aspect of the CEO's assessment to an evaluation of the kinds of factors set out in s 34(1)(a) and (b) and (d). The word "reasonable" would appear to be directed at factors such as those set out in s 34(1)(c) and (f). That is not to say the meaning of each word is exhausted by the factors set out in s 34(1): rather, it is to illustrate the different work that each concept does as an adjective in the phrase "reasonable and necessary supports".

1. The Full Court in National Disability Insurance Agency v WRMF[98] considered the meaning of reasonable and necessary supports: [99]

... 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.

2. When addressing the Support Rules in McGarrigle Mortimer J relevantly stated: [100]

The [Support 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 funding under the NDIS.

1. The Applicant was granted access to the scheme due to impairments arising from her intellectual disability. I am satisfied that the provision of 24/7 1:1 support is necessary to address the impairments arising from her intellectual disability. Paragraph 34(1)(aa) of the Act is satisfied.
2. I have already outlined the Applicant's goals at paragraph 102 above. This includes the Applicant's goal to "continue living independently in my own home". Whilst I accept Ms Kirchhoff's testimony that one can live independently and also share a home, the Applicant's goal refers to her "own home". I understand this to mean that she has exclusive possession of the home in which she lives.
3. Ms Gillissen reports that the Applicant is adamant that she does not want to live with another person. I gave more weight Ms Gillissen's report of the Applicant's preferences than to that reported by the sister, who has limited interaction with the Applicant. Ms Soar's account of the Applicant's preferences accords with that of Ms Gillissen. I am persuaded that the Applicant has communicated to her psychologist and support coordinator that she prefers to live alone.
4. I have placed significant weight on the Applicant's preference to live alone, noting that the objects articulated in section 3 of the Act highlight the importance of enabling participants of the Scheme to exercise choice and control in pursuit of their goals.
5. I am satisfied that the provision of 1:1 24/7 support aligns with the Applicant's current goals, objectives and aspirations included in the 2024 plan. Paragraph 34(1)(a) of the Act is satisfied.
6. Ms Kirchhoff testified that the Applicant presented as socially isolated and clearly missed the social interaction that her former workplace provided. She reported that the Applicant was left alone for long periods of time each day (7pm to 8.30am and in the middle of the day). When alone, the Applicant reportedly walks around her local neighbourhood. Ms Kirchhoff suggests that this is likely because the Applicant is lonely and is seeking out social interaction. Ms Kalicinski reported that the Applicant is solely reliant on her support workers to access the community safely. Ms Soar reports that support worker notes suggest that given the time it takes the Applicant to complete self-care tasks (with supervision) the time left for her to access the community with a support worker is severely curtailed.[101]
7. I am satisfied that the provision of 1:1 24/7 support will further facilitate the Applicant's social and economic participation and so paragraph 34(1)(b) of the Act is satisfied.
8. I next considered whether the provision of 1:1 support represents value for money in that the costs are reasonable, relative to both the benefits achieved and the cost of alternative support.
9. The Respondent contends that the provision of 1:1, 24/7 support is only appropriate for a short transitional period before the Applicant transfers to SIL environment to be shared with another person. The area of dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is the provision of 13.5 hours overnight care and a 1:2 rate.
10. I have already concluded that SDA, a comparable support, is not available to the Applicant as she does not meet the eligibility requirements.
11. There is evidence before the Tribunal that suggests that there may be additional benefits to the Applicant in sharing, including reducing her social isolation and increasing her social engagement. Equally, there is compelling evidence that to require the Applicant to move out of her current home and secure private rental SIL and share with another person places her at high risk of anxiety and stress and that the Applicant finds change difficult. Further, it would also require her to leave her current public housing accommodation, where she has security of tenure in a familiar neighbourhood.
12. I found Ms Kirchhoff a compelling witness and gave significant weight to her assessment conducted over four sessions in April and July 2024. I accept Ms Kirchhoff's statement that there is no known clinical reason that the Applicant cannot share accommodation. Certainly, there is no evidence before me indicating the contrary. I also accept Ms Kirchhoff's evidence that the Applicant has made numerous successful transitions in her lifetime.
13. Ms Gillissen was also a credible witness. She has had a long and intense therapeutic relationship with the Applicant. Apart from the brief intervention in 2014 she engaged in monthly sessions with the Applicant over a two-year period from 2022. The evidence of Mses Gillissen and Soar is also consistent in that the Applicant enjoys accessing the community but can easily become overwhelmed in social settings and withdraws when she perceives demands are made on her. Support worker notes corroborate this, noting regular incidents of emotional dysregulation, inappropriate interactions with members of the public and distress if changes are made in her environment. I also accept the sister's testimony that the Applicant has little concept of boundaries, personal space and sharing and that this would pose its own challenges if she was to share with others, given that past attempts at psychoeducation have had little success.
14. I gave little weight to Ms Cahill's statement that the Applicant's supports cannot be provided "effectively or safely" [102] in a shared living arrangement. Putting aside the restrictive practices in relation to the Applicant's access to food (addressed further below) there is no suggestion that the other supports would be compromised by sharing her accommodation. However, I do accept Ms Cahill's statement that sharing accommodation may lead to "unpredictability and stress" [103] for the Applicant, as this is consistent with the evidence of Mses Gillissen and Soar.
15. On balance, I am not persuaded that the possible benefits of increased social engagement in sharing accommodation outweighs the risks of a possible deterioration in the Applicant's mental health and, consequently, in her daily functioning. Furthermore, I am not persuaded that any purported benefit in the Applicant moving to a SIL property to share overnight support outweighs the disadvantage to the Applicant of the loss of secure and stable public housing in an area that she has lived for 15 years.
16. I am satisfied that the provision of 1:1, 24/7 support represents value for money, in that the support is reasonable, relative to the benefits it provides and when compared to the cost of alternative support. Paragraph 34(1)(c) of the Act is satisfied.
17. The evidence from Mses Cahill and Kalicinski indicate that restrictive practices have been in place for some time severely restricting the Applicant's access to food. It was agreed by all professional's engaged with the Applicant that ideally this would be reduced or removed over time, particularly now that she has access 24/7 supervision.
18. I am persuaded that the provision of 1:1, 24/7 support will allow for the better tailoring of behaviour supports and so is likely to be effective and beneficial for the Applicant, having regard to current good practice. Certainly, the evidence suggests that the likelihood of reduction in this restrictive practice is greater if the Applicant lives alone than if she was living in a shared environment.
19. I am satisfied that the provision of 1:1, 24/7 support will be effective and beneficial for the participant having regard to current good practice. Paragraph 34(1)(d) of the Act is satisfied.
20. Having regard to the Applicant's age, functional capacity and that her only social supports are her elderly mother and ill sister, both of whom live a considerable distance from her, I am satisfied that funding 1:1, 24/7 support takes account of what it is reasonable to expect families, carers, informal networks and the community to provide. Paragraph 34(1)(e) of the Act is satisfied.
21. The provision of support workers to provide assistance with daily life and with social, economic and community participation are not supports that generally are not NDIS supports as outlined in Schedule 1 to the Transitional Rules. The provision of 1:1, 24/7 support is an expressly stated NDIS Support, by operation of Item 14 of Schedule 1 to the Transitional Rules.
22. The provision of 1:1, 24/7 support is an NDIS support. Paragraph 34(1)(f) of the Act is satisfied.
23. As paragraphs 34(1)(aa) to (f) are established the provision of 1:1, 24/7 support is a reasonable and necessary support and is to be funded under the Applicant's plan.

