Participant-First · Plain Language · Free

The NDIS.
Decoded.

No jargon. No confusion. Just clear, honest breakdowns of NDIS language, policy changes, and what they actually mean for you as a participant.

Explore the Glossary Policy Updates

📖

Plain Language

NDIS jargon translated into everyday words you can actually use.

⚡

Up-to-Date Policy

Policy changes broken down as they happen — and what they mean for your plan.

🙋

Written by a Participant

Real experience from someone who has navigated the system firsthand.

🔍

No Agenda

Independent advice with no provider affiliation. Just honest information.

What's on the blog

View all →

Support Coordination

What Does a Good Support Coordinator Actually Look Like?

What to expect, what to ask for, and the warning signs to watch out for.

June 2026·6 min read

Policy Update

NDIS Reforms 2025–2026: What Changed and What It Means for You

A plain-language breakdown of the most significant policy changes and real-world impact.

May 2026·5 min read

About NDIS Decoded

Written by someone who gets it

I have been an NDIS participant since 2018, when the scheme first rolled out in Brisbane. I know how confusing the language can be, how fast policies change, and how hard it is to find honest information that is not written for providers or bureaucrats.

NDIS Decoded is my way of sharing what I have learned — in plain language, with no agenda.

Read my story

NDIS Glossary

NDIS Language, Decoded

39 terms. Plain language. No spin. Use the search or filter by category to find what you need.

Funding

Reasonable and Necessary

The key test the NDIA uses to decide whether a support will be funded. A support must be related to your disability, represent value for money, and not be something that is the responsibility of another system (like health or education) or that most people pay for themselves.

In practice: If a support ticks all the 'reasonable and necessary' boxes, the NDIA should fund it. If your request is declined, this is usually the reason given — so it's worth understanding how to argue your case against each criteria.

Core Supports

The most flexible part of your NDIS budget, covering everyday supports like personal care, help around the house, community access, and transport. Most Core funding can be shifted between sub-categories as your needs change.

In practice: If you have Core funding, you generally have a lot of freedom to use it however you need day-to-day — for example, swapping hours from housework to social activities if your week changes.

Capacity Building Supports

Funding aimed at helping you build skills, increase independence, and work toward your long-term goals. This covers things like therapy, support coordination, employment support, and learning new skills.

In practice: Capacity Building funding is meant to be an investment in your future — the idea is that over time these supports help you rely less on paid help and do more on your own terms.

Capital Supports

Funding for big-ticket, one-off items like wheelchairs, communication devices, home modifications, and specialist disability accommodation. This budget is the least flexible — it can only be spent on the specific items approved in your plan.

In practice: Because Capital funding is 'stated' (locked to specific items), you can't use leftover Capital funds for other things. Make sure any assistive technology or modification you need is clearly included in your plan.

Flexible Supports

Supports funded in your plan that are not locked to a specific use — you can shift the money within that category to whatever support best meets your needs at the time.

In practice: Most Core Supports are flexible. So if you have funded hours for community participation and you want to use some of those hours for help with cooking instead, you can — without needing to change your plan.

Stated Supports

Supports in your plan that are locked to a specific purpose or provider. You cannot redirect stated support funding to a different type of support, even if you have money left over.

In practice: If something in your plan is stated — for example, 'specialist behaviour support' — you can only use that money for exactly that purpose. If your needs change, you may need to request a plan review to unlock or redirect the funding.

Plan Manager

A person or organisation you can choose to handle the financial side of your NDIS plan. They pay your providers' invoices on your behalf, keep track of your spending, and send you regular statements.

In practice: Having a Plan Manager gives you the freedom to use unregistered providers (which opens up more choice) without having to deal with the paperwork yourself. The cost of plan management comes from a separate budget in your plan — it doesn't eat into your other funding.

Self-Managed

A funding management option where you are in charge of paying your own providers, keeping receipts, and claiming reimbursements from the NDIA. It gives you the most choice and flexibility.

In practice: Self-managing means you can hire almost anyone — including unregistered providers and sometimes family members — and you can negotiate your own rates. The trade-off is that you take on the admin and responsibility for keeping good records.

NDIA-Managed (Agency-Managed)

A funding management option where the NDIA pays your registered providers directly. You don't handle any money, but you're limited to using only NDIS-registered providers.

In practice: Agency management is the simplest option administratively, but it does restrict your choices — you can only access providers who are registered with the NDIS, which can limit your options in some areas.

Planning

NDIA (National Disability Insurance Agency)

The government agency that runs the NDIS. They decide who gets access, set the rules, approve plans, and hold the funding. When people say 'the NDIS made a decision', they usually mean the NDIA.

In practice: The NDIA is the organisation you are technically dealing with when you apply, have a plan meeting, or appeal a decision — not just a website or a scheme in the abstract.

NDIS (National Disability Insurance Scheme)

Australia's government-funded program that provides support to people with a permanent and significant disability. It gives eligible people an individual budget to spend on supports that help them live their life and work toward their goals.

In practice: Think of the NDIS as a personalised funding account. Instead of one-size-fits-all services, you get a plan tailored to your disability-related needs.

Participant Plan

The official document that records your goals, the supports the NDIS will fund, and how much money is available in each category. It is reviewed on a set schedule — usually every 12 months.

In practice: Your plan is your roadmap and your budget rolled into one. You should read it carefully, because what's written in it determines what you can spend NDIS funds on.

Goals

The things you want to achieve in your life — big or small — that your NDIS plan is built around. Goals could include things like living more independently, getting a job, improving communication, or joining a community group.

In practice: Your goals shape your entire plan. The more clearly you can describe what you want to achieve, the better positioned you are to ask for the supports you actually need.

LAC (Local Area Coordinator)

A person employed by an organisation that partners with the NDIA to help participants with simpler needs develop and manage their plans. Your LAC is often your main point of contact with the NDIA.

In practice: Unlike a Support Coordinator, your LAC is not funded from your plan — they're a free service. However, they work for the NDIA's partner, not directly for you, so they may have limited time to give you.

Early Childhood Partner

An organisation that works with the NDIA to support families of children under 7 who have a disability or developmental delay. They help families access the right supports early — sometimes without needing a formal NDIS plan at all.

In practice: If your child is under 7 and you're concerned about their development, the Early Childhood Partner is your first port of call. They focus on getting early intervention happening quickly, which can make a big difference to long-term outcomes.

Functional Capacity Assessment

An assessment — usually done by an occupational therapist or similar professional — that looks at what you can and can't do in everyday life due to your disability. It documents your strengths and challenges across areas like mobility, communication, self-care, and social interaction.

In practice: A strong Functional Capacity Assessment is one of the most useful documents you can have. It provides the evidence base for your funding requests and can significantly improve the outcome of your plan meeting or review.

PACE (Provider and Participant Communication Environment)

The NDIA's new computer system, rolled out from late 2023, replacing the older myplace portal. PACE changes how participants manage their plans, how providers get paid, and how participants connect with providers — giving participants more control and visibility over their funding.

In practice: When your plan moves to PACE, you'll use the 'my NDIS' app or portal instead of myplace. One key change: instead of providers setting up service bookings, you 'endorse' the providers you want to work with, which is your way of giving them permission to claim from your plan.

Supports

Support Coordinator

A professional funded in some NDIS plans to help you understand your plan, connect with providers, and get your supports up and running. They are especially useful if your supports are complex or you are new to the NDIS.

In practice: A Support Coordinator is like a guide and problem-solver. If you're not sure how to find providers or what your plan actually means, they're the person to call.

Specialist Support Coordinator

A more qualified version of a Support Coordinator, funded for participants with more complex needs — such as people in crisis, those with multiple complex conditions, or people involved in the justice system. They typically have a background in social work or a related field.

In practice: If your situation involves risk, housing instability, or highly complex support arrangements, the NDIA may fund a Specialist Support Coordinator instead of (or in addition to) a regular Support Coordinator.

Support Worker

A person who provides direct, hands-on support to a participant — helping with things like personal care, daily tasks, community access, or social activities.

In practice: Support workers are the people you'll interact with most often day-to-day. You can hire them through a provider organisation or, if you're self or plan managed, you can engage them directly.

