Media request — Cross, Julie <julie.cross@news.com.au> to media (Wednesday, 5 March 2025 10:33 AM) | FOI release material

FOI 24/25-1528

DOCUMENT 1

From: Cross, Julie julie.cross@news.com.au Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2025 10:33 AM To: media Subject: Media request

Categories: Ben, Active Media Enquiry

Hello,

I am looking for a comment about the rate of decision changes at tribunal - up from 58% to 70% in the last few years. The NDIA also spent $37m on legal firms representing the agency at tribunals in 2023-2024. Can you explain why so many original decisions by agency staff are wrong and have to be reversed/changed at tribunal? Why are these “negotiations” between the agency and participants not happening before the tribunal stage, at review or appeal? Why are you hiring barristers to take on people with a disability, who often can’t afford legal representation? What do you say to accusations that experts hired by the agency are not independent and are there to make recommendations on saving money? What do you say to accusations that the NDIA is the new robodebt, causing harm to participants? Isn’t this claim borne out by the number of changed decisions at tribunal? My deadline is tomorrow at 10am. Thanks, Julie

JULIE CROSS Social Affairs Reporter

M m m

2 Holt Street Surry Hills NSW 2010 GPO Box - GPO Box 7002, Sydney 2001 M redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material E julie.cross@news.com.au

This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee, you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments which does not relate to the official business of the sending company must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by that company or any of its related entities. No warranty is made that the e-mail or attachments are free from computer virus or other defect.

1 Page 1 of 217

FOI 24/25-1528

DOCUMENT 2

From: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrele Ben on behalf of media Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2025 10:45 AM To: Swainson, Matthew; McNAUGHTON, SCOTT Cc: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant mate Mitchell; Flowers, Daniel; STORK, Tim; media; REES, Shannon; O’Byrne, Tom; redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) Julian Subject: FYI: Media enquiry (NewsCorp) - ART matters [SEC=OFFICIAL]

Good morning Matt/all,

FYI on the below enquiry received from Julie Cross/NewsCorp.

We can lean on previous messaging re: the improvements we’ve made in this space, early resolution and working more closely to support ppts through the process.

And we’ll be strong in refuting any automation/Robodebt claims.

@STORK, Tim, appreciate any input your team may wish to have (esp re: reported rise in % of decision changes)

Thanks, Ben

From: Cross, Julie Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2025 11:03 AM To: media Subject: Media request

Hello,

I am looking for a comment about the rate of decision changes at tribunal - up from 58% to 70% in the last few years.

The NDIA also spent $37m on legal firms representing the agency at tribunals in 2023-2024. Can you explain why so many original decisions by agency staff are wrong and have to be reversed/changed at tribunal?

Why are these “negotiations” between the agency and participants not happening before the tribunal stage, at review or appeal?

Why are you hiring barristers to take on people with a disability, who often can’t afford legal representation? What do you say to accusations that experts hired by the agency are not independent and are there to make recommendations on saving money? What do you say to accusations that the NDIA is the new robodebt, causing harm to participants? Isn’t this claim borne out by the number of changed decisions at tribunal? My deadline is tomorrow at 10am. Thanks, Julie

JULIE CROSS Social Affairs Reporter

M m m

2 Holt Street Surry Hills NSW 2010 GPO Box - GPO Box 7002, Sydney 2001 M redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material E julie.cross@news.com.au

This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee, you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments which does not relate to the official business of the sending company must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by that company or any of its related entities. No warranty is made that the e-mail or attachments are free from computer virus or other defect.

1 Page 2 of 217

FOI 24/25-1528

DOCUMENT 3

From: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irre Ben on behalf of media Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2025 10:49 AM To: Falkingham, Rebecca Cc: media; REES, Shannon; O’Byrne, Tom; redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) Julian Subject: FYI: Media enquiry (NewsCorp) - ART matters [SEC=OFFICIAL]

Good morning Rebecca,

FYI on the below …

We’ll draft something that speaks to the improvements we’ve made in this area, and strongly refute the automated/Robodebt garbage.

Thanks, Ben

From: Cross, Julie Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2025 11:03 AM To: media Subject: Media request

Hello,

I am looking for a comment about the rate of decision changes at tribunal - up from 58% to 70% in the last few years. The NDIA also spent $37m on legal firms representing the agency at tribunals in 2023-2024. Can you explain why so many original decisions by agency staff are wrong and have to be reversed/changed at tribunal? Why are these “negotiations” between the agency and participants not happening before the tribunal stage, at review or appeal? Why are you hiring barristers to take on people with a disability, who often can’t afford legal representation? What do you say to accusations that experts hired by the agency are not independent and are there to make recommendations on saving money? What do you say to accusations that the NDIA is the new robodebt, causing harm to participants? Isn’t this claim borne out by the number of changed decisions at tribunal? My deadline is tomorrow at 10am. Thanks, Julie

JULIE CROSS Social Affairs Reporter

M m m

2 Holt Street Surry Hills NSW 2010 GPO Box - GPO Box 7002, Sydney 2001 M redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material E julie.cross@news.com.au

This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee, you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments which does not relate to the official business of the sending company must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by that company or any of its related entities. No warranty is made that the e-mail or attachments are free from computer virus or other defect.

