IR 26.27 025 Decision Notice of Decision | FOI release material

Our reference: FOI 26/27-0105 [LEXD 25838] Internal Review Decision Reference: IR 26/27-025 [LEXD 31383]

GPO Box 700

Canberra ACT 2601

1800 800 110 1 October 2026 ndis.gov.au

Meaz

By email: foi+request-15044-8754d4fe@righttoknow.org.au

Dear Meaz

Freedom of Information request — Notice of Internal Review Decision

Thank you for your correspondence of 3 September 2026, in which you requested an

internal review of the decision made by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) on 3

September 2026 (Original Decision), in relation to your request for access to documents

under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act).

The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a decision on your request for internal review

of the original decision.

Original decision

On 3 September 2026, you were notified of the NDIA’s decision on your original request

(original decision). The original decision decided to:

grant access to 3 documents in part The decision also released two documents administratively and were not considered as part

of this FOI request. As such, I have also not considered these documents as part of this

internal review.

Internal review

You have requested an internal review of the original decision on the following grounds:

“My revised request expressly stated that “the substantive scope of my original

request otherwise remains unchanged”, including guidance concerning human-rights

and child-rights obligations; best interests, safety, development, dignity, participation,

communication needs and vulnerability of children with disability; dependence on

carers, sustainability of family/informal supports and impacts on parents, carers and

siblings; and how these matters are considered, recorded or escalated in planning,

reassessment, internal review, complaints, safeguarding, risk escalation and

complex-support decision-making.

I do not seek to reopen the 210 linked guidance documents that I expressly excluded

from separate processing. I seek review of whether all primary NDIA documents

responsive to that retained substantive scope were identified.

The decision states that searches across seven NDIA business areas identified five

documents. However, the material released to me does not appear to contain

substantive guidance expressly addressing several retained matters, including

application of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Convention

on the Rights of the Child, best interests, dignity, impacts on siblings, complaints and

complex-support decision-making.

In the email accompanying the decision, the original decision-maker also referred me

to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission Human Rights Guidance Paper,

stating that it was related to the subject matter of my request. I recognise that the

Commission and NDIA are separate entities. My concern is whether the NDIA

searches identified all primary NDIA guidance responsive to the same retained

subject matter.

I also seek review of the substantive redactions. The decision is internally

inconsistent as to s 47E(a) and s 47E(d): the Schedule relies on s 47E(d); the

reasons refer at different points to both provisions; and the statement under the s

47E(d) heading describes the s 47E(a) test concerning tests, examinations or audits.

The public-interest assessment is also internally inconsistent. It first finds that

disclosure would inform debate on a matter of public importance and promote

effective oversight of public expenditure, but later states that disclosure would do

neither.

Accordingly, I ask the reviewer to:

reconsider whether reasonable searches identified all primary NDIA documents within my retained substantive scope; 2. release any additional responsive

documents identified; 3. reconsider the application of s 47E and whether further non

exempt substantive material can be released in edited copies under s 22; and 4.

undertake a fresh public-interest assessment.

If no further primary responsive documents are identified, please state that clearly

and explain the reasonable search steps undertaken to reach that conclusion.

Please also ensure that any s 47F redactions are confined to genuinely personal

information and do not remove substantive guidance or other non-exempt information

within scope.”

Relevant considerations

Your request for internal review seeks to test the exemption of certain information under the

FOI Act as claimed in the original decision including the public interest test, and the

completeness of the information that was previously released to you. You have further

requested that you be given access to any additional relevant documents that may not have

been released to you previously.

Search efforts

I have reviewed the original decision, including the search consults that were sent to the

following business areas:

Children’s Practice Branch
National Contact Centre & Early Childhood Branch
Participant Safeguarding Response Branch
Specialised Service Delivery Division
Office of the Participant Advocate
Participant Outcomes, Evidence and Evaluation Branch
Service Guidance Branch I note that all these business areas were contacted as part of a preliminary consultation

process to determine whether they were the appropriate area that would hold documentation

relevant to the scope of your request. We were advised by the following business areas that

they would not be responsible for the types of documents you requested:

Participant Outcomes, Evidence and Evaluation Branch
Service Guidance Branch
Participant Safeguarding Response Branch
National Contact Centre and Early Childhood Branch
Office of the Participant Advocate
Specialised Service Delivery Division 3

And we were advised that the most appropriate area responsible for the type of information

you were requesting was the Children’s Practice Branch.

As such, I requested an additional search be performed by the Children’s Practice Branch

to ensure that all documents relevant to the scope of your request were captured.

