Decision-Making Authority for Case Managers

Decision-making is a core component of Case Management. It is important that Case Managers have the relevant decision-making authority to resolve matters in a timely and appropriate manner. In recognition of the potential for risk and the impact of decisions made within the Division, it is equally important that all decisions are subject to a minimum level of oversight.

Where Case Managers are authorised to resolve matters

Case Managers are authorised to resolve access and planning matters, where their decision to do so:

🧰 is supported by further evidence, legal advice or internal specialist advice from TAPIB*; and
🧰 has been approved by their line manager.

This means for decisions made by:

APS6 Case Managers, that their EL1 has minimum oversight,
EL1’s, that their EL2 has minimum oversight;
EL2s, that their BM has minimum oversight.

[* Note: It is not mandatory for Case Managers to seek advice from the Technical Advice and Practice Improvement Branch (TAPIB). However, Case Managers may request advice where they consider it would be helpful to do so, to identify gaps in the available evidence or to support resolution of the matter.]

The importance of minimum oversight ensures that all decisions can be reviewed objectively, by someone who has not been substantially involved in the daily management of the matter. This minimises risk and promotes transparency in decision-making processes, in keeping with the Agency’s Dispute Resolution Policy and Model Litigant Obligations.

Appeals and Litigation Oversight Committee (ALOC) decisions

Where new information or evidence becomes available after a matter has been considered by ALOC, the matter must be referred to the Secretariat to determine whether reconsideration by ALOC is required.

The role of advice in decision making

When considering legal advice and/or internal specialist advice, it is important that Case Managers think critically about the advice received, and document that advice, to fully benefit from the advice.

Thinking critically about the advice received ensures that the appropriate weight is given to that advice when making a decision. For example, there is a key difference between advice which states that it is ‘open’ to the Agency to resolve a matter, versus advice which assesses the Agency’s ‘prospects’ as ‘poor’.

Thinking critically about the advice received also ensures that the best possible outcomes are reached for participants and prospective participants. While Case Managers are authorised to resolve matters where their decision to do so is supported by legal advice or internal specialist advice, the best possible outcome for a participant or prospective participant may require a decision which looks beyond that advice, and which is consistent with the NDIS Act 2013, the NDIS Rules, the Agency’s Dispute Resolution Policy, Model Litigant Obligations, and Case Management Guides.

OFFICIAL | NDIA-ERB-POL-002-V003-FINAL | Page 1 of 3

OFFICIAL For Internal Use Only

It is also important that Case Managers carefully consider the impact of new evidence in relation to advice which was received before that evidence became available — and, where necessary, that Case Managers seek updated legal and/or internal specialist advice which addresses that new evidence.

Note: Advice from the Technical Advice and Practice Improvement Branch (TAPIB) is no longer mandatory as part of the external review pathway. Advice from TAPIB is only necessary where the Case Manager is of the opinion that advice would benefit the resolution of the matter.

Where escalation is required

Case Managers are not authorised to resolve matters in the following circumstances, without prior escalation through the appropriate channel identified below:

Scenario	Escalation Pathway
If legal advice and internal specialist advice are aligned in their recommendations, but you disagree	EL2 > Pre-ALOC > ALOC
If legal advice is to resolve a matter and their advice reflects the external-facing NDIA position,* but internal specialist advice is not to resolve a matter	Line Manager
If legal advice is to resolve a matter and their advice does not reflect the external-facing NDIA position,* but internal specialist advice is not to resolve a matter	Line Manager > Pre-ALOC > ALOC
If legal advice is that it is not open to the Agency to resolve a matter, but internal specialist advice is to resolve the matter	PLO / DCC (DR&L) > Pre-ALOC > ALOC
If legal advice is either that the ART does, or does not, have jurisdiction to consider the matter, but you disagree	BM (ERB)
If legal advice is to rescind an offer previously made to resolve the matter	BM (ERB)

* The external-facing NDIA position refers to any material which is available in the public domain, such as the NDIA Operational Guidelines; and excludes internal material, such as CM Guides and TAPIB Digests (among others).

Where ART Operations Officers are authorised to resolve matters

In some circumstances, the decision-making authority of Case Managers extends to ART Operations Officers (Information Access and Privacy Branch), to support the timely and fair resolution of ART applications.

ART Operations Officers are authorised to resolve applications for extensions of time (EOT), and to manage and instruct on jurisdictional issues arising in applications, where their decision to do so:

🧰 is supported by legal advice; or
🧰 is supported by the relevant Standing Operating Procedure; and
🧰 has been approved by their line manager.

This means for decisions made by:

APS5 ART Operations Officers, that their APS6 has minimum oversight; and
for decisions made by APS6 staff, that their EL1 has minimum oversight.

OFFICIAL | NDIA-ERB-POL-002-V003-FINAL | Page 2 of 3

OFFICIAL For Internal Use Only

Recording decisions

All decisions must be recorded as a file note in LEX, which indicates what the decision is, under what authority it is made, and what evidence informs that decision (including new and existing evidence).

Document Control

Document Control	Responsible Person	Date
Authored by	Performance, Policy and Quality	February 2026
Endorsed by	Director, External Review	3 March 2026
Approved by	Branch Manager, External Review	3 March 2026

OFFICIAL | NDIA-ERB-POL-002-V003-FINAL | Page 3 of 3