FOI 25.26 2104 Decision Notice of Decision | FOI release material

Our reference: FOI 25/26-2104 (LEXD 16590)

GPO Box 700 Canberra ACT 2601 1800 800 110 ndis.gov.au

14 August 2026

redacted

By email: foi+request-14256-3c32a538@righttoknow.org.au

Dear redacted,

Freedom of Information request — Notice of Decision

Thank you for your correspondence of 4 February 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 am requesting any correspondence between Palantir Technologies and the agency

since May 2020 and any documents since 2022 that mention how the NDIA could use

Palantir’s products such as Foundry for fraud detection.

Extension of time

On 5 March 2026, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) granted us a 30-day extension of time under section 15AB of the FOI Act, making 5 April 2026 the date by which to provide you with a decision on your request.

The period in which to process your request was extended by a further 30 days under section 15(6) of the FOI Act, to enable consultation with an affected third party under section 27 – making 5 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 was 5 May 2026. We have been experiencing processing delays, and were unable to provide you with a

decision by this date. Consequently, your application is deemed to have been refused under section 15AC of the FOI Act.

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

Reasonable searches were conducted of NDIA business systems, using all reasonable search terms that could return documents relevant to your request. In addition, I have consulted with relevant NDIA staff in the Integrity, Transformation and Technology Branch Division and the Office of the Chief Operating Officer who could be reasonably expected to be able to identify documents within the scope of your request.

As a result of these searches, I have identified 31 documents, including attachments, which fall within the scope of your request.

Third-party consultation

In processing your request, I determined that it was necessary to undertake consultation with one or more affected third parties under section 27 of the FOI Act.

Under section 27 of the FOI Act, I must take all reasonably practicable steps to enable an affected third party to comment on, or object to, the potential release of business information about the third party.

I have not received a response from the third party to my attempts at consultation. I have proceeded to make my decision on the release of the documents in the absence of any comment from the third party.

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 9 documents in part and refuse access to 22 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
relevant case law concerning the operation of the FOI Act
consultation with relevant NDIA staff and business areas
consultation with one or more affected third parties
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 47C, 47F and 47G 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 foi@ndis.gov.au.

Yours sincerely

Nikole (NHM288)

Senior Freedom of Information Officer

Information Access and Privacy Branch

Reviews and Information Release Division

National Disability Insurance Agency

Attachment A

Schedule of Documents

Schedule of Documents for FOI 25/26-2104

Document number	Page number	Description	Access Decision
1	1	Email Subject: Palantir Meeting Request Date: 10 March 2023	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47F(1) – personal privacy
2	2	Email Subject: RE: Palantir - Intro Documents for John D & Kitsa [SEC=OFFICIAL] Date: 28 March 2023	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47F(1) – personal privacy
3	3-5	Email Subject: WARNING: MESSAGE ENCRYPTED]Re: NDIA/ Palantir Progression [SEC=OFFICIAL] Date: 10 May 2023	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemptions claimed: s47C(1) – deliberative processes s47F(1) – personal privacy s47G – business information
4	6-12	Email Subject: Re: [WARNING: MESSAGE ENCRYPTED]Re: NDIA/ Palantir Progression [SEC=OFFICIAL] Date: 11 May 2023	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemptions claimed: s47C(1) – deliberative processes s47F(1) – personal privacy s47G – business information
5	13	Email Subject: RE: Invitation to Attend Technology Demonstration [SEC=OFFICIAL] Date: 21 May 2023	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemptions claimed: s47F(1) – personal privacy s47G – business information

Document number	Page number	Description	Access Decision
6	14-15	Email Subject: Re: Invitation to Attend Technology Demonstration [SEC=OFFICIAL] Date: 21 May 2023	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemptions claimed: s47F(1) – personal privacy s47G – business information
7	16-17	Email Subject: RE: Invitation to Attend Technology Demonstration [SEC=OFFICIAL] Date: 22 May 2023	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemptions claimed: s47F(1) – personal privacy s47G – business information
8	18-20	Email Subject: RE: Invitation to Attend Technology Demonstration [SEC=OFFICIAL] Date: 22 May 2023	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemptions claimed: s47F(1) – personal privacy s47G – business information
9	21-23	Email Subject: RE: Palantir Follow Up Session on SAP [SEC=OFFICIAL] Date: 13 October 2023	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemptions claimed: s47C(1) – deliberative processes s47F(1) – personal privacy s47G – business information
10	N/A	AUSTRAC Case Study.pdf	REFUSED ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47G – business information
11	N/A	Two Pager - Anti-Financial Crime Investigations & Case Management.pdf	REFUSED ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47G – business information
12	N/A	Palantir - Impacts.pdf	REFUSED ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47G – business information

