ZPZK and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) - [2025] ARTA 2193

ZPZK and CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 2193 (17 October 2025)
Applicant/s:  ZPZK
Respondent:  CEO, National Disability Insurance Agency
Tribunal Number:                2024/9066
Tribunal:Senior Member A Clues
Place:Hobart
Date:17 October 2025

The Tribunal orders pursuant to section 70 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 that:
1) the name and any other information tending to reveal the identity of the applicant must not be published in connection with this proceeding, and
2) a pseudonym be used instead of the name of the applicant for the purposes of this proceeding.
Catchwords
National Disability Insurance Scheme - request for pseudonym order - relevant principles – are applicant’s circumstances sufficient to take case outside the ordinary discomfort that most applicants experience when information that is personal to them is publicly discussed and decided upon.
Legislation
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth).
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Cases
Sheikh and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 871
Secondary Materials
Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024 - Revised Explanatory Memorandum
Statement of Reasons

The applicant is a 39-year-old woman who was granted access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) on 15 August 2022 on the basis of impairments relating to Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS).[1] The applicant currently has a 6-month plan in place commencing 8 October 2025 and expiring on 7 April 2026.[2]
[1] applicant’s SOFIC response p1.
[2] JTB 372-399
On 1 November 2024, the applicant filed an application for review with the Tribunal. In that review there is one support that remains in dispute between the parties, namely home modifications in the amount of $62,050 for a bathroom within the applicant’s bedroom. The issue to be determined by the Tribunal is whether the requested support meets the reasonable and necessary criteria under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth).[3]
[3] applicant’s SOFIC response p1.
The substantive hearing is scheduled to take place on 5 and 6 November 2025 via Microsoft Teams video.
Interlocutory application
On 15 September 2025, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal requesting a confidentiality/pseudonym order in relation to her case. She advised she was seeking the order due to concerns about protecting her privacy and dignity, particularly if her identity were to be publicly disclosed in connection with the matter. She stated that as a past teacher working in a public facing role, publication of her full name could adversely affect her professional reputation and future employment opportunities within the education industry. She stated that she was also concerned about her privacy in relation to former and future colleagues, employers, and members of the school community including students and parents. The applicant further requested that any published decision exclude identifying details of her children, such as their names and ages, in order to prevent the public from identifying her family based on its structure.[4]
[4] email from applicant dated 15 September 2025.
The solicitor for the respondent advised by email dated 16 September 2025 that the respondent consents to the applicant having a pseudonym in this application to maintain her confidentiality under section 70(1) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act). The respondent also advised that if a written decision is made by the Tribunal in the application, it did not consent to the non-publication of the decision which was consistent with the Administrative Review Tribunal - publication of decisions policy - dated 11 December 2024.[5]
[5] email from respondent dated 16 September 2025.
On 23 September 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the parties advising that before a confidentiality/pseudonym order could be made, the Tribunal must be satisfied that such an order is appropriate on the facts of this case. The Tribunal advised the parties as follows:
Based on the information provided at this stage the Tribunal is not satisfied that it has sufficient evidence to make that order. Relevant to the making of such an order are the principles that it is desirable that hearings of proceedings in the Tribunal are held in public and that evidence given before the Tribunal is made available to the public. These principles need to be weighed against the circumstances of the applicant and her family and the harm that may occur if the order is not made.
As was recently stated in the decision of Sheikh and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 871 (Sheik) at [49]:
The Tribunal avoids gratuitous disclosure of sensitive information unless such disclosure is central to a finding of fact. As an essential public service, the Tribunal is of the view that NDIS decisions regarding the allocation of public money to fund reasonable and necessary supports, which routinely run to tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in an individual’s plan, require public scrutiny unless there is a clear legislative prohibition, or compelling reasons supported by evidence.
At this stage, the Tribunal is not persuaded that it has been provided with sufficient evidence to depart from the principle contained in section 71(2) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) that it is desirable that hearings are held in public and evidence made available to the public.
The parties were advised that the Tribunal had not made a final determination in relation to the application for a confidentiality/pseudonym order and made the following directions that were sent to the parties.
(i)If the applicant wishes to pursue her application for a confidentiality/pseudonym order then on or before 4pm on Friday 3 October 2025 then she must give the Tribunal and respondent written submissions which provide specific details or reasons for an order under section 70 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act), noting the considerations which the Tribunal must have regard to under section 71(2) of the ART Act.
(ii)If the respondent wishes to make any submissions in reply, it must give the Tribunal and the applicant those submissions on or before Friday 10 October 2025.
(iii)Once the Tribunal receives those submissions it will provide the parties with a written decision on this interlocutory issue prior to the hearing dates scheduled for 5 and 6 November 2025.
(iv)If the applicant does not wish to pursue her application for a confidentiality/pseudonym order, then she should inform the Tribunal and the respondent of this on or before 4pm on Friday 3 October 2025.
(v)If the respondent does not wish to make any submissions in reply, then it should inform the Tribunal and the applicant of this on or before 4pm on Friday 10 October 2025.
