FSWN and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application for recusal brought by the Applicant against a Member of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) Tribunal, identified as Dr K Dodd. The Applicant sought the Member's recusal from hearing their substantive application due to apprehended bias. The core of the Applicant's argument was that the Member, possessing medical qualifications, would be predisposed to be sceptical or hostile towards alternative therapies, such as naturopathy, which were central to the Applicant's claim.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether a reasonable and informed observer, considering the Member's medical qualifications and the Applicant's submissions regarding the general scepticism of the medical profession towards alternative medicine, would apprehend that the Member might not bring an impartial mind to the evidence. This required the Tribunal to apply the principles of apprehended bias, as articulated in High Court decisions such as *Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy* and *QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs*.

The Member reasoned that while the qualifications and experience of a decision-maker are relevant, a fair-minded lay observer would also understand that Tribunal members are appointed for their impartiality and are expected to decide matters on their merits. The Member acknowledged the Applicant's submissions about the views of certain medical groups towards alternative therapies but concluded that these submissions did not meet the legal threshold for apprehended bias. The Member affirmed their duty to hear the application impartially, based on the evidence presented, and not on any preconceived views.

Ultimately, the Member refused the Applicant's request for recusal, finding that the claim of bias had not been substantiated to the required legal standard.