Document number	Page number	Description	Access Decision
13	N/A	Email Subject: FW: Palantir - Proof of Concept [SEC=OFFICIAL] Date: 17 April 2023	REFUSED ACCESS Exemptions claimed: s47C(1) – deliberative processes s47G – business information
14	N/A	Palantir Technologies Australia - PoC.pdf	REFUSED ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47G – business information
15	N/A	Foundry Cloud Architecture Diagram.pdf	REFUSED ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47G – business information
16	N/A	Foundry Security Whitepaper.pdf	REFUSED ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47G – business information
17	N/A	Palantir Technologies Defence Industry Security Program Membership	REFUSED ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47G – business information
18	N/A	Certificate of Registration – Quality Management System	REFUSED ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47G – business information
19	N/A	Certificate of Registration – Information Security Management System	REFUSED ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47G – business information
20	N/A	Independent Service Auditor’s SOC 3 Report	REFUSED ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47G – business information
21	N/A	Palantir Technologies - Failed Payments NDIA v2.pdf	REFUSED ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47G – business information
22	N/A	Palantir Technologies - Failed Payments v2 .pdf	REFUSED ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47G – business information

Document number	Page number	Description	Access Decision
23	N/A	Email Subject: RE: Palantir Check-in [SEC=OFFICIAL] Date: 9 November 2023	REFUSED ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47G – business information
24	N/A	RE: Palantir Follow Up Session on SAP [SEC=OFFICIAL]	REFUSED ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47G – business information
25	N/A	Palantir Follow Up Session on SAP (Proposal walkthrough)	REFUSED ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47G – business information
26	N/A	Palantir Technologies - Failed Payments.pdf	REFUSED ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47G – business information
27	N/A	Palantir Terms of Service (1).pdf	REFUSED ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47G – business information
28	N/A	Email Subject: FW: Palantir Check-in [SEC=OFFICIAL] Date: 15 November 2023	REFUSED ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47G – business information
29	N/A	RE: Palantir Follow Up Session on SAP [SEC=OFFICIAL]	REFUSED ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47G – business information
30	N/A	Email Subject: RE: Palantir - Information required [SEC=OFFICIAL] Date: 9 February 2024	REFUSED ACCESS Exemptions claimed: s47C(1) – deliberative processes s47G – business information
31	N/A	Failed payments processing.pdf	REFUSED ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47G – business information

Attachment B

Statement of Reasons

FOI 25/26-2104

Forms of access

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

I have decided that documents 1 to 9 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 those documents and have concluded that it is reasonably practicable to do so. Accordingly, I have prepared edited copies of documents 1 to 9 with the exempt material removed.

I have also considered whether it is reasonably practicable to provide edited copies of documents 10 to 31. I have concluded that it is not reasonably practicable to do so because, after deletion of the exempt material, the remaining information would be either meaningless, lacking in context, or would not provide a coherent copy of the documents. Accordingly, access to documents 10 to 31 is refused in full.

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 31 on the basis that the information is conditionally exempt information under sections 47C(1), 47F(1) and 47G(1) of the FOI Act, and that the disclosure of the information would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.

Deliberative processes (section 47C)

Section 47C of the FOI Act conditionally exempts a document from release if its disclosure would disclose deliberative matter in the nature of, or relating to, opinion, advice or recommendation obtained, prepared or recorded, or consultation or deliberation that has

taken place in, the course of, or for the purposes of, the deliberative processes involved in the functions of an agency.

Paragraph 6.54 of the FOI Guidelines provides that deliberative process generally refers to the process of weighing up or evaluating competing arguments or considerations, or to an agency’s thinking processes – including the process of reflection, for example, upon the wisdom and expediency of a proposal, a particular decision, or a course of action.

Section 47C(2) of the FOI Act provides that deliberative matter does not include purely factual material. The FOI Guidelines provide that ‘purely factual material’ does not extend to factual material that is an integral part of the deliberative content and purpose of a document, or that is embedded in or intertwined with the deliberative content such that it is impractical to excise it.

Documents 3, 4 and 9 contain deliberative matter in the form of opinions, advice, recommendations and discussions recorded as part of the NDIA’s consideration of potential approaches, priorities, requirements and options relating to fraud and integrity functions, including technical, operational and strategic considerations. I am therefore satisfied that documents 3, 4 and 9 contain information that meets the definition of ‘deliberative matter.’