On 3 October 2025, the applicant filed submissions in support of her application for a confidentiality/pseudonym order. On 7 October 2025, the respondent advised that it would not be making any submissions in reply.
In the applicant’s submissions, she clarified the scope of her application to be as follows:
(a)The applicant requests that her name and the names of her family members be restricted from publication and replaced with pseudonyms, in accordance with section 70 of the ART Act and paragraph 6.6 of the Administrative Review Tribunal (Common Procedures) Practice Directions (2024).
(b)The applicant makes no objection to the hearing itself being held in public and makes no objection to the publication of all other information contained in the evidence that is before the Tribunal or in the Tribunals written decision.
(c)The applicant acknowledges that her previous request (dated 15 September 2025) included the removal of her children’s ages. Upon reconsideration, the applicant makes no objection to the inclusion of this information if it is deemed necessary by the Tribunal for the clarity of the written decision.
In the applicant’s submissions she stated that the recent decision of Sheikh was distinguishable from her case because it referred to cases decided under prior iterations of the Tribunal (both pre and post amalgamation) and not under the Tribunal as it stands today.[6] She further stated that although the underlying principles in those cases undoubtedly continue to stand true, the conclusions drawn are not wholly transferable to the current Tribunal and it would not be appropriate to replicate them in this case, due to changes in the legislative intent.
[6] applicant's submissions at [9].
The applicant referred to the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024 -Revised Explanatory Memorandum to support her submission that sections 69, 70 and 71 of the ART Act were intended to rebalance “the relevant considerations the Tribunal should take into account before making an order to reflect changes in attitudes towards the need to protect personal and sensitive information”.[7]
[7] Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024 -Revised Explanatory Memorandum [31].
With respect to the relevant provisions of the ART Act the revised explanatory memorandum states as follows[8]:
[8] Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024 -Revised Explanatory Memorandum [561] – [569].
Clause 70: Tribunal may restrict publication or disclosure of information
561.       This clause empowers the Tribunal to restrict the publication or disclosure of certain information. It is equivalent to subsections 35(3) and 35(4) of the AAT Act. It has minor updates to reflect modern drafting practices. These do not affect the operation or effect of the provision.
562.       Subclause (1) empowers the Tribunal to order that information that might reveal the identity of parties, witnesses, and persons related or otherwise associated with them must not be published or disclosed. This could be used, for example, to prevent the publication of the name of a party or witness who is experiencing family violence.
563.       Subclause (2) allows the Tribunal to order that information relating to the proceeding that comprises evidence, or is information given to the Tribunal, must not be published, or disclosed.
564.       Subclause (3) provides that an order under subclause (2) may prohibit or restrict the publication or disclosure to some or all of the parties to the proceeding. Subclause (4) provides that the Tribunal can make the above non‑publication or non‑disclosure orders on its own initiative, or upon application by a person. ‘Person’ in this subclause can include people who are not parties to the proceeding: they may be witnesses or people otherwise referenced in a Tribunal decision.
565.       The notes in this clause clarify that when making a non-disclosure or non‑publication order, the Tribunal must take into account the considerations outlined in clause 71 (see below). The notes also specify that breaching a non-publication or non‑disclosure order under this clause is an offence under clause 119.
Clause 71: Requirements for Tribunal orders about hearings, publication and disclosure
566.       This clause sets out requirements that apply to the Tribunal’s consideration of an order for a hearing to be held in private or for certain information to not be published or disclosed under clauses 69 and 70. Subclause (1) provides that the Tribunal must comply with any requirements specified in the practice directions (subclause (1).
567.       Subclause (2) provides that the Tribunal must also have regard to the following considerations when deciding whether to make the order:
·the principle that it is desirable that hearings of proceedings are held in public
·the principle that it is desirable that evidence given before the Tribunal is made available to the public
·the principle that it is desirable that evidence given before the Tribunal and the contents of documents given to the Tribunal are made available to all the parties to the proceeding
·any reason in favour of making an order including the circumstances of the parties to the proceedings and other persons connected to the proceeding, the harm that could result to a person if an order is not made and in relation to an order under clause 70, the confidential nature (if any) of the information
·any other matters that the Tribunal considers relevant
568.       Subclause (2) requires the Tribunal to balance the principles of open justice and procedural fairness with the circumstances of the parties or any persons connected to the proceeding, the harm that could result to a person if an order is not made, the need to keep information confidential and any other relevant considerations. The Tribunal may need to consider factors such as the particular vulnerabilities of parties and persons connected to the proceeding, whether the disclosure of information may cause reputational damage to parties or persons connected to the proceeding, the need to keep sensitive personal information private and whether the safety of a party or person connected to the proceeding may be compromised (such as where there is family domestic violence) if the order is not made.
569.       Subclause (2) is equivalent to subsection 35(5) of the AAT Act. Refinements have been made to clarify and modernise the drafting and to require the Tribunal to ensure an adequate balance between the principle of open justice and the need to protect sensitive, confidential and/or personal information.
In her submissions the applicant stated that the harm that is likely to occur to her and her family if a pseudonym/confidentiality order is not made is as follows[9]:
[9] applicant's submissions at [45]-[47].
