Freedom of Information request — Notice of Decision

Our reference: FOI 26/27-0110 (LEXD 25846)

GPO Box 700\nCanberra ACT 2601\n1800 800 110\n21 September 2026 \ndis.gov.au\n Meaz\nRight to Know\n By email: foi+request-15049-3b5f54df@righttoknow.org.au\n Dear Meaz\n Thank you for your correspondence of 4 July 2026, in which you requested access under the\n Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) to documents held by the National Disability\nInsurance Agency (NDIA).\n The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a decision on your request.

Scope of your request\n

You requested access to the following documents:\n\ne“…Please provide access under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to current and\nsuperseded NDIA internal guidance available from 1 January 2025 to the date of this\nrequest about assessing transport support for children with disability.\n\nPleas include relevant SOPs, knowledge articles, practice guides, checklists, templates\nand training material concerning:\n\n 1. how NDIA staff distinguish ordinary parental transport responsibility from transport\nsupport required because of a child’s disability.\n\n 2. how NDIA staff assess whether a child can safely and practically use public or\norinary transport, including where the child has communication, behavioural, sensory,\nmobility or safety impairments.\n\n 3. how NDIA staff assess temporary transport needs where a parent or carer cannot\ndrive because of serious illness, injury, surgery or a medical driving restriction.

4. how NDIA staff consider whether transport barriers prevent a child from accessing

funded therapy, early intervention or disability-related community participation.

5. how NDIA staff assess and record decisions to approve, refuse or not include

temporary or disability-related transport support.

For each document, please include its title, version number, approval, publication and effective dates, date last updated, document owner, version history, attachments and linked guidance…“

On 10 September 2026, following a request consultation process under section 24AB of the FOI Act, you revised the scope of your request as follows:

“…Please provide access under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to current and superseded NDIA internal guidance ……about assessing transport support for children with disability.

Please include relevant SOPs, knowledge articles, practice guides, checklists, templates and training material….“:

To assist with processing, I revise the scope of my request as follows:

• Limit the request to guidance that was current, operative or available to NDIA staff at any time between 1 January 2026 and 30 June 2026.
• I no longer require the Agency to separately locate or process the 765 linked guidance documents identified within the primary documents.
• Please retain any titles, document numbers, identifiers or cross-references to linked guidance that already appear within the primary documents.
• Duplicate copies and draft versions may be excluded where a corresponding final or operative version covering the same guidance is available.
• Document metadata is sought only where it already appears in, or accompanies, the document.

The document types and substantive scope of my original request otherwise remain unchanged, including guidance concerning:

a. distinguishing ordinary parental transport responsibility from transport required because of a child’s disability; b. assessing whether a child can safely and practically use public or ordinary transport, including communication, behavioural, sensory,

• mobility and safety impairments; c. assessing temporary transport needs where a

   parent or carer cannot drive because of serious illness, injury, surgery or a medical
  
    driving restriction; d. considering whether transport barriers prevent access to funded
  
   therapy, early intervention or disability-related community participation; and e.
  
   assessing and recording decisions to approve, refuse or not include temporary or
  
    disability-related transport support…
  

Request consultation process

On 7 September 2026, I wrote to you advising that due to a large number of responsive

documents falling in scope of your revised scope, that a practical refusal reason existed

under s24AA of the FOI Act. Noting that you have made the following stipulation in your

request: “For each document, please include its title, version

number, approval/publication/effective dates, date last updated, document owner, version

history, attachments and linked guidance…”.

I had examined the documents and found that there were 765 linked guidance documents within the primary documents. This means that in addition to the primary documents, the linked guidance documents would need to be located, reviewed and further consultations with business areas undertaken as part of processing this matter under the FOI Act.

I advised you that it is estimated that to complete the processing of this matter, as it stands, including reviewing the documents for exemptions under the FOI Act, manually applying redactions to each document, and completing necessary consultation with business areas would prevent me from completing all other tasks that are assigned to me as part of my ordinary duties. The work involved in reviewing these documents as part of the processing of your request, would be a substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources that would prevent the NDIA from otherwise performing its core function of supporting NDIS participants.

