Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2018N00155:reg:5:p12
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2018N00155
Segment Type: reg
Provision Reference: reg 5 (pt 12/13)
Character Range: 33752–36658

or level of supports.
    (6)           Where a complaint involves allegations about the conduct of a worker, it may be practicable to provide the worker with the allegation and the details given in support of it, without disclosing the identity of the source of  any prejudicial information. This may not be possible if, for example, the identity of the source of information will be readily apparent from the nature of the allegation. Sometimes, too, fairness may require that a source of information is revealed, so that the worker can better understand how to comment upon or rebut that information. Generally, disclosure is required to a level necessary to avoid any practical injustice to a person to whom procedural fairness is owed.
    (7)           The decision maker or person conducting the inquiry or investigation should look for ways of balancing fairness and confidentiality and effectively safeguarding the interests of all parties. It may be desirable to conduct a separate preliminary discussion with each of the interested parties, so they may offer suggestions or make undertakings that ensure an appropriate balance can be struck.

  15    Maintaining an impartial and unbiased appearance
    (1)           A decision maker should be impartial and free of actual or apprehended bias. The test for apprehended bias is whether a fair-minded observer might reasonably suspect that the decision maker is not impartial.
    (2)           Apprehended bias can be inferred from a person's conduct, comments, associations or other relevant circumstances. Examples of apprehended bias can include situations in which a decision maker (or person conducting an inquiry)  -
         (a)    has a conflict of interest or personal stake in the matter to be resolved, or a relationship with one of the parties that casts doubt on the appearance of fairness
         (b)    displayed hostility or favouritism to one of the parties involved in a matter
         (c)    made comments that suggest the decision maker has prejudged a disputed issue and will not approach the evidence with an open mind
         (d)    was involved at an earlier stage of the process, for example, in making the allegation to be investigated or providing a statement in support of one of the parties.
    (3)           Actual or apprehended bias of a decision maker can undermine both the integrity and legal validity of the decision making process and outcome. The responsibility rests on the decision maker to ensure there is no actual or apprehended bias, and if necessary to withdraw from the process and assign the decision making responsibility to another person. 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