Harm - Moral injury to the applicant
The disclosure of my identity alongside the sensitive information I have shared during this case will cause irremediable damage to my dignity and my sense of safety due to the intrusion. There is no evidence I could give you to prove this to be true beyond my word.
I have been more honest about the reality of my situation with the NDIA, the agency’s chosen IME and with the Tribunal, than I have been with almost everyone in my personal life.
I am unfortunately deeply familiar with the fact that an inherent part of being a disabled person is being forced into situations where you have no other option than profound vulnerability. I have worked hard to accept this reality, to put my trust in other people, to move through feelings of shame and embarrassment, to appreciate the good it brings and the way it connects me more deeply to others and to myself — but it is still exhausting and at times distressing in its relentlessness.
I have already carried a heavy weight in applying for the ART for such a specific area of need. So, it is difficult for me to truly understand why, after already offering up so much of myself to this system and to this process, it is absolutely necessary for me to hand over the only thing I have left. I cannot conceive of what greater good would justifiably be served by the world knowing my identity.
The thought of having the personal and exceptionally intimate struggles I have endured due to my disability made public for uninhibited consumption is already difficult enough on its own — but with my name and the identity of my family attached, I cannot see it as anything other than a betrayal.
I have done nothing wrong to find myself here. My only fault is being unlucky — unlucky enough to have a disability, to be engaging with a government agency that can make errors in its decisions, to need help from the Tribunal, and to then end up in a situation where the public could become privy to the fact that due to my impairments and the inaccessibility of my bathroom I, [the applicant] am unable to properly or wholly bathe for weeks at a time and as such have unacceptably bad personal hygiene, is a terrifyingly degrading prospect. Especially because, depending on the outcome of the case, this fact may not change going forward.
Harm Employment prospects of the applicant
In addition to the harm done to my mental wellbeing by disclosing my identity, I am seriously concerned about the impact it could reasonably have on my future employment prospects, and the likelihood of experiencing further discrimination as a disabled woman by a future employer, colleague, or the community I’d be serving, if they were to find out the sensitive information was necessarily shared in the process of this proceeding.
I do not wish to be placed in a situation where I am faced with any additional mistreatment and scrutiny (that is potentially even more personal than before) from the people I interact with as a visibly disabled woman, and the loss of personal confidence it results in.
Whilst I am currently unable to hold employment, I hope that with the right support I will be able to return to my career in some way, and I do not want to have that jeopardised by something so avoidable.
Publication of a child NDIS participant’s identity
Practice directions state the identity of any child NDIS participant will be concealed. As the applicant's children are NDIS participants, their identities should not be revealed in accordance with that practice direction, made under subsection 71(1) of the Act.
CONSIDERATION
As stated, the issue for determination in this case is whether the applicant’s proposed bathroom modifications are reasonable and necessary. The applicant seeks changes to the existing layout of the bathroom in her home. She has provided a proposed layout for the bathroom which is open plan and removes access to the walk-in robe from the bathroom and instead creates access from the bedroom. It includes a shower curtain as well as handrails and grab rails in the shower, between the shower and vanity, on the other side of the vanity and adjacent to the toilet. It is submitted that this proposed layout will not require the applicant to walk from her power wheelchair to either the shower or toilet and that this will reduce her falls risk and will reduce her need for support from her husband to shower or to administer bed baths or use wet wipes to clean her.[10]
[10] Respondent’s SOFIC [36]-[37].
The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s submissions that some of the evidence in this case involves some personal and intimate struggles that she endures as a result of her disability and impairments and if members of the public became aware of that information it would cause harm to the applicant’s dignity.
The applicant submits that whilst she is currently not employed, she hopes that she will be able to return to her career in education at some stage in the future and if a prospective employer became aware of the evidence relating to personal hygiene matters that could possibly impact upon her employment prospects.
Finally, whilst the Tribunal notes that it would not publish the name of the applicant’s children or her husband in these proceedings, if the applicant’s name were published then there is a prospect that the identity of her children and husband may also become known.
On balance the Tribunal has determined that the determination of matters involving the applicant’s personal hygiene, including toileting and showering are sufficient to take this case outside the ordinary discomfort that most applicants likely experience when information that is personal to them is publicly discussed and decided upon.[11]
[11] Sheikh [49].
The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s request is limited to her name and the names of her family members being restricted from publication and replaced with pseudonyms in accordance with section 70 of the ART Act. She does not object to the hearing being held in public or that evidence given before the Tribunal is made available to the public. She consents to the publication of the Tribunal’s decision provided that her name and the names of her family members are replaced in that decision with pseudonyms.

The Tribunal considers that provided the facts of this case and the determination made are published there is no additional benefit that would be achieved by revealing the applicant’s identity and potentially the identity of her children.
DETERMINATION
For these reasons, the Tribunal orders that pursuant to section 70 of the ART Act:
3) the name and any other information tending to reveal the identity of the applicant must not be published in connection with this proceeding, and
4) a pseudonym be used instead of the name of the applicant for the purposes of this proceeding.