As a result of this search, we were advised that all documents relevant to the scope of the

request were supplied as part of the initial search, and that there were no additional

documents to provide.

Decision on your request for internal review

I am authorised to make internal review decisions under section 54C of the FOI Act. In doing

so, I can review and decide all issues raised in your FOI request, and exercise all the powers

available to the original decision maker. However, I am not bound by the original decision,

and I am required to make a fresh decision on your request.

I have decided to affirm the original decision, being a decision to:

grant access to 3 documents in part Reasons for decision

In reaching my decision, I have taken into account:

your correspondence outlining the scope of your request
the nature and content of the documents falling within the scope of your request
the FOI Act
the FOI Guidelines published under section 93A of the FOI Act
consultation with relevant NDIA staff and business areas
factors relevant to my assessment of whether or not disclosure of information would be in the public interest

I have decided that some information will not be released as it comprises exempt information

under sections 47E and 47F of the FOI Act. I have also determined that the release of some

information would be contrary to the public interest, in accordance with section 11A(5) of the

FOI Act.

A detailed statement of reasons for my decision can be found at Attachment A.

Rights of review

Your rights to seek a review of my decision, or lodge a complaint, are set out at

Attachment B.

Should you have any enquiries concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me

by email at foi@ndis.gov.au.

Yours sincerely

Patrick (PHO293)

Senior Freedom of Information Officer

Information Access and Privacy Branch

Reviews and Information Release Division

National Disability Insurance Agency

Attachment A

Statement of Reasons

IR 26/27-025

Certain operations of agencies (section 47E)

Section 47E(d) of the FOI Act conditionally exempts a document from release if its

disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, have a substantial adverse effect on

the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of an agency.

Documents 1 to 3 contain information relating to certain operations of the NDIA, specifically,

internal guidance material that includes example questions and responses, as well as

example planner justifications and responses concerning the use of restrictive practices and

regulated restrictive practices.

Additionally, Document 3 includes information regarding areas of developmental needs for

children with disability and corresponding guidance for planners regarding levels of supports

funding. These materials are intended to assist delegates in their decision-making processes

for genuine needs-based planning assessments for children under 9. Revealing these

examples and guides could lead to external parties using this information to artificially inflate

or manipulate participant plans and funding by targeting responses to meet the examples

covered in the guides.

I am satisfied that the risk of releasing the information would impact the proper and efficient

conduct of the Agency’s operations and would necessitate the changing of current practices.

Accordingly, I conclude that the relevant information contained in documents 1-3 is

conditionally exempt under section 47E(d) of the FOI Act.

Factors favouring disclosure

In favour of disclosure, I have considered the factors outlined in section 11B(3) of the FOI

Act and I have determined that disclosure of the information would:

promote the objects of the FOI Act (including all matters set out in sections 3 and 3A) This is because providing access to documents held by the NDIA allows for increased

scrutiny, discussion, comment, and review of government-held information.

I have also referred to the FOI Guidelines published under section 93A of the FOI Act, and I

have determined that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to:

inform the Australian community of the NDIA’s operations I have decided to afford little weight to these factors.

Factors favouring nondisclosure

The FOI Act does not list any factors weighing against disclosure. However, the inclusion of

the exemptions and conditional exemptions in the FOI Act recognises that harm may result

from the disclosure of some types of documents in certain circumstances.

The harm in disclosing the relevant information in question is that doing so could reasonably

be expected to prejudice the ability of the NDIA to:

protect procedures for the proper and efficient conduct of NDIA operations The FOI Guidelines provides a non-exhaustive list of factors against access to information at

paragraph 6.233. I have examined those factors, and I am satisfied that the disclosure of the

information in question could reasonably be expected to:

prejudice the effectiveness of testing, examining or auditing methods or procedures
undermine the integrity of the Agency’s decision -making process
knowing how answers affect funding could allow providers or authorised representatives to give responses that manipulate and/or maximise funding
result in aggrieved members of the public using this information to seek to gain advantage over others
negatively impact the NDIA customer service experience With respect to section 11B(3) of the FOI Act, I also consider that the disclosure of the

relevant information:

would not contribute to the publication of information of sufficient public interest to justify the likely harm caused by release
would not enhance Australia’s representative democracy in the ways described in section 11B(3) of the FOI Act
would not inform any debate on a matter of public importance, or promote oversight of public expenditure

I have decided to afford significant weight to these factors favouring nondisclosure.

Balancing the relevant factors

I am satisfied that the factors against disclosure of the information outweigh the factors in

favour of disclosure and that, on balance, it would be contrary to the public interest to

release this information to you.

With reference to the assessment above, I conclude that this information is exempt from

release under section 47E(d) of the FOI Act.

