MR26.01791 NDIA submissions

OAIC reference: MR26/01791 NDIA reference: FOI 25/26-0805

GPO Box 700

Canberra ACT 2601

1800 800 110

28 September 2026 ndis.gov.au

Susan Tracey

Assistant Director

FOI Case Management Branch

Office of the Australian Information Commissioner

GPO Box 5288

SYDNEY NSW 2001

By email: Susan. Tracey@oaic.gov.au; foicm@oaic.gov.au

Applicant: T By email strides array5f@icloud.com; foitrequest-13738-399007e5@righttoknow.org.au

Dear Susan and T Submission by the NDIA in support of searches

On 7 September 2026, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) notified the NDIA that T was contesting the adequacy of the searches carried out for documents falling within the scope of their request and contended there were additional documents within the scope.

The purpose of this letter is to provide both OAIC and T with information in support of searches completed.

Background

On 28 September 2025, T lodged a FOI request in the following terms: | seek access to any internal documents that discuss the differentiation or overlap

between:

(a) psychology and occupational therapy

(b) psychology and speech therapy, and

This includes, but is not limited to, internal policies, guidelines, frameworks, briefing notes, reports, position papers, training materials, reviews, or other internal

documents. | request access to draft, current, or superseded versions.

Delivered by the

National Disability

Insurance Agency 3

I consent to names and contact details of staff being redacted/withheld.

On 3 October 2025, T agreed to a 30-day extension of time to 27 November 2025 for issuing a decision on their request.
The NDIA failed to issue a decision by 27 November 2025 and was therefore deemed to have refused T’s request.
On 10 August 2026, OAIC notified the NDIA that T had sought an Information Commissioner (IC) review of the deemed refusal and sought responses to its

preliminary inquiries. The NDIA responded to those inquiries on 13 August 2026 and

informed OAIC that the FOI decision-maker had been asked to issue a decision by

25 August 2026.

In fact, a decision was issued on 13 August 2026. The decision-maker refused access to documents under section 24A of the FOI Act, on the basis they were non

existent or unlocatable.

This decision was framed as a revised decision under section 55G of the FOI Act. However, because it did not grant access to any documents, it is properly

characterised as a purported decision.

On 4 September 2026, OAIC notified the NDIA that its deemed refusal of T’s request was subject to IC review. On the same day, the NDIA advised OAIC of the purported

decision of 13 August 2026 and also informed them that, in response to that decision,

T had raised issues concerning the adequacy of the searches for documents that had

been carried out.

In view of this advice and, on 7 September 2026, OAIC notified the NDIA that T wished to proceed with the IC review and that they contested the adequacy of the

searches conducted and contended there are additional documents within the scope

of their request.

I revisited the purported decision and T’s response and carried out additional searches before issuing a section 55G revised decision on 25 September 2026. This

was sent to both T and OAIC.

Document Searches

On reviewing the NDIA’s file relating to T’s original request (FOI 25/26-0805) I noted that a preliminary consultation had been undertaken with Children, Specialised

Services and Scheme Interfaces Division (CSSSI) on 29 September 2026. A

response was received from the Executive Assistant to the General Manager,

CSSSI, on 1 October 2025, stating that that CSSSI did not hold any relevant

documents, and suggesting that inquiries be made of Service Delivery Group and

Technical Advice and Practice Improvement Branch (TAPIB).

Once T’s request had been allocated to a decision-maker and action officer, preliminary inquiries were sent to TAPIB and Service Guidance Branch on 30 July
On 3 August 2026, the Divisional Support Officer for Policy Leadership Division advised the FOI team the Division did not hold any relevant documents. (Service

Guidance Branch sits within Policy Leadership Division.)

On 10 August 2026, TAPIB provided the FOI team with copies of 2 research papers and identified another 2 as being within scope of T’s request. These documents

were:

Occupational Therapy and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder dated 2 June 2026
Positive behaviour support dated 22 April 2026
Applied behaviour analysis and positive behaviour support dated 21 July 2022
Child-Centered play therapy for children with Autism Spectrum Disorder dated 22 November 2022.

It appears from the file for FOI 25/26-0805 that the 2 documents provided by TAPIB dated 22 April and 2 June 2026 were considered outside scope of the request

because they post-dated the same.

The file does not indicate whether the original decision-maker and action officer located the other 2 documents, which TAPIB advised had previously been provided

to the FOI team in the context of other, unrelated FOI requests.

