Navigating the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) can be challenging, especially when trying to secure necessary funding for additional costs like transport or setup fees. The McGarrigle v NDIA case provides a helpful precedent that you can use to strengthen your requests for funding. Here, we’ll explore how this decision can support requests for transport funding for in-home therapy sessions, provider transport to day program, delivery and setup of assistive technology, and training for support workers.
Understanding the McGarrigle Decision
In McGarrigle v NDIA, the Federal Court of Australia ruled that once a support is identified as "reasonable and necessary," it should be fully funded under the NDIS. The case involved whether partial funding was permissible, and the court determined that the NDIS must provide full funding for reasonable and necessary supports, not just partial funding.
Key Excerpts from the Case:
- “...the cost of transport to and from relates solely and directly to his disability. Further, that the cost is ancillary to his funded supports and necessary in order for his plan to have effect...”
- “For Mr McGarrigle it is submitted that, if he has to rely on his mother for transport, she will have to reduce her hours or give up work altogether, or the family will have to fund the shortfall in transport costs themselves, all of which would place an additional burden on them and put the sustainability of the present caring arrangements and his mother’s well-being at risk. It is submitted it is not reasonable to expect the family to meet the shortfall in funding for transport occasioned by the NDIA’s decision...”
- “Once a decision is made that the support, as identified and described, is reasonable and necessary, then subject to the other requirements in s 33(5) and s 34, the scheme requires and contemplates that support ‘will’ be funded. In my opinion, that can only mean wholly or fully funded...”
Applying the McGarrigle Decision to Your Funding Requests
1. Request for Transport Funding for In-Home Therapy Sessions
Scenario: You need funding to cover the costs of a therapist travelling to your home to provide necessary therapy sessions.
How to Apply the McGarrigle Decision:
- Direct Relation to Disability: Argue that the travel costs are directly related to the provision of necessary therapy for your disability. Highlight that these therapy sessions are essential and part of the reasonable and necessary supports required for your development.
- Necessity for Effective Support: Emphasise that without covering the travel costs, the therapy sessions cannot be effectively delivered. Similar to the McGarrigle decision, these costs are ancillary to the funded supports and necessary for the therapy plan to be effective.
- Burden on Family: Point out the additional burden on your family if you were required to cover the travel costs yourself. Reference the McGarrigle case where the court acknowledged that expecting families to cover these costs places an unreasonable burden on them and jeopardises the sustainability of caring arrangements.
Example Argument:
“The travel costs for the therapist to come to our home are directly related to my disability and are necessary for the effective delivery of their therapy sessions. As established in the McGarrigle case, these costs are ancillary to the funded supports and essential for the therapy plan to have its intended effect. Expecting my family to cover these costs imposes an unreasonable burden and jeopardises our ability to provide consistent care. Therefore, we request that the NDIS fully fund the travel costs as part of the reasonable and necessary supports.”
2. Request to Cover Provider Transport to and from Day Program
Scenario: You need funding to cover the costs of transport for a support provider to travel to and from a day programme that your child attends.
How to Apply the McGarrigle Decision:
- Direct Relation to Disability: Similar to the previous scenario, argue that these transport costs are necessary to provide the required support at the day programme, which is directly related to your child’s disability.
- Necessity for Effective Support: Emphasise that the support provided at the day programme is crucial for your child’s development and participation. Without covering the provider's travel costs, this support cannot be effectively provided.
- Burden on Family: Highlight the undue burden on your family if you have to cover these transport costs. Reference the McGarrigle case to argue that it is not reasonable to expect families to bear these additional costs.
Example Argument:
“The transport costs for the support provider to travel to and from the day program are necessary for me to receive the required support at the program, which is essential for my development and directly related to my disability. As in the McGarrigle case, these costs are ancillary to the funded supports and necessary for the plan to be effective. Expecting my family to cover these costs imposes an unreasonable burden and jeopardises our ability to maintain sustainable care arrangements. Therefore, we request that the NDIS fully fund the provider’s transport costs as part of the reasonable and necessary supports.”
3. Request for Funding for Assistive Technology Delivery and Setup
Scenario: You need funding to cover the costs of delivering and setting up assistive technology (such as a communication device) at your home.
How to Apply the McGarrigle Decision:
- Direct Relation to Disability: Argue that the delivery and setup costs are directly related to the use of assistive technology, which is essential for your communication needs and directly linked to your disability.
- Necessity for Effective Support: Emphasise that without the delivery and professional setup, the assistive technology cannot be effectively used by you. Similar to the McGarrigle decision, these costs are ancillary to the funded supports and necessary for the assistive technology to function as intended.
- Burden on Family: Highlight the additional burden on your family if you were required to cover these costs. Reference the McGarrigle case to argue that it is not reasonable to expect families to fund these essential supplementary costs.
Example Argument:
“The delivery and setup costs for my assistive technology are directly related to my disability and necessary for the effective use of the technology. As established in the McGarrigle decision, these costs are ancillary to the main funded supports and necessary for the assistive technology to have its intended effect. Expecting my family to cover these costs imposes an unreasonable burden and jeopardises our ability to provide consistent care. Therefore, we request that the NDIS fully fund the delivery and setup costs as part of the reasonable and necessary supports.”
4. Request for Funding for Support Worker Training
Scenario:You need funding to cover the costs of specialised training for support workers who assist your child with their disability-related needs.
How to Apply the McGarrigle Decision:
- Direct Relation to Disability: Argue that the training costs are directly related to ensuring that support workers can provide the highest level of care tailored to your child’s specific disability needs.
- Necessity for Effective Support: Emphasise that without specialised training, support workers may not be able to deliver effective care. This is similar to the McGarrigle decision, where the court recognised that supplementary costs are necessary for the main support to be effective.
- Burden on Family: Highlight the additional burden on your family if you were required to fund the training. Reference the McGarrigle case to argue that it is unreasonable to expect families to cover these costs, which are essential for ensuring high-quality support.
Example Argument:
“The costs of specialised training for support workers are directly related to my child's disability and necessary to ensure they receive effective and tailored care. As indicated in the McGarrigle decision, these costs are ancillary to the main funded supports and necessary for these supports to have their intended effect. Expecting our family to cover these training costs places an unreasonable burden on us and jeopardises the quality of care my child receives. Therefore, we request that the NDIS fully fund the support worker training as part of the reasonable and necessary supports.”
The McGarrigle decision provides a strong basis for arguing that ancillary costs, such as travel, delivery and setup, or specialised training, should be fully funded by the NDIS as part of reasonable and necessary supports. By clearly demonstrating the direct relation of these costs to the disability, their necessity for effective support, and the unreasonable burden on the family, participants can strengthen their requests for comprehensive funding.