I am also satisfied that documents 13 and 30 consist entirely of deliberative matter relating to opinions, advice, recommendations, assessments and discussions prepared to assist NDIA decision-makers in considering business requirements, operational priorities, implementation approaches, resource implications, technical considerations and potential future directions relating to agency functions. As these documents comprise deliberative matter in their entirety, they meet the definition of ‘deliberative matter’ in full.

Documents 13 and 30 also contain factual material, including information relating to technical considerations, implementation activities, project planning and associated administrative matters. I am satisfied that this factual material is embedded within and intertwined with the deliberative content such that it is not reasonably practicable to separate for release. I am therefore satisfied that documents 13 and 30 do not contain purely factual material.

Accordingly, I conclude that the information identified for redaction in documents 3, 4 and 9, and the entirety of documents 13 and 30, is conditionally exempt under section 47C(1) of the FOI Act.

Public interest considerations – section 47C

It is not enough that I have decided the documents contain deliberative material that is conditionally exempt under section 47C(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 that 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 increasing public participation in Government processes
inform debate on matters of public importance
promote effective oversight of public expenditure
enhance transparency and accountability in the NDIA’s decision-making processes.

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:

reveal background or contextual information relevant to government decision-making
enhance scrutiny of decisions and actions undertaken by the NDIA
contribute to transparency in the administration of the NDIA’s functions.

I have decided to afford moderate weight to these factors favouring 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 deliberative material in question is that doing so could reasonably be expected to negatively affect the deliberative processes involved in the functions of the

NDIA. Relevantly, this includes the ability of NDIA decision makers to make informed decisions by having regard to the opinion, advice, or recommendations obtained, prepared or recorded in the course of, or for the purpose of, these deliberative processes.

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 deliberative material in question could reasonably be expected to:

prejudice the NDIA’s ability to obtain frank and candid advice, opinions and recommendations in the future
prejudice the management and decision-making functions of the NDIA
prejudice the effectiveness and integrity of the NDIA’s deliberative processes
inhibit the free and frank exchange of views between NDIA officers and external stakeholders during the course of agency deliberations
prejudice the NDIA’s ability to effectively consider and evaluate options relating to the performance of its functions and operations.

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 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 the relevant information contained in documents 3, 4 and 9, and documents 13 and 30 in full, is exempt from release under section 47C(1) 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.

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) has released guidance to agencies when considering whether to release staff names as part of an FOI request. The guidance provides that A public servant’s name, and information about where they work and how they can be contacted, is personal information. It is information about an identified individual, or an individual who is reasonably identifiable… Section 19 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 requires employers to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of their workers. This means employers must eliminate risks to health and safety so far as it is reasonably practicable to do, or minimise the risks if it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate them (section 17).

In Warren; Chief Executive Officer, Services Australia and (Freedom of information) [2020] AATA 4557 (9 November 2020), Deputy President S A Forgie found (at [130]):

An individual may include his or her direct telephone number in correspondence directed to other persons. Unless published on an agency’s website or made public in some other way, such as on a pamphlet or report available to the public, I consider that disclosure of an individual’s telephone number in his or her place of employment is unreasonable. Its disclosure will provide an avenue by which others may choose to express their displeasure with the individual or with that for which he or she is responsible but its disclosure does not make any positive contribution to increasing public participation in Government processes or in increasing scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of the Government’s activities.

I am satisfied that information contained in documents 1 to 9 meets the definition of personal information. The identified material contains person information of NDIA personnel, including their names, email addresses and telephone numbers. This information has not previously been disclosed to you.

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
```
                                                                13
```

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.
disclosure could reasonably be expected to result in unwanted contact or scrutiny of NDIA personnel in connection with their official duties.

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 documents 1 to 9 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 1 to 9 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 increasing public participation in Government processes
inform debate on matters of public importance
promote transparency and accountability in the NDIA’s decision-making processes
enable scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of Government-held information

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:

reveal background or contextual information relevant to Government decision-making
enhance scrutiny of decisions and actions undertaken by the NDIA
contribute to transparency in the administration of the NDIA’s functions.

I have decided to afford little weight to these factors favouring disclosure.

Factors favouring nondisclosure

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. In that context, disclosure of the personal information of NDIA personnel could reasonably be expected to increase the likelihood of those individuals being subjected to unsolicited contact, public scrutiny or other adverse attention arising from the performance of their official duties.