Disability Support Worker

Another name for a support worker — a trained person who assists NDIS participants with daily living, personal care, and community participation. The title is often used interchangeably with 'support worker'.

Allied Health

A broad group of health professionals — including occupational therapists, physiotherapists, speech pathologists, psychologists, and dietitians — who can provide therapeutic supports funded through your Capacity Building budget.

In practice: Allied health professionals often play a key role in writing assessments and reports that support funding decisions, as well as delivering therapy directly. Building a good relationship with your allied health team can strengthen future plan reviews.

Assistive Technology (AT)

Equipment or devices that help you do things you otherwise couldn't — or couldn't do safely. This ranges from low-cost items like shower chairs and communication apps, to high-cost items like power wheelchairs and eye-gaze devices.

In practice: Low-cost AT (under a few hundred dollars) can usually come out of your Core budget. High-cost AT is funded through Capital Supports and usually needs a quote and an assessment from an AT specialist before it will be approved.

SIL (Supported Independent Living)

NDIS-funded paid supports that help you live as independently as possible — usually in a shared house with other NDIS participants, with support workers on-site. SIL covers the cost of support, not the rent or accommodation itself.

In practice: Getting SIL funding approved is a significant process that usually requires a detailed assessment of your support needs. SIL is distinct from where you live — it's the support package, not the house.

ILO (Individualised Living Options)

A flexible NDIS-funded approach to home and living support that is designed around you and your goals, rather than fitting you into an existing group home model. ILO funding can support arrangements like living with a host family, co-residency, or a highly customised support package in your own home.

In practice: ILO is ideal for people who want a personalised living arrangement that doesn't fit the standard group home model. Because it's highly flexible, it requires careful planning and often involves an exploration phase before funding is confirmed.

SLES (School Leaver Employment Supports)

NDIS-funded support specifically for young people with disability who are leaving school and need help building the skills and confidence to enter employment. SLES provides up to two years of tailored job-readiness support.

In practice: SLES is different from regular employment services — it's not about placing you in a job immediately, but about preparing you for work through experience, training, and skill-building at your own pace.

Specialist Support Coordination

An intensive level of support coordination for participants with complex or high-risk situations. A Specialist Support Coordinator has specialist qualifications and experience to manage complex support arrangements, crises, and system navigation.

In practice: If a participant is at risk of homelessness, involved in the justice system, or has a mental health crisis, a Specialist Support Coordinator can step in with more intensive, expert support than a regular coordinator can provide.

Mainstream Supports

Services provided by government systems outside the NDIS — such as hospitals, schools, mental health services, and housing — that everyone in Australia is entitled to access. The NDIS is not meant to replace these.

In practice: If a support you need is reasonably the responsibility of the health or education system, the NDIA may decline to fund it on the basis that it should come from mainstream services. Knowing which system is responsible for what can save you a lot of frustration.

Providers

Service Agreement

A written contract between you and a provider that spells out what services they will deliver, how much they will charge, and what both sides are expected to do. It protects both you and the provider.

In practice: Read your service agreement carefully before signing. Check the notice period for ending the agreement, what happens if you want to change providers, and whether the prices match the NDIS price guide.

Service Booking

Under the older NDIS system (myplace portal), a service booking was a reservation of funds in your plan for a specific provider. It meant the provider could claim payment against that amount. This process has changed under PACE.

In practice: Under PACE, service bookings have largely been replaced by provider endorsements. If your plan is still on the old system, service bookings still apply — but expect the process to change when your plan moves to PACE.

Provider

Any person or organisation that delivers supports or services to NDIS participants. This includes large organisations, sole traders, therapists, support workers, and equipment suppliers.

In practice: Not all providers are the same — some are registered with the NDIS and some aren't. Your funding management type determines which providers you can access.

Registered Provider

A provider that has been approved and registered with the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. They must meet strict quality and safety standards and are subject to audits.

In practice: If your plan is NDIA-managed, you can only use registered providers. Registered providers must charge within the NDIS price limits, so you can't negotiate lower prices with them the way you might with unregistered providers.

Unregistered Provider

A provider who is not registered with the NDIS. They can still deliver NDIS-funded services, but only to participants who are self-managed or plan-managed.

In practice: Unregistered providers aren't necessarily lower quality — many excellent sole-trader therapists and support workers operate this way. But because they're not audited by the NDIS Commission, it's worth doing your own checks.

Reviews

Plan Review (Scheduled)

A formal check-in with the NDIA — usually every 12 months — to look at how your plan has been going, whether your goals have changed, and what support you'll need in the next plan period.

In practice: Your scheduled review is your best opportunity to ask for increased funding or different supports. Come prepared with evidence: reports from therapists, notes on what has and hasn't worked, and a clear statement of your goals.

Unscheduled Review

A plan review you can request at any time if your circumstances change significantly — for example, if your disability worsens, a family carer becomes unavailable, or your current supports are no longer meeting your needs.

In practice: You don't have to wait until your scheduled review if something changes. The key is to have evidence that your current plan no longer meets your needs — the NDIA won't typically approve a review just because you'd like more funding.

Internal Review

The first formal step if you disagree with an NDIA decision — such as being refused access to the NDIS, having a funding request declined, or being unhappy with your plan. A different NDIA delegate reviews the original decision.

In practice: You usually have 3 months to request an internal review. It's worth getting help from an advocate or your Support Coordinator before submitting, as the quality of your response and any new evidence you provide matters significantly.

AAT / ART (Administrative Review Tribunal)

The independent tribunal you can apply to if you're still unhappy after an internal review. Previously called the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), it was replaced by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) in October 2024. It provides an independent review of NDIA decisions.

In practice: Applying to the ART is a more formal process and can take time, but it is free to apply and you can get support from a disability advocate or lawyer. Many cases are settled before they reach a full hearing.

Rights

Nominee

A person appointed by a participant (or in some cases by the NDIA) to help manage their NDIS plan and make decisions on their behalf. A nominee can sign service agreements and manage plan decisions.

In practice: A nominee is not the same as a legal guardian. It's an NDIS-specific role. If you need someone to help you manage your plan but don't want to give up all decision-making, a nominee arrangement can be set up with specific boundaries.

NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission

The independent government body that registers and regulates NDIS providers, handles complaints, and investigates incidents of abuse or neglect. They set and enforce the standards all registered providers must meet.

In practice: If you have a complaint about a registered provider — or something happens that you feel is unsafe or wrong — the NDIS Commission is who you report it to. They can investigate and take action against providers.

All Articles

The Blog

Plain-language breakdowns of NDIS topics, written from a participant's perspective.

Policy & Advocacy

I Submitted to the Senate. Here’s What I Said.

An 18-page submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the NDIS Future Generations Bill. What I argued, why it was personal, and what it means for participants.

June 2026 · 7 min read

Support Coordination

What Does a Good Support Coordinator Actually Look Like?

What to expect, what to ask for, and the warning signs to watch out for.

June 2026·6 min read

Coming soon

Plan Management

Self-Managed vs Plan-Managed vs NDIA-Managed

The real differences, without the spin.

Coming July 2026

Coming soon

Plan Reviews

How to Prepare for Your NDIS Plan Review

A step-by-step guide to walking in confident.

Coming August 2026

Policy Updates

What's Changed & Why It Matters

NDIS policy moves fast. Here is what is actually relevant to you as a participant — in plain language.

★ Major Reform — Read This

NDIS Amendment Bill 2026

NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill — What It Actually Means for You

Introduced 14 May 2026. This is the biggest change to the NDIS since it launched. It touches eligibility, your plan, support coordination, community participation, and children with autism. If you are a current participant, changes will affect you directly between now and 2028. Here is the honest breakdown — and what I think needs to be said about it.

Affects: All participants — especially support coordination, plan reviews, social participation, and children on the scheme

I have been on the NDIS since 2018. I have had multiple plans, three different plan management arrangements, and I have been through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I know what it is like to navigate this system when the rules shift underneath you — and they are shifting again, in ways that matter.

The Government is calling this bill about "securing" the NDIS. I understand the intent. The scheme is expensive and there are real problems with fraud and inconsistency. But there is a difference between fixing what is broken and making it harder for the people who genuinely need it. Some of what is in this bill does the first. Some of it does the second. Participants deserve to know which is which.