Personal privacy (section 47F)

Section 47F(1) of the FOI Act conditionally exempts a document from release if its disclosure

would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person

(including a deceased person).

In determining whether information is conditionally exempt under section 47F(1) of the FOI

Act, I must first determine whether the material meets the definition of personal information. I

must then determine whether its disclosure would be reasonable or unreasonable.

The FOI Act shares the same definition of ‘personal information’ as the Privacy Act 1988

(Cth). Personal information means information or an opinion about an identified individual, or

about an individual who is reasonably identifiable:

whether the information or opinion is true or not
whether the information or opinion is recorded in a material form or not. I am satisfied that information contained in Document 1 meets the definition of personal

information. The identified material contains personal information of third-parties, specifically

photos of them.

Under section 47F(2) of the FOI Act, in determining whether the disclosure of a document

would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information, regard must be had to:

the extent to which the information is well known
whether the person to whom the information relates is known to be (or to have been) associated with the matters dealt with in the document
the availability of the information from publicly accessible sources
any other matters that I consider relevant. Against these criteria, I take the view that:
it is apparent from the information that an individual is identifiable
the personal information is not readily available from publicly accessible sources. 8

With reference to the assessment above, I am satisfied that it would be unreasonable to

publicly disclose this personal information.

Accordingly, I conclude that the relevant information contained in Document 1 is

conditionally exempt under section 47F(1) of the FOI Act.

Public interest considerations – section 47F

It is not enough that I have decided the documents contain personal information that is

conditionally exempt under section 47F(1) of the FOI Act. I must also decide whether the

public interest lies in favour of, or against, the release of that information.

Irrelevant factors

I have examined the irrelevant factors in section 11B(4) of the FOI Act, and I am satisfied I

have not taken into account any irrelevant factor in reaching my decision.

Factors favouring disclosure

In favour of disclosure, I have considered the factors outlined in section 11B(3) of the FOI

Act and I have determined that disclosure of the information would:

promote the objects of the FOI Act (including all matters set out in sections 3 and 3A) This is because providing access to documents held by the NDIA allows for increased

scrutiny, discussion, comment, and review of government-held information.

I have decided to afford little weight to this factor.

Factors favouring nondisclosure

The FOI Act does not list any factors weighing against disclosure. However, the inclusion of

the exemptions and conditional exemptions in the FOI Act recognises that harm may result

from the disclosure of some types of documents in certain circumstances.

The harm in disclosing the personal information in question is that doing so could reasonably

be expected to affect an individual’s right to privacy by having their personal information in

the public domain.

The harm in disclosing the personal information in question is that doing so could reasonably

be expected to affect an individual’s right to privacy by having their personal information in

the public domain.

The FOI Guidelines provides a non-exhaustive list of factors against access to information at

paragraph 6.233. I have examined those factors, and I am satisfied that the disclosure of the

personal information in question could reasonably be expected to:

prejudice the protection of an individual’s right to privacy through the release of their personal information into the public domain
adversely affect or harm the interests of any individual, including by exposing any individual to an unreasonable risk of harm

I have decided to afford significant weight to these factors.

Balancing the relevant factors

I am satisfied that the factors against disclosure of the information far outweigh the factors in

favour of disclosure and that, on balance, it would be contrary to the public interest to

release this information to you.

With reference to the assessment above, I conclude that this information is exempt from

release under section 47F(1) of the FOI Act.

Attachment B

Freedom of Information request – Your review rights

Review by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner

The FOI Act gives you the right to apply for the Office of the Australian Information

Commissioner (OAIC) to seek a review of this decision.

If you wish to have the decision reviewed by OAIC, you may apply for the review in writing,

or by using the online merits review application form which is available on the OAIC’s

website, within 60 days of receiving this letter: OAIC Review Application Form.

Applications for review can be lodged with the OAIC in the following ways:

Online: OAIC Review Application Form

Post: Office of the Australian Information Commissioner

GPO Box 5218

SYDNEY NSW 2001

Email: enquiries@oaic.gov.au

Phone: 1300 363 992 (local call charge)

Website: www.oaic.gov.au

Complaints to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner or the

Commonwealth Ombudsman

You may complain to either the Commonwealth Ombudsman or the OAIC about the actions

taken by the NDIA in relation to your request. The Ombudsman will consult with the OAIC

before investigating a complaint about the handling of an FOI request.

Your complaint to the OAIC can be directed to the contact details provided above.

Your complaint to the Ombudsman can be directed to:

Phone: 1300 362 072 (local call charge)

Email: ombudsman@ombudsman.gov.au