1 Page 3 of 217

FOI 24/25-1528

DOCUMENT 7

From: Cross, Julie julie.cross@news.com.au Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2025 11:48 AM To: media Subject: Re: Media request Attachments: image0.jpeg; image1.jpeg

Hi Julian, Here are the two AAT stats requested. The case I am referring to is WQSW. Thanks, Julie

JULIE CROSS Social Affairs Reporter

M m m

2 Holt Street Surry Hills NSW 2010 GPO Box - GPO Box 7002, Sydney 2001 M redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material E julie.cross@news.com.au

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 at 11:02, Cross, Julie julie.cross@news.com.au wrote: Hello,

I am looking for a comment about the rate of decision changes at tribunal - up from 58% to 70% in the last few years. The NDIA also spent $37m on legal firms representing the agency at tribunals in 2023-2024. Can you explain why so many original decisions by agency staff are wrong and have to be reversed/changed at tribunal? Why are these “negotiations” between the agency and participants not happening before the tribunal stage, at review or appeal? Why are you hiring barristers to take on people with a disability, who often can’t afford legal representation? What do you say to accusations that experts hired by the agency are not independent and are there to make recommendations on saving money? What do you say to accusations that the NDIA is the new robodebt, causing harm to participants? Isn’t this claim borne out by the number of changed decisions at tribunal? My deadline is tomorrow at 10am. Thanks, Julie

JULIE CROSS Social Affairs Reporter

M m m

2 Holt Street Surry Hills NSW 2010 GPO Box - GPO Box 7002, Sydney 2001 M redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material E julie.cross@news.com.au

This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee, you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments which does not relate to the official business of the sending company must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by that company or any of its related entities. No warranty is made that the e-mail or attachments are free from computer virus or other defect.

1 Page 10 of 217

FOI 24/25-1528 DOCUMENT 7.1

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

AAT Caseload Report For the period 1 July 2024 to 13 October 2024

Division/Caseload	Lodgements	Finalisations	On hand at period end	Proportion of applications finalised within 12 months of lodgement	Median time to finalise (weeks)1	Proportion of applications in relation to which decision under review changed2
Freedom of Information	51	38	169	76%	28	29%
General	1,121	1,144	2,707	74%	29	27%
Australian citizenship	126	147	274	85%	24	29%
Centrelink (2nd review)	231	308	573	79%	23	32%
Visa-related decisions relating to character	80	52	137	83%	11	29%
Workers’ Compensation	388	396	1,290	56%	48	29%
Other	296	241	433	87%	14	15%
Migration & Refugee	17,652	8,053	72,786	27%	175	23%
Migration	11,797	3,066	31,310	49%	55	44%
Refugee	5,855	4,987	41,476	14%	218	10%
National Disability Insurance Scheme	2,095	1,263	3,781	75%	28	70%
Security	2	0	4	-	-	-
Small Business Taxation	77	120	484	41%	61	62%
Social Services & Child Support	2,592	2,522	1,902	99%	11	26%
Centrelink (1st review)	2,007	1,964	1,314	99%	10	23%
Child Support	521	504	545	98%	14	38%
Paid Parental Leave	64	54	43	100%	11	19%
Taxation & Commercial	246	232	1,533	60%	38	56%
Taxation	221	190	1,449	56%	38	61%
Other	25	42	84	70%	39	30%
Veterans’ Appeals	52	63	153	48%	60	35%
AAT	23,888	13,435	83,539	50%3	52	29%

1Median time to finalise is measured in weeks from lodgement to finalisation. 2These figures relate to applications for review of decision and do not include other types of applications that may be made under the AAT Act or related legislation. The decision under review is treated as having been changed if the Tribunal varies or sets aside the decision or remits the matter to the decision-maker for reconsideration by way of a decision under section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act) or section 349 or 415 of the Migration Act 1958 or by way of a decision made in accordance with terms of agreement reached by the parties under section 34D or 42C of the AAT Act. 3The Portfolio Budget Statement for the AAT sets out a performance criterion target of 75% of applications finalised within 12 months of lodgement.

Note: This report has been produced for publication on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (ART) website. For re-publication or other use, please contact the Report.RequestsMailbox@aat.gov.au to discuss intended use and ensure the accurate representation and communication of these figures. Figures may vary slightly between reports due to data changes that may occur between when reports are run.

