News

The right to appeal is a major issue at the moment, with proposed reforms to the NDIS seeking to remove review rights (sometimes referred to as ‘appeal rights’) for some NDIA decisions. 

This is a big deal, as the right to appeal government decisions is fundamental to ensuring that the government is accountable, transparent and fair. If we think about Robodebt, or the concerns about automated systems making decisions about older people’s aged care plans, we can see how important it is to have appeal rights when you think a decision is incorrect, or perhaps the person making the decision hasn’t understood your situation properly.

In the disability sector, we hear many stories about NDIA appeals: the huge effort it takes to appeal, the evidence you need to present, how long it takes, how the agency conducted itself, and how relentless and distressing people found the process. It made me wonder — how does the NDIA compare to other government departments when it comes to appeals?

Fortunately, federal government departments keep data and report on how many of their service users appeal one of their decisions, all of which we can find in the 2024–25 Administrative Review Tribunal Annual Report*.  I then did a bit of maths and worked out the proportions of appeals against the number of users – for a data nerd like me, the results are fascinating:

* ART reporting period covers approx. 8.5 months (commenced 14 Oct 2024), so annualised appeal rates are likely slightly higher than shown. The NDIA appeal rate is approximately 14–15 times higher than Centrelink’s on a per-user basis. 

This means NDIA participants are approximately 14 to 15 times more likely to appeal a decision than Centrelink customers, and vastly more likely than ATO taxpayers.

Yikes. What does that mean? It suggests that the NDIA is already under enormous pressure to get decisions right for the people it serves. It has also been suggested that NDIA decisions are more likely to be challenged because they are about more ‘subjective’ issues than other agencies. This is because the decisions are about what and how much a person needs in their daily life to participate, and to be safe. Every person is different and every need is different, so the range of what people need as ‘reasonable and necessary’ supports for every aspect of their life generates many more ‘subjective’ decisions than, say, decisions on tax returns by the Australian Taxation Department (ATO). 

What this data also tells us is that participants are actively using their rights to challenge decisions they believe are unfair or incorrect – despite the appeal process being daunting for many people. The proposed changes that would remove the right of review for some NDIA decisions are deeply concerning when we look at the NDIA’s performance compared to other departments. If the NDIA is already generating proportionally far more appeals than other agencies, what does a future without those appeal rights look like for participants? Even Robodebt victims had appeal rights.

And the outcomes for those who do appeal to the ART?  They speak for themselves.  In the latest data from the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) on NDIS matters over the last 11 months to 31 May 2026:

• 8375 new NDIS applications lodged
• 6970 matters finalised
• 7213 applications still on hand
• 77% of applications were finalised within 12 months
• median finalisation time was 34 weeks
• 64% of finalised matters resulted in the decision under review being varied (which means that the application had their eligibility/plan changed in some way)

(https://www.art.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-09/ART-Caseload-2025-26.pdf)

By contrast, the latest NDIS Quarterly Report (Q3 2025-26) states that there were 10928 internal reviews finalised with 29% of decisions being varied. This is slightly less than the percentage that was varied in Q2. (https://www.ndis.gov.au/media/8642/download?attachment). 

There is never a good time to remove appeal rights, and now is a particularly poor time to do so. Australian citizens are entitled to the mechanisms that keep the government accountable – and this is especially true for Australians with disability, whose lives will be profoundly affected by these changes. 

So, we know that the extraordinary rates of appeal point to a system straining to deliver fair outcomes for participants and the ART is correcting errors that the NDIA has been unable to correct itself.  Removing the critical oversight of review sets a dangerous precedent.  Let us make sure we keep the NDIA The Most Appealing of Them All – for all the right reasons.