Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2018N00155:reg:5:p13
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2018N00155
Segment Type: reg
Provision Reference: reg 5 (pt 13/13)
Character Range: 36406–37668

If that is not practical (for example, it is a small organisation) another option is to outsource the inquiry/assessment role to an external professional to prepare a report for the decision maker. A registered NDIS provider has flexibility in deciding how to deal with bias and conflict of interest concerns.
    (4)           It is good practice to clarify bias and conflict of interest concerns before the process commences. It is open to the parties, once informed of a potential issue, to waive any objection and to allow the decision maker to continue. On the other hand, a decision maker should not withdraw merely because one of the parties raises a bias objection: the test of the 'fair-minded observer' should be followed. It is common that decision makers will know or work with one or other of the parties, have some familiarity with the issues to be decided, or have expressed a preliminary view on or more of those issues.
    (5)           If a bias issue arises during the course of an inquiry after evidence and submissions have already been collected, these can generally be made available to the new inquirer/decision maker, subject to ensuring procedural fairness. It is good practice to consult the parties about this option before doing so.