What is actually changing

Functional Capacity Assessments replace diagnosis lists — from April 2027 Instead of your diagnosis being the main basis for eligibility, you will now be assessed through a standardised Functional Capacity Assessment (FCA). The idea is consistency. The reality — for many people — is cost, stress, and inconsistency in how assessors apply the framework. I went through an FCA that cost over $3,000 out of pocket. On Centrelink. I had to take out a loan. That is the kind of real-world consequence that policy documents do not capture. Until assessments are fully funded by the Commonwealth, this change risks locking out people who cannot afford to prove their own disability.
Unspent funds will not roll over — from October 2026 If you do not use your plan funding before your plan ends, it disappears. This punishes the participants who are hardest to support — those with communication needs, chronic illness flare-ups, or a shortage of providers in their area. The system failing to deliver is not the same as the participant not needing the support. Losing unspent funds should not be the consequence.
Social and community participation budgets reset — from 1 October 2026 The Government is cutting and resetting community participation budgets, replacing some of this funding with a $200 million Inclusive Communities Fund. For a scheme with hundreds of thousands of participants, $200 million spread across the country does not come close to replacing individual funded supports. Community inclusion is not a nice-to-have. For many participants, it is the difference between isolation and a life.
Unscheduled plan reviews become harder to access — immediately The criteria for requesting a review outside your scheduled plan cycle have been tightened significantly. Life does not happen on a schedule. A change in health, a relationship breakdown, a new diagnosis — these things require responsive planning. Making it harder to trigger a review does not reduce those circumstances. It just leaves participants stuck with a plan that no longer fits.
Support coordination becomes a commissioned service — from 1 July 2028 Support coordination will move to a capped, commissioned model rather than an individually funded support. What this means in practice: the NDIA, not the participant, will control how many hours of coordination you can access and who delivers it. Choice and control — the founding principle of the NDIS — takes a direct hit here. A good support coordinator is not interchangeable. Relationships matter. Continuity matters.
Children 0–8 with low-to-moderate autism exit the NDIS — from 1 January 2028 Under the "Thriving Kids" program (funded at $4 billion), young children with low-to-moderate support needs will be directed to mainstream and foundational supports rather than the NDIS. The principle is not unreasonable. The risk is the gap between what mainstream services can actually deliver and what these children need. Families will bear the cost of that gap.

My honest take

The NDIS was never supposed to be a lifeboat. It was supposed to be a ship. A way to carry people through their lives with the support they need. When we talk about reforms that remove funding, tighten access, and centralise control, we are not building a better ship — we are shrinking the lifeboat. And the instruction to people who cannot fit is to swim.

You cannot build the ship and remove the lifeboat at the same time.

Some of this bill is necessary. Fraud is real. Inconsistency is real. The scheme's financial sustainability matters. But the way you secure the NDIS for future generations is by making it work better for the people in it now — not by making it harder to access, harder to keep, and harder to fight for.

I submitted to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee during the inquiry into this bill. If you want to understand the legal and policy detail behind these concerns, the committee's report and the original submissions are public. Read them. Then form your own view.

Sources: Department of Health — NDIS Legislation Changes | People with Disability Australia — NDIS Reforms Overview

May 2026

Community Participation

Your Social and Community Participation Budget Is Being Cut — What You Need to Know Before October 2026

From 1 October 2026, budgets for social, civic and community participation will be progressively reduced. The average cut is around $7,000 per participant. Here is what is actually happening, who it affects, and what to do before your next plan review.

Affects: All participants with social and community participation funding

Community participation funding covers supports that help you get out in the world — visiting family, going to sport, attending community groups, building social skills, and developing independence. For many participants, it is the part of the plan that makes the most visible difference to daily life.

From 1 October 2026, those budgets are being cut. In his National Press Club speech on 22 April 2026, Minister Butler was direct: "I want to be honest with people; this will have a material impact on participant plans." The average plan spend — currently around $31,000 — will be brought back to approximately $26,000, the level it was at in 2023. For participants with higher social participation allocations, the reduction in their individual budgets will appear larger than that.

"The runaway budget for social and community participation is one such area. Five years ago, this stream of support alone cost $4 billion per year. This year, it’s more than $12 billion. If left unchecked, the spending would skyrocket to around $20 billion by the end of the decade." — Minister Mark Butler, National Press Club, 22 April 2026

What is actually changing

Budget reductions begin 1 October 2026 The cuts will be rolled out progressively as participants go through plan reassessments or renewals over the following year. Your plan will not change overnight — but when your next review comes, your community participation budget will likely be lower than it is now.
Capacity building daily activities also affected A 10% reduction applies to capacity building daily activities — the supports that help you build skills and independence. This is separate from the social and community participation cut.
Essential supports are not affected In-home assistance, personal care, home and vehicle modifications, mobility aids, transport, SDA, and consumables are not subject to these cuts. The reductions are targeted specifically at social and community participation and capacity building daily activities.
The $200 million Inclusive Communities Fund does not replace your individual funding Minister Butler announced the fund will "rebuild capability among community organisations so people have new options to genuinely participate in their local community." It is open to mainstream and disability organisations. Consultations start July 2026. This money goes to organisations, not to participants directly — it is not a replacement for your individual plan funding.
New legislation may allow cuts without plan reassessment The proposed bill includes powers that could allow the NDIA to reduce budgets without requiring a formal plan review. This is one of the most concerning aspects for participants who rely on predictable funding.

What this means in practice

Community participation is not a luxury. For participants who live alone, have limited informal supports, or rely on funded workers to access their community, this funding is how they stay connected. Cutting it does not reduce the need. It reduces the ability to meet it.

The Government's framing is that some of this funding has grown beyond what is disability-related — that it has drifted into general lifestyle activities. There is some truth in that. But the risk is that the reset catches participants who genuinely need this support alongside those who do not.

Supports that link clearly to your disability-related goals — building social skills, community access, reducing isolation — remain fundable. The stronger your documentation of why these supports are necessary, the better placed you are at your next review.

What to do before your next review

Document everything now Before your next plan review, gather evidence of how your community participation supports link to your disability and your goals. Provider notes, support worker records, and allied health reports all help.
Talk to your support coordinator If you have support coordination in your plan, now is the time to use it. Ask your coordinator to help you build a case for your current funding levels at your next review.
Know your review rights If your plan is reviewed and your community participation budget is cut in a way that does not reflect your actual needs, you have the right to request an internal review and, if needed, escalate to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Document your reasons carefully.
Stay engaged with your plan Use your current funding appropriately and keep records. Unspent community participation funding is harder to justify at review — it becomes evidence that you did not need it.

The Foundational Supports that are meant to absorb some of this reduction — community programs, group activities, local organisations — are not yet operational. Consultation on the Inclusive Communities Fund does not even start until July 2026. Participants are being asked to accept cuts to individual funding before the replacement system exists.

Sources: Minister Butler — National Press Club Speech, 22 April 2026 | Minister Butler — ABC 7:30 Interview, 22 April 2026 | Department of Health — Securing the NDIS | ABC News — $7,000 NDIS cuts to social funding

June 2026

DSW Cost Model · 2025–26

How the NDIS Calculates Your Support Worker’s Hourly Rate — The DSW Cost Model Decoded

Ever looked at your plan and wondered why a support worker costs $75 an hour when the worker themselves earns $37? The Disability Support Worker Cost Model is the formula the NDIA uses every year to set price limits. This is the 2025–26 version — in plain language, so you can see exactly where the money goes.

Affects: All participants — especially those self-managing, plan-managed, or negotiating rates with providers

Every July, the NDIA updates the maximum hourly rate that registered providers can charge for disability supports. That number — the “price limit” — is not pulled out of the air. It comes from the Disability Support Worker (DSW) Cost Model, a transparent formula that stacks wages, leave, super, insurance, admin and a small margin on top of the base SCHADS Award rate.

The 2025–26 model, published 16 June 2025 and valid from 1 July 2025, is broken down below.

The price limit is not what the worker takes home. It is the fully-loaded cost of one billable hour. By the time all costs are added, the real cost of employing a DSW is roughly 91–120% more than their base hourly wage.