I invited you to consider narrowing the scope of your request to exclude the requirement for linked guidance within the primary documents and to include only current versions of documents that have fallen in scope of your request. On 10 September 2026, you agreed to narrow the scope to exclude the requirement for linked guidance and include only versions of documents within the date range to 1 January 2026 and 30 June 2026.

Extension of time

On 21 July 2026, you agreed to a 30-day extension of time under section 15AA of the FOI Act, making 2 September 2026 the date by which to provide you with a decision on your request.

On 1 September 2026, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) granted us a 10-day extension of time under section 15AB of the FOI Act.

Following the conclusion of the request consultation process, the due date for this matter was 16 September 2026.

On 16 September 2026, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) granted us a 3-day extension of time under section 15AB of the FOI Act, making the new due date 19 September 2026, adjusted to 21 September 202, being the next working day under section 36(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act (1901).

Search efforts

I have consulted with relevant NDIA staff in the following areas who could be reasonably expected to be able to identify documents within the scope of your request:

• Children’s Practice Branch
• Service Guidance Branch
• Scheme Policy
• Technical Advice and Practice Improvement Branch (TAPIB)

As a result of these searches, I have identified eleven (11) documents, which fall within the revised scope of your request.

I note that three of the documents have already been released to you in FOI matter 26/27-0105 on 3 September 2026. Therefore, I have not considered them as part of this FOI decision. They are:

• Knowledge Article: EC PEC – Daily supports (mainstream participation) v3.0
• Knowledge Article: EC – Early childhood intervention supports guide (EC Guide) v4.0
• Knowledge Article: EC – Early childhood intervention supports overview v4.0

Decision on Access to Documents

Additionally, a further document that is in scope of your request has been previously published with partial release under FOI 24/25-0317. I confirmed with TAPIB that the published document is the most recent version of the document. This document is: - Advice Support Tool: Transport

This document will be administratively released to you and is attached to the release email of this decision.

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 7 documents in part - refuse access to documents

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 the information will not be released as it comprises exempt information under section 47E and 47F of the FOI Act. I have also determined that the release of the information would be contrary to the public interest, in accordance with section 11A(5) of the FOI Act.

I am also satisfied that some documents cannot be found or do not exist. As such, I am refusing access to those documents in accordance with section 24A of the FOI Act.

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

Release of documents

5

The document for release

As referred to in the schedule of documents at Attachment A, is 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 foi@ndis.gov.au.

Yours sincerely,

Elizabeth

Senior Freedom of Information Officer

Information Access and Privacy Branch

Reviews and Information Release Division

National Disability Insurance Agency

Attachment A

Schedule of Documents

FOI 26/27-0110

Document     Page                                  Description                               Access Decision
 number     number

                       Our Guidelines – Social and recreation support v7.0                        PARTIAL ACCESS
    7         99-110                                                                            Exemption claimed:
                           Date: 07 April 2025                                                   `redacted` 

                                                                                                               8

Attachment B

Statement of Reasons

FOI 26/27-0110

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

I have decided that documents 1-7 contains 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 document and have concluded that it is reasonably practicable to do so. Accordingly, I have prepared an edited copy of the documents with the exempt material removed.

Refusal of access to information

Documents do not exist (section 24A)

Section 24A of the FOI Act provides that an agency may refuse a request for access to a document if all reasonable steps have been taken to find the document, and the agency is satisfied that the document cannot be found or does not exist.

I am satisfied searches of relevant NDIA business systems have been conducted, using all reasonable search terms that could return documents relevant to your request. In addition, I have consulted with relevant NDIA staff in the following areas who could be reasonably expected to be able to identify documents within the scope of your request:

- Children's Practice Branch
- Service Guidance Branch
- Scheme Policy
- Technical Advice and Practice Improvement Branch (TAPIB)

Despite these search efforts, I am satisfied that the following document(s) referred to in your request could not be found or do not exist:

- "…3. how NDIA staff assess temporary transport needs where a parent or carer
   cannot drive because of serious illness, injury, surgery or a medical driving
    restriction…."

