NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME - participant supports - reasonable and necessary supports - transitional supports rules - ordinary household items - What is not an NDIS Support - NDIS Support_
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME - participant supports - reasonable and necessary supports - transitional supports rules - ordinary household items - What is not an NDIS Support - NDIS Support_
Judgment (3 paragraphs)
[1]
The Applicant made no significant submission. The matter first came before a Tribunal Member in a NDIS List whereby the dismissal submission was before the Tribunal. Having heard from the Applicant at that Tribunal case event on 19 November 2025 I directed the respondent to distil their seven-and-a-half-page legal submission on dismissal down to what became half a page and serve it on the Applicant on or before 26 November 2025 (effectively within seven days) which they did. Whilst the Applicant was given seven days to put on any response the Applicant did not file any material in reply.
At the hearing of the dismissal application the Applicant submitted that she needed support and that her lifestyle was in effect dire because of the lack of NDIS support. The Tribunal observed that the Applicant lives in social housing in Victoria and currently has NDIS support including a budget of $11,026.80 for an occupational therapist and OT to assist her with building skills to manage her psychosocial disability. In addition a $37,487.04 annual budget in the core budget to assist and allow the Applicant to complete household duties including laundry duties was in the applicant's SOPS.
The Applicant also submitted that Victoria Public Housing Community had advised her that the NDIS is responsible for her heating and cooling as she is a NDIS participant. The Tribunal is unable to verify whether such information was provided to the Applicant.
Whilst there were medical reports provided in the T Documents before the Tribunal, those documents make general refence to the need for more appropriate housing. This is not an application to review a decision around SIL or SDA housing models. As the Tribunal understands it no such funding requests have been applied for.
A report from a Psychosocial Coach from September 2023 and an OT letter prepared for the Internal Review refer to the need for 'medical heating and colling'. Reference is made to the need to provide stable accommodation temperature and the need to be able to access 'more appropriate accommodation'. These appear to be mainly related to physical health diagnosis around restricted breathing which the Tribunal understands is not a disability or resulting impairment for which the applicant was accepted into the Scheme.
[2]
The Respondent submitted that the supports are not NDIS funded supports. They submitted that the Tribunal should go through the process as set out in FSWN and the National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 114 (FSWN) whereby the Tribunal outlined the nature and scope of the inquiry that is undertaken over two stages to determine whether a support is a reasonable and necessary support.
The Respondent submitted that from FSWNstep1 is to ascertain whether the support is a NDIS support as defined by determining if the support is identified in Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules and if 'yes', then the support is not a NDIS Support and cannot be funded. If the answer is 'no' then moving to the second stage of step 1 the decision maker is to determine whether the support is of a character identified in Schedule 1 of the Transition Rules. If the answer to that question is 'no' then the support is not a NDIS support and cannot be funded.
The Respondent submitted that consistent with FSWNstep 2 involves ascertaining whether the support satisfies each of the other criteria in paragraphs 34 (1) (aa) (c ) and (f) in the associated Rules (as set out at [7] above) . Following FSWN the Respondent submitted that it is not sufficient just to determine that a support is not excluded by Schedule 2, but if it is not so excluded, then it must be ascertained that it is also included in Schedule 1.
The Respondent noted that the supports are captured by the transitional rules as introduced in October 2024. These provisions apply retrospectively to a review concerning a SOPS. The supports are listed as items 1. (i) and (j) in Schedule 2.
If the Tribunal disagreed with the Schedule 2 argument, following the two step approach outlined above, the Tribunal would then move to whether the supports meet the requirements of Schedule 1 of the Transitional Rules. In respect of Schedule 1, to be a NDIS support the items or supports would need to be ones that assist the Applicant to carry out domestic everyday activities, as identified in schedule 1 item 8. In addition they would need to be considered as assistive products for personal care, or would facilitate access to the community or social interactions and are not therapeutic supports.
Finally, the Respondent's further submission was that none of the supports requested were adaptive or adapted items. They were standard items and not assistive products as outlined in items 8, 9, 14, and 15 of Schedule 1.
[3]
I observe that even if the Applicant infers that these three supports are linked directly to her diagnosed disabilities which result in a psychosocial impairment for which she has been accepted into the Scheme, they still need to be considered NDIS supports.
As I have previously observed, many of the excluded items under Schedule 2 would understandably be of some benefit to a participant in appropriate circumstances. However, as the scheme has evolved over time changes sometimes characterised as restrictions and limitations have been placed on the Scheme to ensure that it is both sustainable and meeting its statutory objectives. It is not a Scheme that will provide a benefit by providing support in all circumstances. For example, during the life of the scheme to date motor vehicles (Cars) for participants are now excluded having been previously included. There are many other examples of focusing the Scheme's resources on the core matters of the need for support.
I note that under s 34 of the NDIS Act reasonable and necessary supports must not only be beneficial for the participant and be linked to their disabilities as set out in s 34 (1) (aa) - (d) inclusive, but that also under subsection (f) the claimed support must be 'an NDIS support for the participant.'
On a reading of the reference at Item 1 of Schedule 2 to the national Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No 1) Act 2024 it is clear that the claimed supports fall within Item 1 (i) for the heating and cooling, and Item (1) (j) a washing machine and a king sized double bed and mattress as such are not NDIS support's.
On this basis under s 34 (1) funding for such a support cannot be made in the participant's Plan as section 34 (1) (f) is not satisfied. This finding is made irrespective of the benefits and support that such purchasers might provide the Applicant in both supporting her as a result of her disability, but also assisting her in reaching her goals.
Without making any further findings I also observe that the Applicant is supported by the provision of funding support hours in her Plan as referred to at [24] above. If the Applicant obtained a washing machine and new bed out of her own funds that might eventually assist the Applicant with reaching her goals and properly utilising her NDIS funding
I note that the matter was listed for a dismissal hearing concerning the whether the requested supports in the Plan Review are NDIS Supports. The matter was initially listed on 19 November 2025 for a dismissal hearing, and I note that both sides had an opportunity to file and serve written submissions.
In addition to written submissions of the Respondent and both parties making oral submissions at hearing, I am satisfied that in these circumstances both parties were afforded procedural fairness including a reasonable opportunity to prepare for the hearing and be heard.
Having given the Applicant the opportunity to put on evidence and submissions about this matter, including an opportunity to be heard on the matter, I find that the support that Applicant seeks, funding for home heating and cooling, a king sized double bed and mattress, as well as a washing machine, cannot be made as such matters on the current evidence are not NDIS supports.
I also note that the only remaining issue in contention between the parties as at 19 November 2025 was the inclusion of funding for the three claimed supports. I note the finding that I have made at [42] and set out at [37] above.
As such the application before the Tribunal is lacking in substance and in accordance with s 101 (1) (a) of the ART Act, the proceedings are dismissed.
Legislation Cited (9)
Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013
Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No [1) Act 2024
Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back_ _on Track No [1) Act 2024(Cth)
Supports) Transitional Rules 2024(Cth)
Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013(Cth)
Review Tribunal Act 2024
Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No](/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/num_act/ndisatnbotn1a2024683/index.html) [1) Act 2024
Interpretation Act 1901
Cases Cited (3)
Tancredi and National Disability Insurance Agency (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 2716 (17 December 2025)
Cases FSWN and the National Disability Insurance Agency [2025] ARTA 114
WVGM and Chief Executive Officer of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 47