The four worker levels

The NDIA recognises that not all support work is equal. The model uses four worker levels (DSW 1–4), each mapped to a classification under the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services (SCHADS) Industry Award. Higher levels attract higher base wages and higher operational overhead assumptions.

Level	SCHADS	Hourly Rate (1 Jul 2025)	Typical Work
DSW 1	2.3	$36.75	Personal care, daily living, SIL
DSW 2	2.4 / 3.1	$38.19	High-intensity supports, complex behaviour, STA
DSW 3	3.2	$39.77	Support coordination, skill development, capacity building
DSW 4	4.4	$47.97	Psychosocial recovery coaching, AT mentoring

Shift loadings

On top of the base rate, providers must pay SCHADS Award penalty rates for certain shifts. These loadings are built into the price limits for each corresponding support item — which is why your Sunday or public holiday supports are significantly more expensive than weekday daytime.

Shift Type	Loading on Base Rate
Weekday (standard)	0% — no loading
Evening shift	+12.5%
Night shift	+15.0%
Saturday	+50.0%
Sunday	+100.0%
Public holiday	+150.0%

Direct on-costs: what gets added to the base wage

Once the base wage is set, the NDIA layers on mandatory employment costs. Every worker is modelled as permanent (not casual) and entitled to:

Annual leave20 days plus 17.5% leave loading
Personal leave10 days personal/sick leave (100% assumed drawn)
Public holidays10 days (76 hours) public holiday leave
Long service leave~33 hours/year accrued (100% assumed drawn)
Superannuation12% of base salary — increased to this rate from 1 July 2025
Employee allowances1% of base salary for travel and other entitlements

The cumulative effect is a consistent +37.51% on top of base hourly rates across all four levels. For a DSW Level 1 worker on $36.75/hr, the cost per worked hour rises to $50.54 after direct on-costs.

DSW Level	Base Rate	After Direct On-Costs	Increase
DSW 1	$36.75	$50.54	+37.51%
DSW 2	$38.19	$52.52	+37.51%
DSW 3	$39.77	$54.69	+37.51%
DSW 4	$47.97	$65.97	+37.51%

Operational overheads

Operational overheads cover the costs providers incur to actually run support services — workers’ compensation insurance, rostering, team supervision, quality and safeguarding compliance, and the gap between hours rostered and hours billed (utilisation costs). They are expressed as a percentage of direct costs and rise with complexity.

DSW Level	Overhead Rate	Added per Hour	Cumulative Cost/Hr
DSW 1	21.65%	$10.94	$61.48
DSW 2	26.65%	$14.00	$66.52
DSW 3	28.15%	$15.40	$70.09
DSW 4	39.90%	$26.32	$92.29

The much higher overhead for DSW Level 4 (39.9%) reflects the significantly more intensive supervision and compliance requirements for psychosocial recovery coaching and complex supports.

Corporate overheads and margin

On top of operational costs, the model adds two final layers:

Corporate overheads12% of all direct and operational costs — covers accounting, HR, legal, marketing and IT
Margin2% of all costs — equates to an 8% return on three months of working capital

After these layers, the final modelled hourly cost before shift loadings is:

DSW Level	After Corp. Overheads	Final (After Margin)	Total Increase from Base
DSW 1	$68.86	$70.23	+91.1%
DSW 2	$74.50	$75.98	+99.0%
DSW 3	$78.50	$80.06	+101.3%
DSW 4	$103.36	$105.43	+119.8%

By the time all costs are stacked, even the simplest support (DSW Level 1) costs 91% more than the worker’s hourly wage. For complex psychosocial recovery coaching (DSW Level 4), the total cost is nearly 120% above the base wage.

Accommodation cost amounts (2025–26)

For supports involving accommodation, the NDIA adds separate cost amounts, adjusted annually to the March CPI (2.4% for March 2025):

Component	2025–26 Amount	What It Covers
Centre Based Capital	$2.59 / hour	Facility running and maintenance for centre-based supports
STA Capital	$155.68 / day	Capital costs for Short Term Accommodation (respite)
STA Hotel Component	$63.13 / day	Food, heating and cleaning for STA
Medium Term Accommodation	$155.68 / day	Same as STA capital component

Why this matters for participants

Price limits are calculated, not guessedPrice limits are not arbitrary — they come from a transparent formula. If a provider is charging at or near the limit, that is not necessarily price-gouging; it often reflects real employment costs.
Self-managed participants have more flexibilityWhen you self-manage you can sometimes negotiate rates below the price limit with unregistered providers — but understand the workforce sustainability implications before you do.
Advocacy contextCases like WXDD v NDIA (see our case summary) turn on whether high-intensity supports are “reasonable and necessary” under s34 of the NDIS Act. The Cost Model underpins what those supports actually cost — and why replacing a Level 2 paid worker with an unpaid parent represents a real financial saving to the Scheme that the Agency may seek to exploit.

Support item quick reference

Support Category	DSW Level Used
Standard personal care / self-care (daily living)	DSW Level 1
High-intensity self-care / SIL high intensity	DSW Level 2
Intensive and complex behaviour supports	DSW Level 2
Short Term Accommodation (STA/respite)	DSW Level 2
Support Coordination (Level 1: Support Connection)	DSW Level 3
Skill development, life transition, capacity building	DSW Level 3
Psychosocial Recovery Coaching	DSW Level 4
Assistive Technology Mentoring	DSW Level 4

Key takeaway

The price limit in your NDIS plan is not what the worker earns — it is the fully-loaded cost of employment. A DSW Level 1 worker earning $36.75/hr costs $70.23/hr to deliver after all employer obligations, overhead and margin. Every dollar above that base wage goes toward keeping the sector financially viable.

Source: NDIA — DSW Cost Model Assumptions and Methodology 2025–26, Version 1.0, 16 June 2025

June 2025

Monthly Roundups

ART Cases — Monthly Archive

At the end of each month, a summary of every new ART decision added that month — key trends, outcomes, and what they mean for you. New cases are added every Thursday. Full breakdowns are on the ART Cases page.

General information only — not legal or NDIS advice.

June 2026

June 2026 Roundup

6 cases · ARTA 976, 1018, 1047, 1049, 1060, 1062

6 decisions

Across DRWLS, WMYHH, Turner, Johns, Brown and LCDDK, the Tribunal is drawing sharper lines around what counts as an NDIS support, what must be proved at access stage, and what sort of evidence now wins or loses a case.

TREND 1

Harder boundaries around “NDIS supports”

Mainstream recreation, social activity, and therapy for general health are increasingly excluded at the threshold question.

TREND 2

Section 34(1)(aa) matters more

Advocacy must tie requested supports back to impairments that met access, or first secure recognition of additional impairments under s24.

TREND 3

Transitional Rules have real bite

Schedule 2 exclusions are doing heavy lifting in lifestyle, recreation, fitness, hobby and family-responsibility arguments.

TREND 4

Evidence beats sympathy

Tribunal members want recent, task-level, independently testable functional evidence — not broad letters or self-report alone.

TREND 5

Burnout is not automatically access

Severe stress, autistic burnout and caring load do not substitute for proof of substantially reduced functional capacity in a statutory domain.

TREND 6

Core supports remain the strongest lane

Support worker hours, domestic assistance and transport remain the areas where well-evidenced claims can still deliver significant outcomes.

CASES THIS MONTH

DRWLS v NDIA · ARTA 976 · Partly Successful WMYHH v NDIA · ARTA 1049 · Partly Successful Turner v NDIA · ARTA 1060 · Remitted Johns v NDIA · ARTA 1047 · Partly Successful Brown v CEO NDIA · ARTA 1018 · Unsuccessful LCDDK v NDIA · ARTA 1062 · Procedural

The “Back on Track” framework is narrowing the scheme’s boundaries — but the Tribunal is still willing to increase core supports where evidence clearly shows they are necessary to sustain participation, safety or informal care.

Coming Soon

July 2026 roundup will be published at the end of the month.

About

From humble beginnings to wholehearted growth.

I have been an NDIS participant since 2018 — when the scheme first rolled out in Brisbane. In that time I have sat through plan meetings that left me more confused than when I walked in, navigated funding categories that made no sense, and tried to understand policy changes that seemed written for anyone but the person they affected most — the participant.