Page 1 of 1

Page 11 of 217

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

AAT Caseload Report For the period 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022

Division/Caseload	Lodgements	Finalisations	On hand at period end	Proportion of applications finalised within 12 months of lodgement	Median time to finalise (weeks)1	Proportion of applications in relation to which decision under review changed2
Freedom of Information	70	72	108	49%	55	21%
General	3,879	4,514	2,941	72%	27	29%
Australian citizenship	459	683	363	69%	33	28%
Centrelink (2nd review)	1,179	1,549	721	80%	24	26%
Visa-related decisions relating to character	414	360	187	88%	11	38%
Workers’ Compensation	1,167	1,264	1,292	54%	49	34%
Other	660	658	378	85%	14	24%
Migration & Refugee	20,936	20,892	56,129	27%	107	31%
Migration	10,193	15,073	19,104	26%	105	40%
Refugee	10,743	5,819	37,025	28%	113	7%
National Disability Insurance Scheme	5,918	3,348	4,193	90%	23	58%
Security	17	7	37	71%	51	0%
Small Business Taxation	317	297	469	82%	29	48%
Social Services & Child Support	12,138	11,996	2,342	>99%	9	21%
Centrelink (1st review)	9,698	9,526	1,665	>99%	8	18%
Child Support	2,271	2,292	660	>99%	12	34%
Paid Parental Leave	169	178	17	100%	8	9%
Taxation & Commercial	838	685	1,315	59%	39	39%
Taxation	738	553	1,199	57%	42	41%
Other	100	132	116	63%	32	33%
Veterans’ Appeals	161	196	186	58%	47	30%
AAT	44,274	42,007	67,720	58%3	30	30%

1Median time to finalise is measured in weeks from lodgement to finalisation. 2These figures relate to applications for review of decision and do not include other types of applications that may be made under the AAT Act or related legislation. The decision under review is treated as having been changed if the Tribunal varies or sets aside the decision or remits the matter to the decision-maker for reconsideration by way of a decision under section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act) or section 43 or 406 of the Migration Act 1958 or by way of a decision made in accordance with terms of agreement reached by the parties under section 34D or 42C of the AAT Act. 3The Portfolio Budget Statement for the AAT sets out a performance criterion target of 75% of applications finalised within 12 months of lodgement.

Note: This report has been produced for publication on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) website. For re-publication or other use, please contact the Report.RequestsMailbox@aat.gov.au to discuss intended use and ensure the accurate representation and communication of these figures. Figures may vary slightly between reports due to data changes that may occur between when reports are run.

Page 12 of 217

DOCUMENT 7.2

FOI 24/25-1528

DOCUMENT 8

From: Cross, Julie julie.cross@news.com.au Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2025 11:51 AM To: media Subject: Re: Media request

Hi Julian, I know you mentioned about the number of cases being resolved before tribunal, but we note that lodgements have increased in the first half of this financial year, 3794, compared with 4271 for the entire previous financial year. J

JULIE CROSS Social Affairs Reporter

M m m

2 Holt Street Surry Hills NSW 2010 GPO Box - GPO Box 7002, Sydney 2001 M redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material E julie.cross@news.com.au

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 at 12:18, Cross, Julie julie.cross@news.com.au wrote: Hi Julian, Here are the two AAT stats requested. The case I am referring to is WQSW. Thanks, Julie

JULIE CROSS Social Affairs Reporter

M m m

2 Holt Street Surry Hills NSW 2010 GPO Box - GPO Box 7002, Sydney 2001 M redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material E julie.cross@news.com.au

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 at 11:02, Cross, Julie julie.cross@news.com.au wrote: Hello,

I am looking for a comment about the rate of decision changes at tribunal - up from 58% to 70% in the last few years. The NDIA also spent $37m on legal firms representing the agency at tribunals in 2023-2024. Can you explain why so many original decisions by agency staff are wrong and have to be reversed/changed at tribunal? Why are these “negotiations” between the agency and participants not happening before the tribunal stage, at review or appeal? Why are you hiring barristers to take on people with a disability, who often can’t afford legal representation? What do you say to accusations that experts hired by the agency are not independent and are there to make recommendations on saving money? What do you say to accusations that the NDIA is the new robodebt, causing harm to participants? Isn’t this claim borne out by the number of changed decisions at tribunal? My deadline is tomorrow at 10am. Thanks, Julie

JULIE CROSS Social Affairs Reporter

M m m

2 Holt Street Surry Hills NSW 2010 GPO Box - GPO Box 7002, Sydney 2001 M redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material E julie.cross@news.com.au

This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee, you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments which does not relate to the official business of the sending company must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by that company or any of its related entities. No warranty is made that the e-mail or attachments are free from computer virus or other defect.

1 Page 13 of 217

FOI 24/25-1528 DOCUMENT 9

From: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) Julian

Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2025 11:58 AM

To: O’Byrne, Tom; REES, Shannon; Falkingham, Rebecca; media

Cc: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) Ben

Subject: RE: FYI: Media enquiry (NewsCorp) - ART matters [SEC=OFFICIAL]

Hi all,

I’ve spoken with Julie and made it clear we expect accountability of her claims, and:

Accusations of independent experts:

This is where we engage professionals to undertake an assessment to inform the ART decision (i.e. OT Functional Capacity Assessment).
She says one expert received over $100k
Has an ART case study (she will send this to us) which she will reference anonymously, as reportedly the family can’t legally speak publicly to the case

Accusations of ‘robodebt’ and ‘harm to participants’

Her main source is Mark Toomey and his social media followers.