I am satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to locate the document(s) you have

requested and that the document(s) cannot be found or do not exist. I have therefore decided to refuse your request for access to the document(s) in accordance with section 24A(1) of the FOI Act.

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 and 3 on the basis that the information is conditionally exempt information under section redacted 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 redacted(d))

The following applies:

• Section redacted(d) of the FOI Act conditionally exempts a document if its disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, prejudice the effectiveness of procedures or methods for the conduct of tests, examinations or audits by an agency.

Reason

Document 1 contains information relating to certain operations of the NDIA, specifically internal guidance given to staff which assists in determining the level of supports a participant may require and subsequently the quantum of supports to be included in a participant’s plan. The disclosure of this information would reveal methodologies the NDIA uses to assist in determining levels of support provided to NDIS participants, the existence of which is to better ensure that participants receive supports that are reasonable and necessary.

Any disclosure resulting in the prejudice of the effectiveness of the Agency’s operational methods and procedures would, or could reasonably be expected to, result in the need for the Agency to change those methods and procedures to ensure the future effectiveness and sustainability of the Agency and the Scheme.

Document 3 contains information relating to certain operation of the NDIA, specifically, the contact details of internal mailboxes intended for use by NDIA staff only. Specialist mailboxes are not intended for public or general use and emails that are sent to

these mailboxes can be effectively allocated to subject matter experts within the NDIA. This

facilitates the provision of efficient and effective advice, where required. Were these

mailboxes to be made public, there is a reasonable likelihood of aggrieved members of the

public seeking to gain advantage over others, by using internal points of contact in place of

the appropriate external contact pathways. This could result in congestion of these

mailboxes and reduce the ability of staff to respond to targeted emails that require their

subject matter expertise.

Any disclosure of these internal mailboxes would, or could reasonably be expected to, result

in the need for the NDIA to change their internal communication methods and procedures

and access arrangements with multiple third parties to ensure NDIA communication

canals remain effective. I am satisfied this is a substantial adverse effect on the proper

and efficient operations of the NDIA.

Accordingly, I conclude that the relevant information contained in documents 1 and 3 are 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)
• inform debate on a matter of public importance
• promote effective oversight of public expenditure

This is because providing access to documents held by the NDIA allows for increased scrutiny, discussion, comment, and review of government-held information.

Factors Weighing Against Disclosure

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:

• effectively and appropriately attract, retain, and manage staff
• protect procedures for the proper and efficient conduct of NDIA operations
• protect the security and integrity of information held by the Agency

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
• discourage the use of NDIA’s services
• result in aggrieved members of the public using this information to seek to gain advantage over others
• negatively impact the NDIA customer service experience
• discourage the use of NDIA’s services

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 thirteen (13) factors favouring

disclosure.

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(a) 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 2 and 4-7 meets the definition of personal information. The identified material contains I am satisfied that information contained in documents 2 and 4-7 meets the definition of personal information. The identified material contains personal information of staff members’ login details. These details may not have been disclosed to you previously.

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 2 and 4-7 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)
• inform debate on a matter of public importance

This is because providing access to documents held by the NDIA allows for increased scrutiny, discussion, comment, and review of government-held information.

Factors Weighing Against Disclosure

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 login details 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
• adversely affect or harm the interests of any individual, including by exposing any individual to an unreasonable risk of harm
• prejudiced the NDIA’s ability 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 seven (7) 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.

Attachment C

Freedom of Information request – Your review rights

Internal review

The FOI Act gives you the right to apply for an internal review of this decision. The review will be conducted by a different person to the person who made the original decision.

If you wish to seek an internal review of the decision, you must apply for review, in writing, within 30 days of receiving this letter.

No particular form is required for an application for internal review, but to assist the review process, you should clearly outline your grounds for review (that is, the reasons why you disagree with the decision). Applications for internal review can be lodged by email to foi@ndis.gov.au, or sent 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 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 government 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