Pearson and National Disability Insurance Agency

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an interlocutory application by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) seeking to compel the applicant, Ms. Pearson, to participate in telehealth assessments with a psychiatrist and an occupational therapist. Ms. Pearson is a participant in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and had applied to the Tribunal for a review of the NDIA's decision regarding her statement of supports, arguing that certain requested supports were reasonable and necessary. The NDIA sought these assessments to gather evidence to assist the Tribunal in determining the reasonableness and necessity of the supports Ms. Pearson sought.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it possessed the power under section 33 of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth) to direct Ms. Pearson to participate in these further assessments, given her lack of consent. The Tribunal was required to consider the scope of its procedural powers and the overarching objectives of fairness, justice, and proportionality in conducting reviews under the NDIS Act.

The Tribunal reasoned that while section 33 of the *AAT Act* grants it broad powers to manage proceedings and inform itself, any directions must be fair, just, and proportionate to the complexity of the matter, as mandated by section 2A of the *AAT Act*. Furthermore, parties are obliged to use their best endeavours to assist the Tribunal in fulfilling these objectives. The Tribunal noted that a request for information or evidence must be reasonable and proportionate, and an applicant is generally required to accede to such a request if it facilitates a fair and just review process. Applying these principles, the Tribunal determined that a direction for an occupational therapy assessment was appropriate and proportionate to the issues in dispute. However, it refused to direct a psychiatric assessment, finding it was not sufficiently justified or proportionate in the circumstances.

Consequently, the Tribunal directed that Ms. Pearson participate in a telehealth assessment by Dr. Micah Perez, an occupational therapist, provided at least five business days' notice was given. The Tribunal refused to make a similar direction for a psychiatric assessment by Dr. Graham George.