Data referenced:

It is from an ‘AAT report’ and details 1 July to 13 Oct. She will email this to us for reference.

We will get to work on the response, no doubt speak to Julie again to try and influence her reporting.

Cheers,

Julian.

redacted: s47C - deliberative processes

1 Page 14 of 217

FOI 24/25-1528 DOCUMENT 10

From: Falkingham, Rebecca

Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2025 11:59 AM

To: O’Byrne, Tom; REES, Shannon; media; Swainson, Matthew; McGregor, Tom Cc: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii), Julian

Subject: RE: FYI: Media enquiry (NewsCorp) - ART matters [SEC=OFFICIAL]

Thanks Tom – greatly appreciate it.

Looping in Matt/Tom and Daniel because between the three of them we have a very good story to tell on legal spend and ART.

Rebecca Falkingham CEO National Disability Insurance Agency

E redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material

Delivered by the National Disability Insurance Agency

The NDIA acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to land, sea and community. We pay our respects to them and their cultures and to Elders past, present and emerging.

redacted: s47C - deliberative processes

1 Page 17 of 217

FOI 24/25-1528 DOCUMENT 12.1

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

AAT Caseload Report For the period 1 July 2024 to 13 October 2024

Division/Caseload	Lodgements	Finalisations	On hand at period end	Proportion of applications finalised within 12 months of lodgement	Median time to finalise (weeks)1	Proportion of applications in relation to which decision under review changed2
Freedom of Information	51	38	169	76%	28	29%
General	1,121	1,144	2,707	74%	29	27%
Australian citizenship	126	147	274	85%	24	29%
Centrelink (2nd review)	231	308	573	79%	23	32%
Visa-related decisions relating to character	80	52	137	83%	11	29%
Workers’ Compensation	388	396	1,290	56%	48	29%
Other	296	241	433	87%	14	15%
Migration & Refugee	17,652	8,053	72,786	27%	175	23%
Migration	11,797	3,066	31,310	49%	55	44%
Refugee	5,855	4,987	41,476	14%	218	10%
National Disability Insurance Scheme	2,095	1,263	3,781	75%	28	70%
Security	2	0	4	-	-	-
Small Business Taxation	77	120	484	41%	61	62%
Social Services & Child Support	2,592	2,522	1,902	99%	11	26%
Centrelink (1st review)	2,007	1,964	1,314	99%	10	23%
Child Support	521	504	545	98%	14	38%
Paid Parental Leave	64	54	43	100%	11	19%
Taxation & Commercial	246	232	1,533	60%	38	56%
Taxation	221	190	1,449	56%	38	61%
Other	25	42	84	70%	39	30%
Veterans’ Appeals	52	63	153	48%	60	35%
AAT	23,888	13,435	83,539	50%3	52	29%

1Median time to finalise is measured in weeks from lodgement to finalisation. 2These figures relate to applications for review of decision and do not include other types of applications that may be made under the AAT Act or related legislation. The decision under review is treated as having been changed if the Tribunal varies or sets aside the decision or remits the matter to the decision-maker for reconsideration by way of a decision under section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act) or section 349 or 415 of the Migration Act 1958 or by way of a decision made in accordance with terms of agreement reached by the parties under section 34D or 42C of the AAT Act. 3The Portfolio Budget Statement for the AAT sets out a performance criterion target of 75% of applications finalised within 12 months of lodgement.

Note: This report has been produced for publication on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (ART) website. For re-publication or other use, please contact the Report.RequestsMailbox@aat.gov.au to discuss intended use and ensure the accurate representation and communication of these figures. Figures may vary slightly between reports due to data changes that may occur between when reports are run.

Page 1 of 1

Page 26 of 217

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

AAT Caseload Report For the period 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022

Division/Caseload	Lodgements	Finalisations	On hand at period end	Proportion of applications finalised within 12 months of lodgement	Median time to finalise (weeks)1	Proportion of applications in relation to which decision under review changed2
Freedom of Information	70	72	108	49%	55	21%
General	3,879	4,514	2,941	72%	27	29%
Australian citizenship	459	683	363	69%	33	28%
Centrelink (2nd review)	1,179	1,549	721	80%	24	26%
Visa-related decisions relating to character	414	360	187	88%	11	38%
Workers’ Compensation	1,167	1,264	1,292	54%	49	34%
Other	660	658	378	85%	14	24%
Migration & Refugee	20,936	20,892	56,129	27%	107	31%
Migration	10,193	15,073	19,104	26%	105	40%
Refugee	10,743	5,819	37,025	28%	113	7%
National Disability Insurance Scheme	5,918	3,348	4,193	90%	23	58%
Security	17	7	37	71%	51	0%
Small Business Taxation	317	297	469	82%	29	48%
Social Services & Child Support	12,138	11,996	2,342	>99%	9	21%
Centrelink (1st review)	9,698	9,526	1,665	>99%	8	18%
Child Support	2,271	2,292	660	>99%	12	34%
Paid Parental Leave	169	178	17	100%	8	9%
Taxation & Commercial	838	685	1,315	59%	39	39%
Taxation	738	553	1,199	57%	42	41%
Other	100	132	116	63%	32	33%
Veterans’ Appeals	161	196	186	58%	47	30%
AAT	44,274	42,007	67,720	58%3	30	30%