1. The unequivocal evidence is that, without restrictive practices in place, the Applicant engages in compulsive eating, including eating non-cooked food, and has been observed rummaging through her neighbours' bins for food. On occasions she has left herself without any food for long periods of time. She has been eating meals prepared by Lite n' Easy for some years. There is in evidence Lite n' Easy quote dated 30 March 2023 of $5,421.78 (excluding co-payment by the Applicant).[104]
2. Ms Kalicinski's 17 May 2024 report recommended 26 hours of dietetics per annum.[105] Ms Kalicinski did not elaborate on the components making up these 26 hours or specific any frequency in consultations when making this recommendation.
3. On 30 January 2023 Ms Kalicinski reported that the provision of 1:1, 24/7 support may assist in eliminating this restrictive practice.[106] On 3 April 2023 Ms Kalicinski reported that the Applicant had been eating Lite n' Easy meals for about three years and expressed a wish to no longer eat them.[107]
4. Ms Cahill testified that a trial of reducing the restrictive practices would be ideal given Agency has indicated that it will provide 24/7 care and had previously recommended dietician services of about 30 minutes per fortnight.[108]
5. Ms Savage gave convincing evidence regarding the support she could provide the Applicant in moving from prepackaged meals to homemade meals as well as ensuring her nutritional needs are being met. Her account of necessary hours amounted to 12 hours per annum (6 hours over a six week period and then 30 minute monthly sessions). Even allowing for an additional 2 hours for report writing, bringing the total hours to 14, her estimate is well below the 26 hours of dietician support sought by the Applicant.
6. On the evidence before me I am satisfied that the provision of dietician support meets the criteria set down in paragraphs 34(1)(aa) to (b) of the Act.
7. However, I am not persuaded that this support represents value for money, as required by paragraph 34(1)(c) of the Act, given the already funded therapy supports, which can be used flexibly, that are incorporated in the 2025 plan, including 24 hours of "Other Professional" assessment, recommendation, therapy or training hours in the stated budget in the Applicant's plan.
8. As paragraph 34(1)(c) of the Act is not established, it follows that the provision of 26 hours of dietetic support is not a reasonable and necessary support and so should not be funded by the NDIS.

It follows that the decision under review is set aside and remitted for reconsideration in accordance with the order that:

a) 24/7 1:1 support worker assistance (including passive overnight) is a reasonable and necessary support pursuant to subsection 34(1) of the National Disability Insurance Act 2013;

b) that the provision of the above support is to replace the Applicant's existing funding for core assistance with daily life and assistance with social, economic and community participation;

c) all other reasonable and necessary supports in the Applicant's current statement of participant supports shall be replicated; and

d) the plan reassessment date is 12 months after the day on which the above reasonable and necessary supports are included in the Applicant's statement of participant supports.

[1] Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth) (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT.

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

[4]https:www.ndis.gov.au/providers/housing-and-living-supports-and-services/speciliast-disability-accommodation.

[8] Beezley v Repatriation Commission [2015] FCAFC 165 at [68] per North, Tracey and Mortimer JJ.

[75] JHTB34, noting that the index refers to this being filed on 21 August 2023.

[93] As required subparagraph 14(1)(b) of the SDA Rules.

[94] As required subparagraph 14(1)(c) of the SDA Rules.

[95] Subsection 14(2) and paragraph 14(1)(e) of the SDA Rules.

[96] [2017] FCA 308, (McGarrigle)

[98] [2020] FCAFC 79 (WRMF)