KB Type: Concept
Domain Area: Legislative
Confidence: Provisional — requires Andrew's research to verify
Depth Hint: Standard
Version: 1.0 — 2026-04-20
Status: Provisional

A reviewable decision is a formal determination made by the NDIA that can be legally contested by a participant. The approval of the Statement of Participant Supports is explicitly designated as a reviewable decision under Section 99(1)(d) of the NDIS Act. This concept matters immensely to NDIS support coordinators because they must advocate for participants whose new goals are ignored or improperly rolled over from old plans during reassessments. If the NDIA fails to include a participant's updated goals, it directly restricts the funding of new supports, providing the participant with the right to request an Internal Review within three months of receiving the new plan.

Under Section 99 of the NDIS Act, certain NDIA decisions are designated as "reviewable decisions" that participants can formally contest. The most relevant reviewable decisions for support coordinators include:

For the purposes of the Participant Statement Toolkit, the approval of the Statement of Participant Supports is the most critical reviewable decision, as it directly determines what funding the participant receives.

When a participant receives a new plan, they have three months from the date of receiving the plan to request an internal review. This timeline is strict:

Support coordinators must be aware of this timeline and act promptly if the plan is unsatisfactory.

Reviewable decisions are typically contested on the following grounds:

Goals ignored or rolled over: The most common issue is the NDIA carrying over old goals without properly refreshing them during reassessment. Since Section 34(1)(a) requires supports to assist with stated goals, ignoring updated goals creates a legal basis for review.

Functional impairment not recognised: If the Participant Statement clearly documents functional barriers but the funded supports do not address them, this constitutes a failure to apply the reasonable and necessary criteria correctly.

Insufficient funding for stated goals: When the goals are included but the funded supports are inadequate to achieve them, the reviewable decision can be contested on the basis that the reasonable and necessary criteria were not properly applied.

Failure to consider informal support exhaustion: If the Participant Statement documents exhausted informal supports but the plan relies on those supports without adequate NDIS intervention, this is grounds for review.

The Participant Statement Toolkit is explicitly designed to be a legally robust document that protects participants from administrative errors:

Clear mapping: By clearly mapping goals to impairments, support categories, and outcomes, the toolkit creates a transparent evidentiary chain that is difficult for planners to ignore.

Legal justifications: The toolkit automatically provides the structured evidence required to mount a successful Section 100 Internal Review if a planner or Needs Assessor ignores the submission.

Administrative accountability: When a Participant Statement is well-prepared and the funded supports do not align with the documented goals and impairments, it becomes administratively difficult for the NDIA to defend their decision during review.

When a reviewable decision is contested, the participant requests an internal review under Section 100 of the NDIS Act:

If the internal review is unsatisfactory, participants may escalate to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

Support coordinators must:

Confidence note: Provisional — derived from NbLM primer analysis. The practical success rates and procedural details of internal reviews require verification against official NDIA guidelines and case outcomes.