So I started writing it down. Not for providers or planners, but for people like me. People who just want a straight answer.

NDIS Decoded is that. Plain language. Real experience. No agenda. I am not a provider, I am not affiliated with the NDIA, and I do not have a service to sell you. I am just someone who has been through the system and wants to make it a little less confusing for the next person.

I am based in Brisbane, Queensland, and I am studying Law and Business at QUT — which gives me an appreciation for how much language matters, and how much damage bad language can do to people who are trying to access the support they are entitled to.

"The care and compassion in the disability community is next to none. I just want to add to it."

🙋

What This Site Stands For

The principles behind NDIS Decoded

Plain language always

If a participant cannot understand it, it is not good enough. Every article and definition is written to be read, not decoded.

No agenda

No providers, no sponsors, no referral fees. The only reason for anything on this site is that it helps participants.

Lived experience first

Information that comes from actually being in the system is different from information that comes from reading about it.

Up to date

The NDIS changes constantly. I update content when policy changes, not when it is convenient.

Policy & Advocacy

I Submitted to the Senate. Here’s What I Said.

June 2026 · 7 min read

I submitted to the Senate inquiry on the NDIS Future Generations Bill. Here’s why.

A few weeks ago I put together an 18-page submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. The inquiry is into the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026. I submitted on 26 May, just before the 29 May deadline. I also told the Committee I was willing to appear at the hearings in June.

This is not something I do every day. I’m a final-year law and business student at QUT, I’m autistic with co-occurring conditions, and I’ve been on the NDIS since the Brisbane rollout in 2018. I’ve had multiple plans. I’ve used all three funding-management modes — self-managed, plan-managed, and Agency-managed. I’ve been through the Administrative Review Tribunal. I know what this scheme looks like from the inside.

That experience is exactly why I felt I had to say something.

What is a Senate submission, and why does it matter?

If you’ve never heard of a Senate committee inquiry, here’s the short version. When the Australian Parliament is considering a new law, a Senate committee can invite the public to comment on it. Anyone can submit — individuals, organisations, researchers, peak bodies. The submissions become part of the official public record. The Committee reads them, sometimes calls people to appear at public hearings, and then writes a report that feeds into the parliamentary debate.

It’s one of the few places in the system where a participant’s personal experience carries as much weight as an expert’s opinion. You don’t need a law degree. You don’t need to be affiliated with any organisation. You just need to explain what this bill would mean for your life.

Submissions for this inquiry closed on 29 May 2026. Hearings are scheduled in Melbourne on 9 June and in Canberra on 10 and 11 June. For those of us in Brisbane, it’s videoconference only — which, honestly, is its own kind of commentary on access.

What I argued — and why it’s personal

Functional Capacity Assessments

The bill introduces Functional Capacity Assessments (FCAs) as a gateway to NDIS access. I’ve already paid for one. It cost me over $3,000 out of pocket. I’m on Centrelink. I took out a loan to cover it.

If the Commonwealth wants assessments to be the front door to the scheme, the Commonwealth should pay for them. Shifting that cost onto applicants — many of whom are already financially stretched — is not a reform. It’s a barrier.

We’ve been here before. In 2021, the Independent Assessments proposal was defeated after enormous community backlash. FCAs risk repeating the same mistake with a different name. My submission drew that parallel directly.

Plan management

The Explanatory Memorandum describes plan management in a way that does not match reality. I know this because I’ve lived all three versions of it. Self-managed gave me flexibility but came with admin burden. Plan-managed gave me a buffer. Agency-managed was restrictive in ways the EM doesn’t acknowledge.

No single mode is right for every participant. The bill’s framing misses that completely.

Support coordination

The proposed move to a commissioned and capped model for support coordination worries me. Support coordinators help participants navigate a genuinely complex system. Removing their ability to advocate freely, and capping what can be funded, takes away one of the scheme’s most practical tools for genuine choice and control.

Social and community participation

The proposed cuts to social and community participation funding don’t just affect activities. They affect connection. Isolation is a real health risk for many participants, especially autistic adults. Reducing this funding isn’t a savings measure — it’s a cost shift onto other parts of the health and welfare system.

Unscheduled plan reviews and unspent funds

Life doesn’t follow a schedule. When a participant’s circumstances change — a hospital admission, a relationship breakdown, a support worker leaving — they need to be able to request a plan review outside the normal cycle. Making that harder harms the people the scheme is supposed to serve.

On unspent funds: if a participant can’t spend their plan because providers aren’t available, or waitlists are too long, or the system didn’t deliver — punishing them by refusing to roll over the funds is not fair. The system failing should not become the participant’s problem.

“Build the ship before you remove the lifeboats”

That phrase ended up being the central argument in my submission. A lot of what this bill does is remove supports that participants currently rely on — before the alternatives are built, tested, or proven.

If the government wants to transition the scheme to a new model, that is a conversation worth having. But you cannot take away existing supports and simultaneously promise that something better is coming. You build the ship first. Then you remove the lifeboats.

The sequencing here is backwards, and participants will bear the cost of that.

One other thing I said

You may have seen the phrase “if you’ve met one person with autism, you’ve met one person with autism.” I used that framing deliberately. The bill’s drafting and the EM’s assumptions treat NDIS participants as a relatively uniform group. We are not. What works for one person can be actively harmful for another. Policy that doesn’t account for that diversity will fail people.

I also want to be upfront about something. I used AI tools to help organise and structure the submission. The arguments, the experiences, and the positions are mine — but I want to be transparent that AI assisted with the drafting process. I disclosed this in the submission itself. If you’re considering writing your own submission in future, AI can be a genuinely useful tool for turning your thoughts into a structured document, especially if you find writing exhausting or overwhelming.

You can do this too

Submissions for this bill have now closed, but inquiries like this happen regularly. If you’re an NDIS participant or a family member, your lived experience is evidence. It belongs in the public record.

You don’t have to write 18 pages. A few paragraphs explaining what a change would mean for your day-to-day life is enough. The Committee reads them. They cite them in reports. They matter.

Watch the NDIS Decoded blog and Policy Updates page — I’ll keep posting about how the hearings go and what the Committee recommends.

If you’ve been through the NDIS — multiple plans, providers, reviews, the lot — you already know things that no policy expert does. That knowledge is worth sharing.

Referencing Articles 19 and 28 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in a Senate submission felt like a long way from the Brisbane rollout in 2018. But it also felt exactly right.

The scheme exists because people fought for it. Keeping it functional is going to take the same energy.

Want the full breakdown of what’s in the bill? Head to the Policy Updates page for a plain-language summary of the NDIS Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026 — what it proposes, what it changes, and what participants need to know.

Source: Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee — NDIS Future Generations Bill inquiry

ART Cases

Administrative Review Tribunal

Plain-language summaries of real ART decisions affecting NDIS participants. Each case is broken down into what happened, what was decided, and what it means for you.

June 2026 Roundup

Key trends in recent ART rulings

Across DRWLS, O’Keeffe, WMYHH, Turner, Johns, Brown, Alexander and WXDD, the Tribunal is drawing sharper lines around what counts as an NDIS support, what must be proved at access stage, and what sort of evidence now wins or loses a case.

TREND 1

Harder boundaries around "NDIS supports"

Mainstream recreation, social activity, therapy for general health or ordinary living costs are increasingly excluded at the threshold question.

TREND 2

Section 34(1)(aa) matters more

Advocacy must tie requested supports back to impairments that met access, or first secure recognition of additional impairments under section 24.

TREND 3

Transitional Rules have real bite

Schedule 2 exclusions are doing heavy lifting in cases involving lifestyle, recreation, fitness, hobby and family-responsibility arguments.

TREND 4

Evidence beats sympathy

Lived experience still matters, but Tribunal members want recent, task-level, independently testable functional evidence — not broad letters.

TREND 5

Burnout is not automatically access

Brown shows that severe stress, autistic burnout and caring load do not substitute for proof of substantially reduced functional capacity in a statutory domain.

TREND 6

Core supports remain the strongest lane

Support worker hours, domestic assistance and transport remain the areas where good evidence can still deliver significant outcomes.

