Section 73ZA — National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013: Disclosures qualifying for protection
Text of the provision Official document
(1) This section applies to a disclosure of information by a person (the discloser) who is or was, in relation to an NDIS provider, any of the following: (a) if the NDIS provider is or was a body corporate—an officer or employee of the body corporate, or a person who has or had a contract for the supply of goods or services to, or on behalf of, the body corporate; (b) if the NDIS provider is or was an unincorporated association—a member of the committee of management or an employee of the association, or a person who has or had a contract for the supply of goods or services to, or on behalf of, the association; (c) if the NDIS provider is or was a partnership—a partner in or an employee of the partnership, or a person who has or had a contract for the supply of goods or services to, or on behalf of, the partnership; (d) in any case—a person with disability who is or was receiving a support or service from the NDIS provider, or a nominee, family member, carer, independent advocate or significant other of that person. (2) The disclosure of the information by the discloser qualifies for protection under this Division if: (a) the disclosure is made to one of the following: (i) the Commissioner; (ii) the Agency; (iii) if the NDIS provider is a body corporate—a member of the key personnel of the body corporate; (iv) if the NDIS provider is an unincorporated association—a member of the key personnel of the association; (v) if the NDIS provider is a partnership—a partner; and (c) the discloser has reasonable grounds to suspect that the information indicates that an NDIS provider has, or may have, contravened a provision of this Act. (3) In this section, officer has the same meaning as it has in the Corporations Act 2001.
Official source: Federal Register of Legislation
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from Australian courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →