NDIA Accountability Project

NDIS — FOI 25/26-2465 (LEXD 18593): Notification of Decision

‹ PrevPage 1 of 15 · Source p. 1Next ›
Comments

Freedom of Information request — Notice of Decision

Our reference: FOI 25/26-2465 (LEXD 18593)

GPO Box 700 Canberra ACT 2601 1800 800 110 18 September 2026 dis.gov.au

David Wright By email: foi+request-14500-6ad8a13a@righttoknow.org.au Dear David Wright

Freedom of Information request — Notice of Decision

Thank you for your correspondence of 17 March 2026, in which you requested access under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) to documents held by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA).

The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a decision on your request.

Scope of your request

You requested access to the following documents:

  "I request documents produced by the Technical Advisory Branch (TAB) on:

1) Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA)

2) Positive Behaviour Support (PBS)"

Extension of time

On 14 April 2026, you agreed to 30-day extension of time under section 15AA of the FOI Act, making 18 May 2026 the date by which to provide you with a decision on your request.

Processing period

The original date by which to provide you with a decision on your request was18 May 2026. We have been experiencing processing delays and were unable to provide you with our decision by this date. Consequently, your application is deemed to have been refused under section 15AC of the FOI Act.

Access Decision

I note that this access decision is being released to you after the due date, and I apologise for the delay. In the interests of not causing any further delay, I have decided not to apply for an extension from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) under section 15AC of the FOI Act. This means that you are unable to seek an internal review of this decision. However, you are able to apply to the OAIC for an external review of this decision. Please see Attachment C for more information about your rights of review.

Search efforts

I have consulted with relevant NDIA staff in the Technical Advice and Practice Improvement Branch who could be reasonably expected to be able to identify documents within the scope of your request.

As a result of this consultation, I have identified 13 documents which fall within the scope of your request.

Decision on access to documents

I am authorised to make decisions under section 23(1) of the FOI Act.

I have decided to:

  • grant access to 3 documents in full
  • grant access to 9 documents in part
  • refuse access to 1 document.

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
  • the operating environment and functions of the NDIA

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 B.

Release of documents

The documents for release, as referred to in the schedule of documents at Attachment A,

are enclosed.

Rights of review

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

Attachment C.

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

by email at mailto:foi@ndis.gov.au.

Yours sincerely

Patrick (PHO293)

Senior Information Access Officer

Information Access and Privacy Branch

Reviews and Information Release Division

National Disability Insurance Agency

Schedule of Documents

FOI 25/26-2465

Attachment A

Document Page Description Access Decision number number

1 1-13 Research paper: Home modifications and PARTIAL ACCESS behaviours of concern Exemption claimed:

date: 10 March 2023 s47F(1) — personal privacy

2 14-19 Research paper: Applied Behaviour Analysis for PARTIAL ACCESS adults with ASD Exemption claimed:

data:14 February 2022 s47F(1) — personal privacy

3 20-28 Research paper: ABA and positive behaviour PARTIAL ACCESS support Exemption claimed:

data:21 July 2022 s47F(1) — personal privacy

4 29-36 Advice Support Tool (Restrictive Practice) - CB PARTIAL ACCESS Relationships and RP. V1.0 data:5 September 2023

Exemption claimed: s47E(d) — certain operations of agencies

Page Description Access Decision

number number

5 37-78 Advice Support Tool (Restrictive Practice)

PARTIAL ACCESS

Restricitive Practice Processes by State and Exemption claimed:

Territory V2.0 / Date: April 2022 redacted s47F(1) — personal privacy

6 79-92 DRAFT CB (Behaviour Supports Restrictive FULL ACCESS

Practice) Technical Advice Guidance Document

Date: 14 October 2024

7 - Checklist — Behaviour Support and Restrictive REFUSED ACCESS

Practice

Exemption claimed:

Date: 5 September 2023 s47E(d) — certain operations of agencies

8 93-99 Literature review: Reducing Applied Behaviour PARTIAL ACCESS

Analysis therapy over time

Exemption claimed:

Date:3 January 2024 $47F(1) — personal privacy

9 100-111 Research: Gemiini Program PARTIAL ACCESS

Date: December 2020

Exemption claimed:

s47F(1) — personal privacy

10 112-120 Research paper: Sexual services and sexualised PARTIAL ACCESS

behaviours of concern

Date:9 December 2022

Exemption claimed:

s47F(1) — personal privacy

Document Page Description Access Decision

number number 11 121-131 Research paper: Home and living supports for PARTIAL ACCESS people with dementia Date:9 January 2025 Exemption claimed: s47F(1) — personal privacy 12 132-139 Research paper: Staffing strategies in positive FULL ACCESS behaviour support Date: N/A 13 140-150 ASD Stocktake of Resources FULL ACCESS

Date: N/A

Attachment B

Statement of Reasons

FOI 25/26-2465

Access to edited copies with exempt or irrelevant material deleted (section 22)

I have decided that documents 1 to 5 and 7 to 11 contain material that is exempt from disclosure under the FOI Act, for the reasons set out below.

In accordance with section 22 of the FOI Act, I have considered whether it is possible to delete the exempt material from the documents and have concluded that it is reasonably practicable to do so for documents 1 to 5 and 7 to 11. Accordingly, I have prepared an edited copy of the documents with the exempt material removed.

Conditionally exempt information contrary to the public interest

Relevant law

Under section 11A(5) of the FOI Act, access to a conditionally exempt document under division 3 of Part IV of the FOI Act must be granted unless access to the document would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.

I have refused access to information located in documents 1 to 5 and 7 to 11 on the basis that the information is conditionally exempt information under sections 47E(d) and 47F(1) of the FOI Act, and that the disclosure of the information would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.

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 4 and 7 contain information relating to certain operations of the NDIA, specifically, an advice support tool used by Technical Advisors to ensure consistency in the provision of advice to delegates to the NDIA and a behaviour support and restrictive practice checklist to determine when a behaviour support requires TAPIB advice.

These documents form part of the NDIA’s internal risk management and decision-support framework. They provide specific guidance on analysing evidence to formulate standardised

Advice and establish thresholds for when requests for behaviour support require escalation

for review.

I am satisfied that disclosure of these documents would mean that NDIS providers, NDIS participants and participants’ treating practitioners will know how a technical expert is likely to assess particular evidence and information so as to determine whether relevant statutory criteria are satisfied. In addition, they would also know the kind of evidence and submissions that is likely to ensure that particular requested supports are then recommended by the expert to be approved, both generally and in particular circumstances and by reference to the specific examples in those parts of the documents.

I consider that disclosure is highly likely to result in:

  • Prejudice to decision-making integrity by revealing specific internal parameters used by the agency to evaluate evidence and manage risk. It would allow external parties to tailor evidence that matches parameters within the documents, rather than reporting objectively on the participant’s function and anticipated support needs.
  • The undermining of consistency and participant safeguarding, because if these documents are used to inappropriately influence the assessment process, delegates will receive advice based on skewed information, directly compromising the agency’s ability to ensure fair outcomes and accurately assess risks associated with restrictive practices.

Accordingly, I conclude that the relevant information contained in documents 4 and 7 is conditionally exempt under section 47E(d) of the FOI Act.

Public interest considerations – section 47E

It is not enough that I have decided the documents contain information that is conditionally exempt under section 47E(d) 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

criticism, 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 moderate 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 make informed decisions from objective

evidence accurately assess risks to participants.

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:

  • result in members of the public using this information tailor evidence

  • impede the ability of specialist teams within the NDIA to efficiently respond to

    requests requiring their subject matter expertise

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 documents 1 to 3, 5 and 8 to 11 meets the

definition of personal information. The identified material contains information of NDIA personnel including their middle and last names.

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.

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

generally disclose this personal information.

Accordingly, I conclude that the relevant information contained in documents 1 to 3, 5 and 8 to 11 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 NDIA takes its obligations to its employees under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) (WHS Act) seriously. The release of staff names into the public domain could reasonably be expected to pose a risk to the health and safety of NDIA staff, given the public-facing nature of our work and the risk of this information being used to cause harm or online disrepute. Additionally, the ability of staff members to effectively carry out their duties as well as their willingness to maintain employment with the NDIA would be negatively impacted by any threat or harassment they may sustain by a member of the public, as a result of the disclosure of their personal information.

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
  • prejudice the ability of the NDIA to meet its obligations under the WHS Act and Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), including its obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the personal information it collects and stores
  • prejudice the NDIA’s ability to attract and retain staff

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 the above factors favouring nondisclosure.

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.

                                                                    13

Attachment C

Freedom of Information request – Your review rights

As your request is deemed to have been refused under section 15AC of the FOI Act because of processing delays, you are unable to apply for an internal review of the decision.

However, if you have concern with any aspect of this decision, please contact the NDIA FOI team by email at foi@ndis.gov.au, or by post to:

  • Freedom of Information Section
  • Information Access and Privacy Branch
  • Reviews and Information Release Division
  • National Disability Insurance Agency
  • GPO Box 700
  • CANBERRA ACT 2601

Review by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner

The FOI Act also 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 the 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: OAIC Review Application Form.

An application to the OAIC must be made within 60 calendar days from the date of the deemed refusal decision, as set out in our letter to you (Notice of Decision). You may also apply to the OAIC for an extension of this timeframe, from the date of the deemed refusal decision until the date of your application for review.

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

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:

15

Comments

Loading comments…

Add a comment