The "Back on Track" framework is narrowing the scheme's boundaries — but the Tribunal is still willing to increase core supports where evidence clearly shows they are necessary to sustain participation, safety or informal care.

Partly Successful 29 May 2026 · General Member Toohey ARTA 976 · Psychosocial disability · Funding periods

DRWLS v National Disability Insurance Agency

The Tribunal directed the NDIA to formally recognise DRWLS's GAD as a psychosocial disability meeting section 24, and set two six-month funding periods for her Improved Daily Living Skills budget — but refused extra support worker and therapy assistant hours because the evidence wasn't specific enough about what tasks she needed help with and why.

KEY INSIGHT

Useful authority for recognising psychosocial disability and for arguing that shorter, more flexible funding periods can better reflect participant choice and control.

Unsuccessful 3 June 2026 · General Member L Harris · Brisbane ARTA 1046 · POTS · Assistance animal · Consumables

O’Keeffe v National Disability Insurance Agency

A 28-year-old participant with POTS, PTSD, MDD and generalised anxiety sought funding across 11 disputed supports — assistance dog maintenance and a treadmill, PORT and enteral feeding consumables, a $5,000 motorised wheelchair, meal delivery, a washer/dryer and robot vacuum, plus OT and dietitian hours. The Tribunal affirmed the Agency’s decision in full, refusing every disputed support and declining her request for a three-year plan.

KEY INSIGHT

A stark illustration of how Schedule 2 exclusions, missing AT assessments and the assistance-animal accreditation requirements under section 4 of the Transitional Rules can sink an otherwise sympathetic, well-evidenced case. Severity of disability does not override the threshold question of whether a support is an NDIS support at all.

The Participant

Ms Saoirse O’Keeffe is a 28-year-old woman who entered the NDIS in 2023 with PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder and Generalised Anxiety. In August 2025 — well into her review — the Agency also accepted that her Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS) met the section 24 disability requirements.

She is on a disability pension, lies down roughly 23 hours a day, relies heavily on her dog Siobhán, and self-represented at a two-day Tribunal hearing in October 2025.

What She Was Seeking

$4,217.98 for Lite & Easy meal preparation and delivery
Consumables — wedge pillow, shower stool, perching stool, raised toilet seat, shower aids, reclined shower chair, adaptive kitchen equipment, robot vacuum, washer/dryer
$4,811.58 reimbursement and $4,194 ongoing maintenance for assistance dog Siobhán, plus $400 for an exercise treadmill
60 hours/year occupational therapy and 12 hours/year dietitian supports
$5,000 lump sum for a motorised wheelchair
$9,620/year plus $1,130 one-off for PORT consumables
$12,832/year plus $3,676 one-off for enteral feeding supplies and pump maintenance
Continence aids and compression garments (unspecified amounts)
A three-year participant plan

What the Tribunal Decided

Assistance dog refused — Siobhán did not meet the section 4 definition of an “eligible assistance animal” under the Transitional Rules. There was no evidence of accreditation under paragraphs (a), (b) or (c), and insufficient evidence on paragraph (d) training and public-place standards. The treadmill request fell with it.
Washer/dryer and robot vacuum refused — Standard household appliances excluded under Schedule 2, Item 1(i). They had not been modified or adapted to address her functional impairment, so the “standard” carve-out applied. The Tribunal followed FSWN and YCTK in holding it had no power to treat them as replacement supports on review of a SOPS.
PORT consumables and enteral feeding supplies refused — Excluded under Schedule 2, Item 12(d) and (e) as pharmaceutical and clinical-care products. The fact that Ms O’Keeffe could not otherwise afford them was treated as an irrelevant consideration.
Motorised wheelchair declined for now — The Agency conceded it was clinically necessary, but without an AT assessment, prescription and quotations the Tribunal could not be satisfied of value for money under section 34(1)(c) or (d). It signposted a section 48 reassessment pathway once the evidence is gathered.
Three-year plan refused — Because POTS access had only just been added in October 2025, twelve-monthly reviews were considered necessary to keep supports tailored under section 31 and to protect scheme sustainability.
Overall — Pursuant to s 105(a) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 the decision under review was affirmed.

Why the Evidence Did Not Get There

The clinical picture was not in doubt. Treating GP Dr Edgecumbe, specialist physician Dr Hanrahan and the Agency’s own OT Carly Rankin all described severe, treatment-resistant POTS, a CANS level 6 (20–23 hours of support needed daily) and a WHODAS score showing severe-to-extreme disability across every domain. The Agency’s cardiologist Dr Herman, who reviewed the file without examining her, was given limited weight.

But the case was lost on legal architecture, not sympathy. Many requested supports ran into Schedule 2 exclusions before the “reasonable and necessary” analysis could begin. The assistance dog request failed on accreditation evidence under section 4 of the Transitional Rules. The wheelchair request failed because the AT assessment, prescription and quotes she could not afford were the very documents the section 34(1)(c) and (d) test required.

What This Means for Participants

If you are seeking an assistance animal, treat the section 4 accreditation pathway as a hard threshold — a PAT history, a trainer’s letter and lived benefit are not enough on their own. For consumables, check Schedule 2 carefully: pharmaceuticals, clinical-care equipment and standard household appliances are pre-excluded, regardless of how essential they feel. Before lodging a wheelchair claim, push for a funded AT assessment and obtain quotations — without them, even an Agency concession that the chair is “clinically necessary” will not satisfy the value-for-money test. And expect to defend any request for a multi-year plan when new impairments have been recently accepted.

Source: O’Keeffe and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2026] ARTA 1046 — General Member L Harris, 3 June 2026 (Brisbane)

Unsuccessful 2026 · ARTA 1049 · Transitional Rules · Swimming lessons

WMYHH v National Disability Insurance Agency

A child with autism whose family sought funding for 1:1 swimming lessons at a registered provider. The Tribunal accepted the benefits but still found the lessons fell within Schedule 2 lifestyle exclusions. Provider registration and therapeutic value do not automatically transform a mainstream activity into an NDIS support.

KEY INSIGHT

A strong example of how the Transitional Rules now shut down many recreation-adjacent claims before the Tribunal even gets to broader "reasonable and necessary" arguments.

Remitted 2026 · ARTA 1060 · Home modifications · Section 34(1)(aa)

Turner v National Disability Insurance Agency

A participant who entered the scheme through psychosocial disability wins recognition of her physical and neurological impairments under section 24 — but the Tribunal sends the matter back because the OT assessment and builder's quote were too old to test present-day value for money.

KEY INSIGHT

Important for advocates seeking supports linked to impairments not originally front and centre at access stage, especially where the NDIA tries to artificially separate a participant's disability profile.

Partly Successful 2026 · ARTA 1047 · Carers · Core supports

Johns v National Disability Insurance Agency

A participant with optic atrophy and autism who also provides intense informal care to her adult daughter wins major core support increases — SECP hours, domestic help, gardening, heavy cleaning and flexible transport — but loses physiotherapy and online hobby classes, which fall outside the scheme's boundaries.

KEY INSIGHT

A practical roadmap for carers: focus on domestic assistance, community access and transport where the evidence shows those supports keep the household functioning.

Unsuccessful 2026 · ARTA 1018 · Access · Functional capacity

Brown v CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency

An access case. Ms Brown has autism and is an intensive carer, but the Tribunal finds she has not shown substantially reduced functional capacity in any statutory domain. Her part-time work, management of her children's therapies, and demonstrated communication and organisational ability are treated as evidence of retained capacity.

KEY INSIGHT

An important caution for autistic adults and carers pursuing access: the question is not how hard life is, but whether the evidence proves substantially reduced functional capacity in a statutory domain.

Unsuccessful 10 June 2026 · General Member Gooch · Adelaide ARTA 1044 · Access · Section 24 · Section 25

Alexander v National Disability Insurance Agency

A 57-year-old woman with emphysema and serious degenerative spinal disease — including a previous cervical fusion and a failed lumbar discectomy — was refused access to the NDIS. The Tribunal accepted her impairments were permanent but found her functional limitations did not reach the “substantially reduced” threshold in section 24(1)(c), and that early intervention under section 25 would not assist either.