The NDIA takes its obligations to its employees under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) seriously. I am satisfied that disclosure of the personal information could reasonably be expected to pose a risk to the health, safety and wellbeing of affected staff, including through unwanted contact, intimidation or online criticism. Disclosure may also adversely affect the ability of staff to effectively carry out their duties and could negatively impact staff wellbeing.

These considerations weigh strongly against disclosure in the public interest.

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
adversely affect the interests of individuals by exposing them to an unreasonable risk of unwanted contact or harm
prejudice the NDIA’s ability to meet its obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and Privacy Act 1988

prejudice the NDIA’s ability to attract and retain staff in sensitive and high-profile operational areas.

I have afforded significant weight to these factors favouring nondisclosure.

Balancing the relevant factors

With reference to the assessment above, I conclude that this information is exempt from release under section 47F(1) of the FOI Act.

Business information (section 47G)

Section 47G(1) of the FOI Act conditionally exempts a document from release if its disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, unreasonably affect a third party’s lawful business, professional, commercial, or financial affairs, or prejudice the future supply of information to the Commonwealth.

Paragraph 6.181 of the FOI Guidelines provides that the conditional exemption in section 47G(1) depends on the effect of disclosure, rather than the precise nature of the information itself. Nevertheless, the information in question must have some relevance to a person in respect of their business or professional affairs, or to the business, commercial, or financial affairs of an organisation or undertaking.

Paragraph 6.191 of the FOI Guidelines distinguishes ‘business or professional affairs’ from an individual’s personal or private affairs, or the internal affairs of an organisation. The term ‘business affairs’ has been interpreted to mean ‘the totality of the money-making affairs’ of a person, organisation, or undertaking as distinct from their private or internal affairs.

Having examined documents 3 to 9, I am satisfied that the information identified for redaction contains sensitive business information relating to a third party, including commercial, technical, operational and business information provided to the NDIA in circumstances giving rise to an expectation that the information would be treated confidentially.

I am also satisfied that documents 10 to 31 consist entirely, or substantially, of sensitive business information relating to a third party, including information concerning business activities, technical capabilities, commercial arrangements, operational approaches and other information of commercial value.

I am satisfied that disclosure of this information could reasonably be expected to have an unreasonable adverse effect on the lawful business, professional, commercial or financial affairs of the relevant third party. In particular, disclosure would reveal commercially sensitive information concerning the third party’s business operations, capabilities, methodologies and commercial activities, which could disadvantage the third party in its dealings with competitors and clients.

I am also satisfied that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the future supply of information of this nature to the Commonwealth, as third parties may be less willing to provide commercially sensitive information to the NDIA if there is a reasonable expectation that such information may subsequently be disclosed under the FOI Act.

In relation to documents 10 to 31, I am satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to prepare edited copies under section 22 of the FOI Act, as the exempt material is distributed throughout the documents and any material remaining after deletion would be misleading, lacking in context, or of no meaningful value. Accordingly, I have decided to refuse access to those documents in full.

Accordingly, I conclude that the information identified for redaction in documents 3 to 9 is conditionally exempt under section 47G(1) of the FOI Act. I also conclude that documents 10 to 31 are conditionally exempt in full under section 47G(1) of the FOI Act.

Public interest considerations – section 47G

It is not sufficient that I have found the information identified for redaction in documents 3 to 9, and documents 10 to 31 in full, to be conditionally exempt under section 47G(1) of the FOI Act. I must also determine whether giving access to that information at this time would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.

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 increasing public participation in Government processes

inform debate on matters of public importance relating to the NDIA’s functions and

decision-making processes
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.

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:

reveal the reason for a government decision and any background information or

contextual information that informed the decision
enhance the scrutiny of government decision making
contribute to the administration of justice generally, including procedural fairness.

I have decided to afford moderate weight to these factors favouring 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 business information in question is that doing so could

reasonably be expected to compromise the business, professional, commercial, or financial

affairs of a third party, or interfere with their ability to undertake their lawful business.

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

business information in question could reasonably be expected to:

prejudice the ability of the NDIA to obtain confidential information in the future
adversely affect the lawful business, commercial or financial affairs of third parties
enable competitors or other parties to obtain a commercial advantage from the

release of confidential business information
prejudice existing and future business relationships between the NDIA and third

parties

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 the relevant information contained

in documents 3 to 9, and documents 10 to 31 in full, is exempt from release under section

47G(1) of the FOI Act.

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:

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