1Median time to finalise is measured in weeks from lodgement to finalisation. 2These figures relate to applications for review of decision and do not include other types of applications that may be made under the AAT Act or related legislation. The decision under review is treated as having been changed if the Tribunal varies or sets aside the decision or remits the matter to the decision-maker for reconsideration by way of a decision under section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act) or section 43 or 406 of the Migration Act 1958 or by way of a decision made in accordance with terms of agreement reached by the parties under section 34D or 42C of the AAT Act. 3The Portfolio Budget Statement for the AAT sets out a performance criterion target of 75% of applications finalised within 12 months of lodgement.

Note: This report has been produced for publication on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) website. For re-publication or other use, please contact the Report.RequestsMailbox@aat.gov.au to discuss intended use and ensure the accurate representation and communication of these figures. Figures may vary slightly between reports due to data changes that may occur between when reports are run.

Page 27 of 217

DOCUMENT 12.2

FOI 24/25-1528 DOCUMENT 13

From: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant ma, Marija

Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2025 1:55 PM

To: STORK, Tim; media; CASTLES, Fiona; Johnson, Kathryn; Flowers, Daniel; O’Byrne, Tom Cc: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant ma, Mitchell; REES, Shannon; redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant mat, Julian; redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant mat, Justin Subject: RE: FYI: Media enquiry (NewsCorp) - ART matters [SEC=OFFICIAL]

Hi Tom,

Please find below a proposed response.

The NDIA is committed to a participant centred and Case Manager-led approach to alternative dispute resolution. The NDIA is working directly with participants and their representatives to resolve these disputes quickly to enable earlier outcomes for participants and ensure participants have the supports they need.

Through the NDIA’s Early Assessment teams, Case Managers will contact the NDIS participant directly to better understand their circumstances and discuss options to resolve prior to an ART hearing where possible.

The Agency notes that 98% of matters are resolved prior to a substantive hearing in the Tribunal. A change in the NDIA’s position in an ART matter is primarily as a result of new information gathered during the proceeding. The NDIA’s role in the Tribunal is to reach the correct or preferable decision, and not to defend a reviewable decision.

The NDIA has implemented a range of initiatives over the last 2 years to drive improvements in dispute resolution and reduce the reliance on external lawyers. The NDIA remains focussed on reducing external legal costs per matter through improved procurement of external Legal Services Providers and reducing the number of law firms with a focus on bringing matters back in-house.

The NDIA engages lawyers in the merit review process to ensure it meets its obligations to assist the Tribunal and its model litigant obligations under the Legal Services Direction 2017. Participants can represent themselves or choose a representative to assist them with the Tribunal process. The NDIS Appeals Program, run by the Department of Social Services helps people with disability, and other people affected by reviewable decisions of the NDIA. Through this program, participants can access disability advocate and legal aid at no cost to themselves.

Marija redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material Director Strategy and Reporting Legal Practice and Capability Branch Chief Counsel Division

National Disability Insurance Agency M: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material | E: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material@ndis.gov.au

Delivered by the National Disability Insurance Agency

The NDIA acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to land, sea and community. We pay our respects to them and their cultures and to Elders past, present and emerging.

Important: This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable and/or subject to legal or parliamentary privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all electronic and hard copies of this transmission together with any attachments.

redacted: s47C - deliberative processes

1 Page 28 of 217

FOI 24/25-1528

DOCUMENT 14

From: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - ir, Ben on behalf of media Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2025 2:36 PM To: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - ir Julian Cc: media Subject: FOR REVIEW: NewsCorp / ART [SEC=OFFICIAL]

Categories: Julian

Hey Jredacted: s22(1)(a)(ii),

Seeking your review of the below. Tis long

Thanks, Bredacted: s22(1)(a)(ii)

The following can be attributed to an NDIA spokesperson: The National Disability Insurance Agency’s priority remains ensuring our participants can access the disability-related supports they need, and we acknowledge every participant’s right to request an internal review or seek an external review through the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART).

Should any NDIS participant seek a review through the ART, our approach is to support participants through this process.

Over the past two years the NDIA has implemented a range of strategies and improvements to ensure a better participant experience for anyone involved in the external appeal process. These initiatives have also contributed to an overall decrease in external legal expenditure for FY2023-24.

The NDIA adopted an early resolution approach which ensures the Agency works more closely with participants sooner in the appeal process – reducing the likelihood of the matter progressing through the ART. The NDIA, through assigned case managers, works directly with participants and their representatives to resolve these disputes quickly to enable earlier outcomes for participants and ensure participants have the supports they need.