KEY INSIGHT

Permanent pain and a chronic condition are not enough on their own. The Tribunal is looking for evidence the participant cannot complete the “bundle of tasks” that make up an activity — not that they do it slowly, in pain, or with pragmatic workarounds like a robot vacuum, an airfryer or a long-handled brush.

The Participant

Ms Billie-Jo Alexander is a 57-year-old woman who lives alone in a third-floor unit (no lift) with two dogs and a cat. Her diagnosed impairments are emphysema, severe degenerative disc disease at C6/7 and L4/5 with likely nerve compression, and a history of cervical discectomy and fusion (2018) and an unsuccessful lumbar microdiscectomy (2021). She also reported long-standing depression and bipolar disorder, but did not rely on those conditions because she sought physical, not psychological, supports.

She applied for access on 8 February 2024. The Agency refused on 10 January 2025 and affirmed that refusal on internal review on 17 March 2025. Ms Alexander self-represented at a two-day hearing before the ART on 13 and 14 April 2026 by Microsoft Teams; the Agency was represented by Ms Grace Devereaux of Counsel, instructed by Mills Oakley.

What Was at Issue

Because Ms Alexander’s access application was lodged before 3 October 2024, the pre-“Back on Track” versions of sections 24 and 25 applied. The Agency conceded her emphysema, cervical stenosis and lumbar disc disease were permanent impairments — so subsections 24(1)(a) and (b) were met — but contended her impairments did not result in substantially reduced functional capacity for any of the six nominated activities under s24(1)(c): communication, social interaction, learning, mobility, self-care or self-management.

Ms Alexander relied on her own Statement of Lived Experience, oral evidence at hearing, lay evidence from her former partner Mr Bridges, and a functional capacity report from occupational therapist Mr Chris O’Dowd. The Tribunal also had to consider s25 early intervention as a fall-back.

What the Tribunal Decided

Permanent impairments accepted — The Tribunal found Ms Alexander had a permanent physical impairment attributable to emphysema and permanent physical and neurological impairments attributable to her cervical and lumbar spine disease. Section 24(1)(a) and (b) were met. Rule 5.4 was satisfied because no further treatment was reasonably likely to remedy the impairments.
Emphysema — no functional impact — On Mr O’Dowd’s observation and Ms Alexander’s own statement, the emphysema produced “at best” slight shortness of breath on exertion and no observable impact on any nominated activity.
Communication, social interaction, learning, self-management — not substantially reduced — She presented her case at Tribunal sensibly, maintained positive relationships, managed her finances, and had recently sold her former home and bought her current apartment. The deeming provisions in Rule 5.8 did not apply, and there was no other basis for substantial reduction in those activities.
Mobility — below the threshold — Although Ms Alexander walked only 10–20 metres before needing rest and used handrails on her three-flight stair climb, Mr O’Dowd had observed her walk and stand for around 14 minutes without aids. A walking stick was treated as a “commonly used item” under Rule 5.8(a) and so did not trigger the deeming provision. Following Madelaine and NDIA the Tribunal considered the mobility threshold modest, and found it not met.
Self-care — not substantially reduced — Long-handled brushes, slip-on shoes and loose clothing were ordinary household items, not assistive technology. Applying Rooney and the Access Guidelines, on more days than not Ms Alexander was independent in self-care.
Home care and maintenance — outside s24(1)(c) — Following Burrows [2025] ARTA 607, domestic tasks like laundry, cleaning, gardening and yard maintenance do not sit within any of the six nominated activities. Her pragmatic workarounds — benchtop appliances, a robot vacuum, a low washing line, online shopping — reinforced that even on the merits she was not substantially reduced in this domain.
Section 25 early intervention — not met — There was no evidence early intervention would mitigate, prevent deterioration of or improve functional capacity. Her impairments were long-standing and degenerative, and Ms Alexander did not contend she met s25.
Overall — Because neither the disability requirements in s24 nor the early intervention requirements in s25 were met, Ms Alexander could not satisfy the access criteria in s21. The decision under review was affirmed.

Why the Evidence Did Not Get There

The Tribunal applied the test set by Mortimer J in Mulligan v NDIA and clarified in Foster: the question is not whether someone can do a task more slowly, in more pain or in a different way, but whether they cannot complete the whole or majority of the “bundle of tasks” that make up the activity. On the evidence, Ms Alexander completed almost all of her activities — albeit with modification and rest breaks.

Two evidentiary gaps proved decisive. First, the occupational-therapy report described independence with modified task completion across communication, social interaction, learning, self-care and self-management; the OT also gave concessions at hearing but maintained Ms Alexander’s essential independence. Second, the much harder issues she lives with day-to-day — bending, heavy lifting, gardening, cleaning — were treated by the Tribunal as “home care” tasks that fall outside the six s24(1)(c) activities entirely, following the Burrows analysis.

What This Means for Participants

If you are applying for NDIS access on the basis of physical impairments, the strongest cases focus the OT and medical evidence squarely on the six s24(1)(c) activities — especially mobility and self-care — and show inability across the whole bundle of tasks, not just the heavy or painful ones. Workarounds like robot vacuums, airfryers, slip-on shoes or benchtop appliances are often viewed as “commonly used items” that defeat the Rule 5.8(a) deeming pathway, so any reliance on assistive technology should be carefully argued. And after Burrows, domestic and yard tasks rarely carry an access case on their own — cleaning and gardening difficulties usually need to be translated into impacts on self-care, mobility or self-management to land within s24(1)(c).

Source: Alexander and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2026] ARTA 1044 — General Member Gooch, 10 June 2026 (Adelaide)

Procedural 11 June 2026 · Deputy President Burford · Perth (GAP) ARTA 1065 · Section 53 ART Act · Scope of review · Family support

WXDD v National Disability Insurance Agency

A child participant who won significant supports at the Tribunal in October 2025 — including 24/7 1:1 high-intensity home support and 1:1 community access — tried to fence off those wins when the Agency referred the case to the Guidance and Appeals Panel. The GAP refused the s53 application: once a matter is referred up, the entire review is on the table, not just the legal question that triggered the referral.

KEY INSIGHT

A GAP review is a full de novo rehearing — not an appeal limited to the “issue of significance” that justified the referral. Participants who have already won at first instance need to think hard before engaging the GAP, because favourable findings can be reopened.

Background

WXDD is a child NDIS participant whose family secured a strong win at the ART in October 2025. The Tribunal directed the Agency to include in WXDD’s Statement of Participant Supports a second support worker for 4 hours/day at a high-intensity rate for a 4-week transitional period, ongoing 24/7 active 1:1 high-intensity support at home, ongoing 1:1 high-intensity support for community access and transport, and $4,080.26 for a Second Skin garment.

The Agency implemented those supports while it sought to refer a key legal question to the Guidance and Appeals Panel — namely, whether the first Tribunal had wrongly conflated the mother’s parental role with that of a paid high-intensity disability support worker when refusing a second support worker for community access. Once the referral was on foot, WXDD’s family applied under section 53 of the ART Act to limit the GAP review strictly to that question, so that the favourable parts of the October 2025 decision could not be reopened.

What Was at Issue

The applicant wanted the GAP confined to three issues: the proper construction of s34(1)(e) of the NDIS Act and Rule 3.4(a)(iii)–(iv) of the Support Rules; whether 2:1 community access support was reasonable and necessary in light of that construction; and the consequential order under s105. The argument was that this would honour the s9 objectives of the ART Act — fairness, accessibility and timeliness — and avoid relitigating settled matters.

The Agency resisted. Because the original Tribunal decision had set aside and remitted the access reviewable decision rather than varied it, the GAP was reviewing the original Agency decision under s130(2)(d) — and that decision did not include any of the additional supports. If the GAP’s scope were limited and it did not independently confirm the supports, WXDD’s plan would revert to the original, unfunded position. The Agency also argued the family-responsibility issue at home and in the community were interrelated and could not be cleanly severed.

