With thanks to Ruanne Brell for noting another NDIS decision concerning transport supports: Blattman and National Disability Insurance Agency [2019] AATA 184.
At [30] – [32] the Tribunal touched on the history of the matter and also referred to the potential application of the “no disadvantage” principle.
30. At the Tribunal hearing, the NDIA was asked to explain why Mr. Blattman was provided a transport support budget in his NDIS plans from 8 December 2016 to 12 March 2018 before this support was removed on 7 May 2018. This is because the internal review decision dated 7 May 2018 gave an extremely limited explanation for the decision and the evidence showed that Mr. Blattman’s circumstances of independent driving between his home and workplace had remained constant over this period of time (and indeed, remains constant until now). In other words, there was confusion about why the NDIA had provided transport support funding over a period of 17 months and then decided to stop the funding.
31. In summary, I can only say the explanations put forward by the NDIA at the Tribunal hearing were speculative and not substantiated by any documentation. Perhaps the most beneficial explanation is that the NDIA knew Mr. Blattman was in receipt of mobility allowance prior to becoming a participant in the NDIS and decided to provide some financial support for his transport costs before “phasing out” this support. I note that this “policy” decision by the NDIA is not explained in the documents before the Tribunal and Mr. Blattman’s oral evidence to the Tribunal was that the NDIA did not communicate this process to him either in writing or verbally.
32. Although the changing position of the NDIA has generated confusion for Mr. Blattman, this is not the issue for determination by the Tribunal. Rather, my consideration below must examine whether transport funding for Mr. Blattman is a “reasonable and necessary support” consistent with subsection 34(1) of the Act and, if not, whether Mr. Blattman is entitled to receive transport funding under the “no disadvantage principle” because he was in receipt of a mobility allowance prior to becoming a NDIS participant.
The Tribunal formed the view that level 3 transport funding was not a reasonable and necessary support, before considering (but not applying) the no disadvantage position (see [46] – [47]). The Tribunal said at [51] – [52]:
Of most relevance to this issue, Mr. Blattman provided no evidence to the Tribunal that he has been disadvantaged (financially or otherwise) by not receiving transport support funding since 7 May 2018. In particular, there was no evidence or submissions to the Tribunal at the hearing that Mr. Blattman has not been able “to achieve at least the same level of social and economic participation (or undertake the same range of activities) as enabled by [his] previously provided support” (as provided in paragraph 63(a) of the COAG Agreement) since he has become an NDIS participant or since transport support funding ceased on 7 May 2018.
I am therefore not satisfied that Mr. Blattman is entitled to receive transport funding on the basis of the “no disadvantage principle”.