The Agency notes that data shows that 98% of matters are resolved prior to a substantive hearing in the Tribunal. In addition, average waits times at the Tribunal have reduced from a median of 34.6 weeks in December 2022 to 26.4 weeks in December 2024.

It is important to note that participants seeking a review through the ART are able to gather additional evidence – and submit new requests – after lodging an ART case. A change in the NDIA’s position in an ART matter is primarily as a result of new information gathered during the proceeding. The NDIA’s role in the Tribunal is to reach the correct or preferable decision, and not to defend a reviewable decision.

The Agency will continue to work with participants, their representatives, Legal Aid and the Tribunal to improve the experience of participants exercising their right to seek an external review of Agency decisions.

It is utterly false to suggest automated decision-making will be used by the NDIA now or into the future. In fact, recent amendments to the NDIS Act expressly requires human decision-making and oversight across each step of the process.

The suggestion of automated decision-making is not only false, it risks causing unnecessary concern amongst people with disability.

Background (to inform reporting only, not for attribution) The NDIA engages lawyers in the merit review process to ensure it meets its obligations to assist the Tribunal and its model litigant obligations. Participants can represent themselves or choose a representative to assist them with the Tribunal process. The NDIS Appeals Program, run by the Department of Social Services helps people with disability, and other people affected by reviewable decisions of the NDIA. Through this program, participants can access disability advocate and legal aid at no cost to themselves.

Given a participant’s right to supply additional information and add requests during the external review process, it is overly simplistic to suggest the ART varying an NDIA decision equates to Agency staff getting it “wrong”. Our aim remains ensuring every participant receives the disability-related supports they require and for which they are eligible.

The NDIA is concerned a narrative around “automated” planning – including mischievous comparisons to Robodebt – is being perpetuated through incorrect reporting and false claims made by some individuals, and would ask media to consider their role in ensuring NDIS participants have access to the correct information regarding our planning processes.

As of 30 September 2024, the NDIS was providing disability-related support to 680,123 Australians living with disability – an increase of 27% from 30 June 2022, when the Scheme was supporting 534,655 participants.

From: Cross, Julie Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2025 12:21 PM To: media Subject: Re: Media request

Hi Julian, I know you mentioned about the number of cases being resolved before tribunal, but we note that lodgements have increased in the first half of this financial year, 3794, compared with 4271 for the entire previous financial year. J

JULIE CROSS Social Affairs Reporter

1 Page 31 of 217

M m m

2 Holt Street Surry Hills NSW 2010 GPO Box - GPO Box 7002, Sydney 2001 M redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material E julie.cross@news.com.au

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 at 12:18, Cross, Julie julie.cross@news.com.au wrote: Hi Julian, Here are the two AAT stats requested. The case I am referring to is WQSW. Thanks, Julie

JULIE CROSS Social Affairs Reporter

M m m

2 Holt Street Surry Hills NSW 2010 GPO Box - GPO Box 7002, Sydney 2001 M redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material E julie.cross@news.com.au

On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 at 11:02, Cross, Julie julie.cross@news.com.au wrote: Hello,

I am looking for a comment about the rate of decision changes at tribunal - up from 58% to 70% in the last few years. The NDIA also spent $37m on legal firms representing the agency at tribunals in 2023-2024. Can you explain why so many original decisions by agency staff are wrong and have to be reversed/changed at tribunal? Why are these “negotiations” between the agency and participants not happening before the tribunal stage, at review or appeal? Why are you hiring barristers to take on people with a disability, who often can’t afford legal representation? What do you say to accusations that experts hired by the agency are not independent and are there to make recommendations on saving money? What do you say to accusations that the NDIA is the new robodebt, causing harm to participants? Isn’t this claim borne out by the number of changed decisions at tribunal? My deadline is tomorrow at 10am. Thanks, Julie

JULIE CROSS Social Affairs Reporter

M m m

2 Holt Street Surry Hills NSW 2010 GPO Box - GPO Box 7002, Sydney 2001 M redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material E julie.cross@news.com.au

This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee, you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments which does not relate to the official business of the sending company must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by that company or any of its related entities. No warranty is made that the e-mail or attachments are free from computer virus or other defect.

2 Page 32 of 217

FOI 24/25-1528 DOCUMENT 15

From: REES, Shannon

Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2025 3:00 PM

To: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant mat, Marija; STORK, Tim; media; CASTLES, Fiona; Johnson, Kathryn; Flowers, Daniel; O’Byrne, Tom; Swainson, Matthew Cc: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant mat, Mitchell; redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant mat, Julian; redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant mat, Justin Subject: RE: FYI: Media enquiry (NewsCorp) - ART matters [SEC=OFFICIAL]

Im just looping Matt in here as we discussed this direct with RF and he may be able to assist

From: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant mat, Marija Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2025 2:25 PM To: STORK, Tim; media; CASTLES, Fiona; Johnson, Kathryn; Flowers, Daniel; O’Byrne, Tom Cc: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant mat, Mitchell; REES, Shannon; redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant mat, Julian; redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant mat, Justin Subject: RE: FYI: Media enquiry (NewsCorp) - ART matters [SEC=OFFICIAL]

Hi Tom,

Please find below a proposed response.

