LAW301 Administrative Law and Applied Statutory Interpretation AT3, Sem 1 2026

LAW301 Assessment Task 3 

UTAS – Faculty of Law College of Arts, Law and Education

LAW301

Administrative Law and Applied Statutory

Interpretation

Semester 1, 2026

Assessment Task 3 (AT3)

INSTRUCTIONS 

Task: Read the fictitious scenario and answer all questions on page 5.

Length: 1,200 words maximum, excluding references

Weight:  25% of overall unit mark

Note: Full AGLC4 referencing must be used. A bibliography should not be included.

Due:  1pm Tuesday 13 May, Week 11

LAW301 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

FACTUAL SCENARIO

Note – while some of the factual information in this scenario is true, many fictitious liberties have been taken to ensure the scenario covers the range of legal issues students are required to address.

MUSIC IMPROV Pty Ltd is a Hobart-based business that provides music therapy services and specialises in ‘music improvisation’ therapy. In 2021, MUSIC IMPROV registered as an ‘NDIS Provider’ under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) (‘NDIS Act’). The National Disability Insurance Scheme (‘NDIS’ or ‘Scheme’) is a federal scheme that provides funding to eligible people with disability (‘NDIS Participants’) to obtain relevant services and supports. As a registered provider of services for the NDIS, this enables MUSIC IMPROV to receive payment in exchange for services from NDIS participants.

Over 2024-25, there was much public discussion about the use of music and art therapy as approved supports for NDIS participants, which led to an independent review of the role of music and art in supports services.

On 15 February 2025, an officer of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, Anika Jenkins, wrote to MUSIC IMPROV advising that the Commission had determined that music therapy that involved ‘musical improvisation’ is no longer to be covered by the Scheme, based on a lack of evidence as to its benefits. As a result, the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner was proposing to revoke MUSIC IMPROV’s registration as an NDIS Provider under ss 73P(1)(a) and s 73J of the NDIS Act as they would no longer be able to comply with a condition of their registration to only provide approved services to NDIS participants. Ms Jenkins’ letter, sent on behalf of the Commissioner, invited MUSIC IMPROV to make submissions on the proposed revocation decision within 28 days (as required by s 73P(4)).

In response to the letter, MUSIC IMPROV’s Managing Director, Dr Brigid O’Brian, wrote a detailed submission to the Commissioner on 5 March 2025 which:

• set out her arguments on the benefits of music improvisation therapy;
• attached five recent studies on the benefits of music improvisation therapy from other countries; and
• attached several testimonials from MUSIC IMPROV’s clients attesting to the benefits of the music therapy they had received, some of which were presented through video recordings.

On 15 March 2025, Ms Jenkins provided a briefing paper to the Commissioner, in which she had compiled all the relevant factual information and a summary of Dr O’Brian’s submission and the attachments of 5 March 2025. She did not include a full copy of Dr O’Brian’s submission but did take careful pains to summarise it accurately and in great detail in her written brief.

On 20 March 2025, Dr O’Brian sent a follow-up email to Ms Jenkins arguing that it would not be fair to revoke MUSIC IMPROV’s registration for all services. Dr O’Brian explained that while MUSIC IMPROV does specialise in music improvisation, all of their staff are fully qualified music therapists who can provide a range of methods. In her email, Dr O’Brian set out a detailed plan for managing NDIS clients to ensure they were provided with mixed musical therapies and not ‘music improvisation’ therapy, in order to comply with the new NDIS rules.

On 21 March 2025, Ms Jenkins emailed the Commissioner saying: “I received some more information yesterday from Dr O’Brian about MUSIC IMPROV’s registration which I’ll print out and attach to the briefing document on your desk”. Unfortunately, Ms Jenkins then came down with a flu which turned into a bad bout of pneumonia and she had to take six weeks off work, having never attached Dr O’Brian’s email of 20 March to the Commissioner’s brief. As a consequence, the Commissioner did not read Dr O’Brian’s email of 20 March.

Much to her disappointment, Dr O’Brian received a letter notifying her of the Commissioner’s decision of 8 April 2025 to revoke MUSIC IMPROV’s registration as an NDIS Provider. The letter included a statement of her reasons for the revocation decision, as required by s 100(1) of the NDIS Act. These reasons noted:

I have decided to revoke MUSIC IMPROV Pty Ltd’s registration as an NDIS registered provider under s73P(1)(a) of the NDIS Act on the basis that I reasonably believe MUSIC IMPROV will contravene the NDIS Act by failing to comply with a condition of their registration (s 73J), being that MUSIC IMPROV only provide approved NDIS supports to NDIS Participants. I have given consideration to the details of Dr O’Brian’s submission of 5 March 2025.

Dr O’Brian wants to challenge the Commissioner’s decision through judicial review. Dr O’Brian is particularly upset that the registration revocation will take effect immediately, meaning that all of MUSIC IMPROV’s existing NDIS clients’ appointments will have to be cancelled, leaving these people without appropriate support (approximately 200 NDIS client appointments will have to be cancelled over the next month alone with the five therapists MUSIC IMPROV employs). She therefore wants the court to stop the effect of this decision as quickly as possible.

SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS 

Part 1: 

Question 1. Advise Dr O’Brian on MUSIC IMPROV PTY LTD’s prospects of succeeding in an application for judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision. Address the following: 

1. Introduce the relevant statutory framework, outlining: what the key decision is, who the decision-maker is, what the key sources of the decision-maker’s power to decide are, and what constraints exist on those powers. (approx. 10% of words)
2. Threshold questions: Advise whether the threshold requirements for accessing judicial review are satisfied. (approx. 20% of words)

Note: you can choose to apply either statute-based or common law judicial review jurisdiction, or both. The rest of your advice must then align with this choice of jurisdiction.

• Grounds of review: Advise on whether MUSIC IMPROV PTY LTD is likely to be successful in arguing that the Commissioner failed to take a mandatory relevant consideration/s into account (approx. 40% of words)

1. Include a short conclusion summarising the most important points from your advice (5% of words maximum).

Part 2:

In the alternative to seeking judicial review, imagine that MUSIC IMPROV applied to the Administrative Review Tribunal (‘ART’) for a review of the Commissioner’s decision to revoke MUSIC IMPROV’s NDIS registration. The ART decided that the registration should not be revoked (that is, it remains in force).

Question 2 : Would ‘Australians for Efficiency’ (‘A4E’) be likely to establish it has standing in a judicial review application of the ART’s decision, based on the facts below: (approx. 25% of words)

A4E is a private think-tank that incorporated in Australia in 2012. Its mandate is to scrutinise and advocate on improving fiscal management, productivity and financial efficiencies in government. A4E is considering making an application for judicial review of the ART’s decision not to revoke MUSIC IMPROV’s registration on the basis that taxpayers’ money is being wasted on practices that are not ‘evidence-based therapies’.

A4E is run by a group of economists, accountants and financial experts. It regularly undertakes reviews of economic spending of public money by local, state and federal governments across Australia on various projects of concern to the group. It has also made numerous reform submissions to governments with recommendations for fiscal improvements. It most recently made a submission to the NDIS’s independent review of music and art therapy support services. A4E is a large political donor of both major parties and has directly lobbied federal parliamentarians about cutting back on government spending.

Hire a Professional Essay & Assignment Writer for completing your Academic Assessments

Flexible Rates Compatible With Everyone’s Budget

Order Now