On review, I located these documents. I formed the view that, although none of the 4 documents identified by TAPIB directly addressed the differentiation or overlap

between psychology and the other approaches listed in T’s request, their contents

went to those issues. In deciding to grant access to them, I was guided by paragraph

2.48 of the FOI Guidelines, which states:

The right of access [under the FOI Act] applies to documents that exist at the time

the FOI request was made. An FOI applicant cannot insist that their FOI request

cover documents created after the FOI request is received. However, the agency or

minister can consider whether to include documents that were created after the FOI

request was received …

As explained in the revised decision, I also undertook further searches for documents falling within the scope of T’s request. Document repositories searched included the

NDIA’s business system PACE, the Parliamentary Document Management System

(PDMS) and the course catalogue of training materials on the NDIA’s talent

management system LEAP.

My searches of PDMS and LEAP did not identify any in-scope documents.
I searched PDMS for documents containing the words “psychology AND occupational therapy”, “psychology AND speech pathology”, and “psychology AND

positive behaviour support”. The second search returned 2,347 results and the third

returned 1,089 results. I therefore re-ran these searches but narrowed them so they

would only find ministerial briefings containing these words. In doing so, I considered

that ministerial briefings were the sorts of documents that were most likely to contain

detailed analyses of the benefits of the treatments listed in T’s request.

As stated in the revised decision, each of the 3 searches delivered some results, but they did not concern the differentiation or overlap between psychology and the other

approaches to treatment. Rather they were in the nature of briefings for upcoming

meetings, Ministerial visits or individual NDIS participants.

Through searching PACE for knowledge articles for the guidance of NDIA staff, particularly for staff involved in building and reviewing NDIS plans, I identified a

single article titled “Understand psychology supports”, which in turn refers to the

NDIA operational guideline “Therapy Supports”.

There are 2 versions of the knowledge article, both of which were created after the date of T’s FOI request. However, as with the research papers, I also decided to

grant access to them. I also provided a link to the publicly available operational

guideline.

In T’s response to the purported decision, they expressed the view that documents might be stored in planning guidance, funding or duplication guidance, allied health

advice, training materials or other operational documents.

I can advise that documents containing planning, funding and duplication of supports guidance are stored in knowledge articles available in PACE. Given the response

received from Policy Leadership Division on 3 August 2026, I am confident there are

no additional standard operating procedures or over-arching policy documents that

fall within the scope of T’s request.

Any allied health advice held by the NDIA is created and issued by TAPIB. Although the NDIA receives correspondence from individual allied health practitioners, this

relates to individual NDIS participants rather than representing the Agency’s position

on the benefits of treatments. Had a peak body for an allied health discipline made

representations to the Agency, I would have expected to have found documents

referencing that through my search of PDMS.

All Agency-wide internal courses are listed in LEAP. My search of LEAP did not identify any courses that address the issues raised by T’s request.

Submissions

The FOI Act does not define what is meant by the term “all reasonable steps” [to locate documents]. However, the FOI Guidelines state that agencies should

undertake reasonable searches based on a flexible and common-sense

interpretation of an FOI request. What constitutes “reasonable steps” depends on the

circumstances of the individual request and will be influenced by the normal business

practices in the agency’s operating environment.

The Guidelines also state that agencies should take comprehensive steps to find documents, having regard to their subject-matter, the agency’s current and past file

management systems, individuals within the agency who may be able to assist with

finding documents, and the age of the documents.

In my submission, the NDIA has taken comprehensive steps to locate documents falling within the scope of T’s request. These have included consultation with the

NDIA’s Children, Specialised Services and Scheme Interface Division, Policy

Leadership Division, and Technical Advice and Practice Improvement Branch.

Additionally, the NDIA has interrogated PACE, PDMS and LEAP to locate in-scope

documents.

These searches were guided by the subject-matter of T’s request, advice from CSSSI, and the FOI team’s knowledge of which Agency areas were likely to hold

relevant documents (or be in a position to direct the FOI team to other areas that did

so). I therefore submit that, with the revised decision, the NDIA has taken all

reasonable steps to locate documents within the scope of T’s request.

If T wishes to respond to these submissions, they have 10 business days after receiving this

document to make a submission to OAIC.

If OAIC requires further information or submissions to assist with the review, please contact

us at foi@ndis.gov.au.

Yours sincerely

Helen (HIL533)