The NDIA is committed to a participant centred and Case Manager-led approach to alternative dispute resolution. The NDIA is working directly with participants and their representatives to resolve these disputes quickly to enable earlier outcomes for participants and ensure participants have the supports they need.

Through the NDIA’s Early Assessment teams, Case Managers will contact the NDIS participant directly to better understand their circumstances and discuss options to resolve prior to an ART hearing where possible.

The Agency notes that 98% of matters are resolved prior to a substantive hearing in the Tribunal. A change in the NDIA’s position in an ART matter is primarily as a result of new information gathered during the proceeding. The NDIA’s role in the Tribunal is to reach the correct or preferable decision, and not to defend a reviewable decision.

The NDIA has implemented a range of initiatives over the last 2 years to drive improvements in dispute resolution and reduce the reliance on external lawyers. The NDIA remains focussed on reducing external legal costs per matter through improved procurement of external Legal Services Providers and reducing the number of law firms with a focus on bringing matters back in-house.

The NDIA engages lawyers in the merit review process to ensure it meets its obligations to assist the Tribunal and its model litigant obligations under the Legal Services Direction 2017. Participants can represent themselves or choose a representative to assist them with the Tribunal process. The NDIS Appeals Program, run by the Department of Social Services helps people with disability, and other people affected by reviewable decisions of the NDIA. Through this program, participants can access disability advocate and legal aid at no cost to themselves.

Marija redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material Director Strategy and Reporting Legal Practice and Capability Branch Chief Counsel Division

National Disability Insurance Agency M: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material | E: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material@ndis.gov.au

Delivered by the National Disability Insurance Agency

The NDIA acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to land, sea and community. We pay our respects to them and their cultures and to Elders past, present and emerging.

Important: This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable and/or subject to legal or parliamentary privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all electronic and hard copies of this transmission together with any attachments.

From: STORK, Tim Tim.STORK@ndis.gov.au Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2025 12:57 PM

1 Page 33 of 217

From: REES, Shannon

Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2025 3:01 PM

To: O’Byrne, Tom; Flowers, Daniel; McGregor, Tom; Johnson, Kathryn; STORK, Tim; CASTLES, Fiona Cc: Swainson, Matthew; redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant mat, Marija; redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant mat, Julian; media

Subject: RE: FYI: Media enquiry (NewsCorp) - ART matters [SEC=OFFICIAL]

We can make sure CEO has visibility of this too thanks Team

redacted: s47C - deliberative processes

From: Flowers, Daniel

Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2025 1:12 PM

To: McGregor, Tom; O’Byrne, Tom; Johnson, Kathryn; STORK, Tim; CASTLES, Fiona Cc: Swainson, Matthew; redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant mat, Marija

Subject: RE: FYI: Media enquiry (NewsCorp) - ART matters [SEC=OFFICIAL]

Thanks Tom,

A couple of email trails with different groups on this one. Marija is working on a response which will come through shortly.

Thanks,

Daniel Flowers Acting General Manager, Chief Counsel National Disability Insurance Agency

M: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material | E daniel.flowers@ndis.gov.au

Delivered by the National Disability Insurance Agency

The NDIA acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to land, sea and community. We pay our respects to them and their cultures and to Elders past, present and emerging.

1 Page 36 of 217

From: McGregor, Tom Tom.McGregor@ndis.gov.au Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2025 1:03 PM To: O’Byrne, Tom; Johnson, Kathryn Kathryn.Johnson@ndis.gov.au; STORK, Tim Tim.STORK@ndis.gov.au; CASTLES, Fiona Fiona.CASTLES@ndis.gov.au Cc: Flowers, Daniel Daniel.Flowers@ndis.gov.au; Swainson, Matthew Matthew.Swainson@ndis.gov.au Subject: FW: FYI: Media enquiry (NewsCorp) - ART matters [SEC=OFFICIAL]

Hi Tom

Have looped in Tim (ART), Kathryn (Litigation) and Fiona (Legal support) whose teams will be able to help with this narrative.

Dan - FYI

Regards, Tom

Tom McGregor (he/him) General Counsel National Disability Insurance Agency Mobile redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material | Email tom.mcgregor@ndis.gov.au

Executive Assistant: Trudy redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material – M: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material | E: trudy.redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material@ndis.gov.au Divisional Support Officer: Trish redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material – M: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material | E: trishredacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material@ndis.gov.au

Important: This e-mail is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain information that is confidential, commercially valuable and/or subject to legal or parliamentary privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender immediately and delete all electronic and hard copies of this transmission together with any attachments.

The NDIA acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to land, sea and community. We pay our respects to them and their cultures and to Elders past, present and emerging.

