Butler and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS) [2025] ARTA 1579 (Link to AUSTLII)
In this matter the Tribunal affirmed the NDIA decision under review, in relation to reasonable and necessary supports.
Of interest are the comments of the Tribunal in relation to some expert opinions, following the NDIA’s submissions regarding the use of artificial intelligence to produce reports without adequate quality control ([75]). The Tribunal did not take issue with the principle of a practitioner utilising artificial intelligence to reduce to writing the observations and assessments made personally by the practitioner. The practitioner must, however, be responsible and accountable for the content of a report.
The full text of that part of the reasons appears at 104] (d):
The evidence of Ms Allens, Ms Farnden and Ms McPhee about the supports needs of the Applicant was of little assistance. Ms Allens basically collated information provided by others to compile her report. It appeared that the reports prepared by Ms Farnden and Ms McPhee were exclusively based on material provided to them by the Applicant; they had limited interaction with the Applicant via telehealth; the reports were produced with the assistance of an artificial intelligence program and although they insisted that they had read each report in detail, Ms McPhee could not explain to my satisfaction why, in her report, she initially referred to the ‘rural’ location of the Applicant to justify the nature of supports recommended by her despite the Applicant living in an urban area, whether all the citations in the report had been checked for accuracy, and who inserted the words that the supports, as expressed by the Applicant, are the ‘minimum necessary’ to be funded by the NDIS. Ms McPhee said, although she was the author of the report, she does not recall using the words ‘minimum necessary’, but because the report was prepared with the assistance of an artificial intelligence program she could not rule out that the expression ‘minimum necessary’ may have been added by the program, or that her supervisor may have added the words without discussing it with her as author of the report. In any event, Ms McPhee, who is said to be the author of the report, was unconvincing in her evidence. The Applicant sought in closing submissions to explain and defend the use of artificial intelligence to prepare the respective reports. I did not take issue during the hearing or in the assessments with the principle of a practitioner utilising artificial intelligence to reduce to writing the observations and assessments made personally by the practitioner. The practitioner must, however, be responsible and accountable for the content of a report. My concern is that citations he used that had to be corrected by Mr Reilly, and conclusions were drawn by Ms McPhee and Ms Farnden of which the rational basis could not be explained to my satisfaction.
[BillMaddensWordpress #2439]