What the Tribunal Decided

Section 53 cannot restrict jurisdiction — The power to limit questions of fact, evidence and issues does not extend to limiting the Tribunal’s own jurisdiction or to declining to consider matters central to the decision under review. Confining scope as proposed would effectively stop the GAP from considering whether the additional supports should be included — the core function of a de novo review.
GAP review is de novo — all issues are live — Once a matter is referred to the GAP, every issue in the proceeding is before the Panel, not just the identified issue of significance. The “issue of significance” operates as a gateway for referral, not a limit on scope. This follows Baumgarten and eSafety Commissioner [2025] ARTA 59.
The Agency is entitled to present its case — Limiting scope would deny the Agency a reasonable opportunity under s55 to present evidence and submissions. The Agency’s implementation of the Tribunal-directed supports in the interim did not foreclose it from maintaining a different position before the GAP. Penalising the Agency for complying with an interim order would be inconsistent with the ART Act.
Application refused — The s53 application was dismissed. The substantive question — whether parents can be expected to stand in as high-intensity disability support workers for community access — remains unresolved and will be decided at the full GAP hearing.

Why This Matters

Deputy President Burford acknowledged the burden ongoing litigation places on a child with disability and encouraged the parties to agree facts and narrow issues wherever possible. Section 131 of the ART Act also lets the GAP have regard to the transcript, evidence and orders from the earlier proceeding, which can help preserve hard-won findings as a matter of practice — but cannot guarantee them as a matter of law.

The procedural ruling sits alongside LCDDK as a reminder that the new ART rulebook is being mapped out in real time. Where AAT-era practice might have allowed narrower carve-outs of scope, the ART Act’s structure — and its express provisions on de novo review — are pushing the GAP towards full rehearings even where parties want a cleaner, narrower fight.

What This Means for Participants

If you have won at the Tribunal and the Agency refers the case to the GAP — or if you are tempted to seek GAP referral yourself on a legal point — assume the entire review will be reopened, not just the narrow question that triggered the referral. Take advice on whether the risks of full re-examination outweigh the benefits of clarifying a legal issue, push for agreed facts and narrowed issues under s131 to preserve findings in practice, and remember that an Agency that has already implemented your supports can still argue against them at the GAP. A favourable interim position is not a guarantee of the final outcome.

Source: WXDD and National Disability Insurance Agency (Practice and Procedure) [2026] ARTA 1065 — Deputy President Burford, 11 June 2026 (Perth, Guidance and Appeals Panel)

Procedural 15 June 2026 · General Member Toohey · Brisbane

LCDDK v National Disability Insurance Agency

ARTA 1062 (2026) — Interlocutory decision only. Final hearing pending.

A 17-year-old autistic participant in remote Far North Queensland challenges the NDIA's decision to cut funding for an online Dungeons and Dragons program for autistic children. The Tribunal approves the program's provider, Minds at Play, to become a party — the substantive question of whether the program is a fundable NDIS support is still to be decided.

Background

LCDDK is a 17-year-old girl with autism spectrum disorder living approximately 300km north of Cairns. Her plan previously funded participation in an online Dungeons and Dragons program run by Minds at Play, designed specifically for children, youth and adults on the autism spectrum.

In April 2025, the NDIA cut this funding — first characterising the program as "gaming therapy" (not evidence-based wellness), then later changing to argue it was a "social or recreational activity" under Schedule 2 of the Transitional Rules.

What This Decision Actually Decided

This is an interlocutory decision only — it does not decide whether the D&D program is an NDIS support. The sole question was whether Minds at Play should be allowed to join as a formal party. The Tribunal approved this because the program is delivered to 658 participants across 134 groups nationally — a finding that it is not a NDIS support could affect all of them.

Why This Case Matters

The NDIA changed its legal argument mid-review — a reminder that participants and providers need to be prepared for shifting goalposts
Schedule 2 exclusions apply to all participants nationally — decisions here have broad consequences beyond the individual case
A written NDIA policy clarification (MC24-003263) suggested programs like this may be fundable — yet a local branch manager cut the funding anyway. The final hearing will resolve this inconsistency.

What This Means for Participants

This case is still ongoing — watch this space. If you or your child participates in a disability-specific group program cut under the "social or recreational" exclusion, this case is directly relevant. If you are in a thin market or remote area where in-person alternatives do not exist, make sure that context is in your evidence.

Source: LCDDK v National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2026] ARTA 1062 — General Member Toohey, 15 June 2026 (interlocutory)

Support Coordination

What Does a Good Support Coordinator Actually Look Like?

June 2026 · 6 min read

If you have ever felt unsure about what your support coordinator is supposed to be doing, you are not alone. It is one of the most common questions participants ask, and honestly, it is one of the most important ones.

I have been an NDIS participant for over two years and I can tell you firsthand — the right support coordinator makes a real difference. Not just on paper, but in your actual day to day life.

What Is a Support Coordinator?

A support coordinator is someone funded through your NDIS plan to help you understand, set up, and get the most out of your supports. Think of them as your guide through the NDIS.

Support coordination sits under the Capacity Building budget in most NDIS plans. It is usually included when a participant's situation involves more complexity.

A support coordinator is different from your plan manager (who handles the finances) and your support workers (who deliver hands-on care). Their focus is on coordination, connection, and making sure everything fits together around your goals.

They Help You Understand Your Plan

A good support coordinator takes the time to walk you through your plan in a way that actually makes sense to you. They will not rush through a phone call or leave you with a jargon-filled email. They sit with you and make sure you genuinely understand what you have and how to use it.

They Listen First

A good coordinator does not arrive with a plan already made for your life. They arrive with questions. What matters most to you right now? What does a good week look like? A coordinator who genuinely listens will notice things someone just going through the motions will miss.

They Know Their Stuff

Your coordinator should understand the NDIS inside and out — how funding categories work, what is reasonable and necessary, how plan reviews are structured, and what your rights are. They should also know the local provider landscape.

What to Watch Out For

They are hard to reach — calls and emails regularly go unanswered
They push one provider without alternatives — you should always have options
You arrive at plan reviews unprepared — good coordinators prepare you well in advance
Your funding runs out unexpectedly — they should be tracking your budget

If something does not feel right, it is okay to raise it. You have every right to change coordinators if needed — your plan manager or the NDIA can guide that process.

Want to understand the terms in this article?

Open the Glossary →

The NDIS.Decoded.

Plain Language

Up-to-Date Policy

Written by a Participant

No Agenda

What's on the blog

Written by someone who gets it

NDIS Language, Decoded

Funding

Planning

Supports

Providers

Reviews

Rights

The Blog

I Submitted to the Senate. Here’s What I Said.

What's Changed & Why It Matters

ART Cases — Monthly Archive

June 2026 Roundup

From humble beginnings to wholehearted growth.

The principles behind NDIS Decoded

Plain language always

No agenda

Lived experience first

Up to date

I Submitted to the Senate. Here’s What I Said.

I submitted to the Senate inquiry on the NDIS Future Generations Bill. Here’s why.

What is a Senate submission, and why does it matter?

What I argued — and why it’s personal

Functional Capacity Assessments

Plan management

Support coordination

Social and community participation

Unscheduled plan reviews and unspent funds

“Build the ship before you remove the lifeboats”

One other thing I said

You can do this too

Administrative Review Tribunal

Key trends in recent ART rulings

DRWLS v National Disability Insurance Agency

The Participant

What the Tribunal Decided

What This Means for Participants

O’Keeffe v National Disability Insurance Agency

The Participant

What She Was Seeking

What the Tribunal Decided

Why the Evidence Did Not Get There

What This Means for Participants

WMYHH v National Disability Insurance Agency

What Was at Issue

What the Tribunal Decided

What This Means for Participants

Turner v National Disability Insurance Agency

Background

What the Tribunal Decided

What This Means for Participants

Johns v National Disability Insurance Agency

Background

What the Tribunal Decided

Why the Core Supports Succeeded

What This Means for Participants

Brown v CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency

Background

What the Tribunal Decided

Why the OT Report Was Given Limited Weight

What This Means for Participants

Alexander v National Disability Insurance Agency

The Participant

What Was at Issue

What the Tribunal Decided

Why the Evidence Did Not Get There

What This Means for Participants

WXDD v National Disability Insurance Agency

Background

What Was at Issue

What the Tribunal Decided

Why This Matters

What This Means for Participants

LCDDK v National Disability Insurance Agency

The NDIS.
Decoded.