From: Falkingham, Rebecca Rebecca.Falkingham@ndis.gov.au Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2025 12:29 PM To: O’Byrne, Tom; REES, Shannon Shannon.REES@ndis.gov.au; media media@ndis.gov.au; Swainson, Matthew Matthew.Swainson@ndis.gov.au; McGregor, Tom Tom.McGregor@ndis.gov.au Cc: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii), Julian <Julian.redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material@ndis.gov.au> Subject: RE: FYI: Media enquiry (NewsCorp) - ART matters [SEC=OFFICIAL]

Thanks Tom – greatly appreciate it.

Looping in Matt/Tom and Daniel because between the three of them we have a very good story to tell on legal spend and ART.

Rebecca Falkingham CEO National Disability Insurance Agency E rebecca.falkingham@ndis.gov.au

The NDIA acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to land, sea and community. We pay our respects to them and their cultures and to Elders past, present and emerging.

From: O’Byrne, Tom Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2025 12:10 PM To: REES, Shannon Shannon.REES@ndis.gov.au; Falkingham, Rebecca Rebecca.Falkingham@ndis.gov.au; media media@ndis.gov.au

2 Page 37 of 217

FOI 24/25-1528

DOCUMENT 17

From: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii), Julian Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2025 3:03 PM To: media; O’Byrne, Tom Cc: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant, Ben Subject: RE: FOR REVIEW: NewsCorp / ART [SEC=OFFICIAL]

Thanks very much Bredacted: s22(1)(a)(ii),

Flicking to @O’Byrne, Tom directly in interest of time and hopefully curtail the litany of emails.

// The following can be attributed to an NDIA spokesperson: The National Disability Insurance Agency’s (NDIA) priority remains ensuring our participants can access the disability-related supports they need, and we acknowledge every participant’s right to request an internal review or seek an external review through the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART).

Over the past two years the NDIA has implemented a range of strategies and improvements to ensure a better participant experience for anyone involved in the external appeal process. These initiatives have also contributed to an overall decrease in external legal expenditure for FY2023-24, with the latest reporting period seeing ART legal commitments decrease by 23%.

The NDIA adopted an early resolution approach which ensures the Agency works more closely with participants sooner in the appeal process – reducing the likelihood of the matter progressing through the ART.

The Agency notes that data shows that 98% of matters are resolved prior to a substantive hearing in the Tribunal. In addition, average waits times at the Tribunal have reduced from a median of 34.6 weeks in December 2022 to 26.4 weeks in December 2024.

The increase in ART applications can be attributed to multiple factors, including the Scheme supporting more participants than ever and a significant growth in the number of decisions the Agency is making.T

The Agency will continue to work with participants, their representatives, Legal Aid and the Tribunal to improve the experience of participants exercising their right to seek an external review of Agency decisions.

Background (to inform reporting only, not for attribution) It is important to note that participants seeking a review through the ART are able to gather additional evidence – and submit new requests – after lodging an ART case. A change in the NDIA’s position in an ART matter is primarily as a result of new information gathered during the proceeding. The NDIA’s role in the Tribunal is to reach the correct or preferable decision, and not to defend a reviewable decision.

Given a participant’s right to supply additional information and add requests during the external review process, it is overly simplistic to suggest the ART varying an NDIA decision equates to Agency staff getting it “wrong”. Our aim remains ensuring every participant receives the disability-related supports they require and for which they are eligible.

The NDIA engages lawyers in the merit review process to ensure it meets its obligations to assist the Tribunal and its model litigant obligations. Participants can represent themselves or choose a representative to assist them with the Tribunal process. The NDIS Appeals Program, run by the Department of Social Services helps people with disability, and other people affected by reviewable decisions of the NDIA. Through this program, participants can access disability advocate and legal aid at no cost to themselves.

The NDIA is concerned of comparisons to Robodebt is being perpetuated through incorrect reporting and false claims made by some individuals, and would ask media to consider their role in ensuring NDIS participants have access to the correct information regarding our planning processes. //

From: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant, Ben On Behalf Of media Sent: Wednesday, 5 March 2025 3:06 PM To: redacted: s22(1)(a)(ii), Julian Cc: media Subject: FOR REVIEW: NewsCorp / ART [SEC=OFFICIAL]

Hey Jredacted: s22(1)(a)(ii),

Seeking your review of the below. Tis long

Thanks, Bredacted: s22(1)(a)(ii)

The following can be attributed to an NDIA spokesperson: The National Disability Insurance Agency’s priority remains ensuring our participants can access the disability-related supports they need, and we acknowledge every participant’s right to request an internal review or seek an external review through the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART).

Should any NDIS participant seek a review through the ART, our approach is to support participants through this process.

Over the past two years the NDIA has implemented a range of strategies and improvements to ensure a better participant experience for anyone involved in the external appeal process. These initiatives have also contributed to an overall decrease in external legal expenditure for FY2023-24.

The NDIA adopted an early resolution approach which ensures the Agency works more closely with participants sooner in the appeal process – reducing the likelihood of the matter progressing through the ART. The NDIA, through assigned case managers, works directly with participants and their representatives to resolve these disputes quickly to enable earlier outcomes for participants and ensure participants have the supports they need.

1 Page 40 of 217