8 new Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) decisions published since our last update on 2 November, decided 30 September 2026 to 6 November 2026, are now in the NDIS ART Decisions Database. Members can search and filter all decisions. Here is what is new and what stood out.
What stood out in this batch
- The 27 August 2026 amendments don’t look to be applied consistently. One decision used the new needs arising ‘directly’ from eligible impairment test in s 34(1)(aa) to leave out needs linked to an impairment not shown to be permanent ([2026] ARTA 2593). One applied the new ‘whole activity’ test to an access request lodged before the change ([2026] ARTA 2555). One said the result was the same either way and left the question open ([2026] ARTA 2612). Expect this to continue to be argued until a higher decision (the Federal Court) settles it.
- Four access cases, four refusals. Three failed on permanence because treatment was still under way or untried ([2026] ARTA 2555, 2558 and 2559); one because each area of life was reduced but not substantially ([2026] ARTA 2612). The lesson from 2558 and 2559: a treater’s letter needs to say what has been tried, how often, whether the person stuck with it and what is left, and it has to be about this person, not remission rates in others.
- Technology keeps hitting the Schedule 2 exclusions. A custom-built computer is still a ‘standard computer’ unless it is modified for the person’s impairment ([2026] ARTA 2659, following the Guidance and Appeals Panel in NGVL). A remote-microphone system trialled in the classroom is ‘equipment for educational purposes’ ([2026] ARTA 2655). How a device is trialled and written up can decide which side of the line it falls.
- Reports are weighed closely. An Agency therapist’s report with no firm conclusion carried less weight than the treating therapist’s, and ‘may be needed’ and no quotes both lost ([2026] ARTA 2557). A three-year-old report prepared during chemotherapy gave way to a recent one, and treating doctors who were not called could not be tested ([2026] ARTA 2593).
The new decisions
[2026] ARTA 2659 — A custom-built computer for voice control is a ‘standard computer’, but the switches to turn it on were funded
Decided 6 November 2026 · General Member R Casamento · Melbourne
A man with incomplete tetraplegia runs his finances, support workers and volunteer work through voice-control software and asked for an $11,099 custom-built desktop so it would stop lagging and freezing. Following the Guidance and Appeals Panel in NGVL, the Tribunal held that a computer not modified or adapted for the person’s impairment is a ‘standard computer’, however powerful, and is excluded. The two switches that let him turn it on and off from his wheelchair were funded. Read the decision
[2026] ARTA 2655 — A remote-microphone hearing system trialled in the classroom was ‘equipment for educational purposes’
Decided 5 November 2026 · General Member J Toohey · Brisbane
A 12-year-old with a mild intellectual disability and an auditory processing disorder asked for a $2,895 remote-microphone hearing system. Because the trial and the recommendations focused on the classroom, and the microphone is sold as a teacher microphone, the Tribunal held it was equipment for educational purposes, excluded under Schedule 2, and pointed to the Victorian Equipment Boost for Schools. It also recommended the Agency update its record of her impairments. Read the decision
[2026] ARTA 2612 — Access refused: each area of life was affected, but not ‘substantially’
Decided 4 November 2026 · General Member F Robertson · Perth
A 65-year-old artist with chronic pain, COPD, PTSD, anxiety and depression was refused access. The Tribunal accepted her impairments as permanent but, weighing her evidence against her doctors’ reports, found each area of life was reduced, not substantially reduced. It said the outcome was the same under the old and the amended Act and left open which applied, and noted that as she has now turned 65 the result is likely to have lasting consequences. Read the decision
[2026] ARTA 2559 — Access refused: treatment for a back condition had not been exhausted
Decided 2 November 2026 · General Member J Dalling · Brisbane
A single parent in her early 30s sought access for back impairments after a spinal fusion, and for rheumatoid arthritis and scoliosis, neither of which had a definite diagnosis. Her surgeon had recommended a physiotherapy program and the Agency’s occupational therapist a pain clinic, and her physiotherapist’s letter did not say how many sessions she had done or whether she was keeping to them. Treatment had not been exhausted, so the impairments were not shown to be permanent. Read the decision
[2026] ARTA 2557 — Daily 2:1 support cut from 9 hours to 5, a $19,526 wheelchair funded, a chair and thickener refused
Decided 30 October 2026 · General Member R Chia · Sydney
A 27-year-old woman with Prader-Willi syndrome who lives with her parents asked for 2:1 support 9 hours a day, a $19,526 manual wheelchair, a day chair and more feeding thickener. The Tribunal accepted that daily 2:1 support is needed but found 5 hours a day, not 9, was value for money. It funded the wheelchair, preferring the treating therapist’s assessment to the Agency therapist’s inconclusive report, and refused the chair (only ‘may’ be needed) and the thickener (no quotes). Read the decision
[2026] ARTA 2555 — Access refused under the new ‘whole activity’ test, with treatment still under way
Decided 29 October 2026 · General Member J McAteer · Sydney
A 56-year-old woman living alone sought access for chronic fatigue syndrome, Raynaud’s, a gynaecological condition and migraines. The Tribunal applied the amended Act, including the new ‘whole activity’ test in s 9B, to an access request lodged well before 27 August 2026. On her own evidence, including that she gets into the community unaided about twice a week, no impairment substantially reduced her functional capacity, and her conditions were still being investigated and treated, so permanence was not shown either. Read the decision
[2026] ARTA 2558 — Access refused because spinal surgery and a new depression treatment were about to start
Decided 26 October 2026 · General Member S Koller
A 31-year-old former footballer with a disc prolapse, incontinence and treatment-resistant depression was refused access because his impairments were not shown to be permanent: his neurosurgeon had planned disc replacement surgery expected to largely relieve his leg pain, and his psychiatrist was seeking funding for Esketamine. A letter citing high remission rates in others was given little weight because it said nothing about his own prospects. He may reapply. Read the decision
[2026] ARTA 2593 — 26 hours a day of supported independent living refused; needs linked to anxiety left out under the amended s 34(1)(aa)
Decided 30 September 2026 · General Member L Proske · Adelaide
A 57-year-old woman with ataxia who cannot weight-bear and lives alone in Specialist Disability Accommodation asked for 26 hours a day of supported independent living instead of the funded 10 hours plus onsite overnight help. Applying the amended s 34(1)(aa), the Tribunal excluded needs linked to her anxiety because it was not shown to be permanent, preferred a 2025 occupational therapy report to a three-year-old one, and found the existing funding covered her active support needs. Support-worker time to tend her pet birds and to garden is not an NDIS support. Read the decision
Updated weekly. Join The Growing Space to search all 761 decisions, and join our mailing list to get updates.
⚠️ A few words of caution. AI helped us read the decisions and draft this update, and Sam at The Growing Space checked and edited it. It is general information, not legal advice. We are NOT lawyers! Every Tribunal decision is made on that one person’s circumstances and evidence and binds no one else. ART decisions are not binding precedent: they can be appealed to the Federal Court on a question of law, and the Court does not always find the Tribunal got it right. If a decision looks relevant to you, read the Tribunal’s own reasons and get advice from a lawyer, a disability advocate or a community legal centre.