FOI 26.27 0105 Decision Notice of decision | FOI release material

Our reference: FOI 26/27-0105 (LEXD 25838)

GPO Box 700 Canberra ACT 2601 1800 800 110

3 September 2026 ndis.gov.au

Meaz Right to Know

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

Dear Meaz

Freedom of Information request — Notice of Decision

Thank you for your correspondence of 3 July 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:

“…Please provide access under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to NDIA internal guidance about applying human-rights and child-rights obligations in decisions affecting children with disability.

This request covers current and superseded documents available to NDIA staff from 1 January 2025 to the date of this request.

Please include SOPs, knowledge articles, practice guides, checklists, templates, training material and decision-making guidance about:

applying the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other relevant human-rights obligations.

how human-rights and child-rights considerations apply to a child’s best interests, safety, development, dignity, participation, communication needs and vulnerability.

Delivered by the National Disability Insurance Agency

how human-rights and child-rights considerations apply to dependence on carers, sustainability of family care arrangements and impacts on parents, carers and siblings.
how those considerations are applied and recorded in planning, reassessment, internal review, complaints, safeguarding, risk escalation and complex-support decisions.

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

On 26 August 2026, you subsequently revised the scope of your request as follows:

“…Please provide access under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to NDIA internal guidance about applying human-rights and child-rights obligations in decisions affecting children with disability

…1. Limit the request to guidance that was current, operative or available to NDIA staff between 1 October 2025 and 30 June 2026.

I no longer require the Agency to separately locate or process the 210 linked guidance documents.

Please retain any titles, document numbers, identifiers or cross-references to linked guidance that already appear within the primary documents.

Duplicate and draft versions may be excluded where the final or operative version is available.

Document metadata is sought only where it already appears in, or accompanies, the document.

The substantive scope of my original request otherwise remains unchanged, including guidance concerning:

a. human-rights and child-rights obligations; b. best interests, safety, development, dignity, participation, communication needs and vulnerability of children with disability; c. dependence on carers, sustainability of family/informal supports, and impacts on parents, carers and siblings; and d. how these matters are considered, recorded or escalated in planning, reassessment, internal review, complaints, safeguarding, risk escalation and complex-support decision-making…”

Extension of time

On 20 July 2026, you agreed to a 30-day extension of time under section 15AA of the FOI Act, making 1 September 2026 the date by which to provide you with a decision on your request.

Request consultation process

On 26 August 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 210 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 include only current versions of documents that have fallen in scope of your request. On 26 August 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 October 2025 and 30 June 2026. Following the conclusion of the request consultation process, the due date this matter is 3 September 2026.

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

As a result of these searches, I have identified five (5) documents, which fall within the revised scope of your request. I note that two (2) of the documents falling in scope have been recently released under the FOI Act:

Knowledge Article - EC PEC – Daily support (mainstream participation)
Knowledge Article - Early childhood intervention supports guide (EC Guide)

I have decided to administratively release these to you and attached them to the decision release email. As these documents have already been released, I have not considered them as part of this FOI 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 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
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.

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

Release of documents

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 (ECN120)

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 26/27-0105

Document number	Page number	Description	Access Decision
1	1-52	NDIS Supports for Behaviour: Early Childhood Date: Undated	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemptions claimed: s47E(d) — certain operations of agencies s47F(1) — personal privacy
2	53-64	Knowledge Article: EC PEC - Capacity building - Regulated restrictive practices v3.0 Date: 07 April 2026	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47E(d) — certain operations of agencies
3	65-75	Knowledge Article: EC PEC – Early childhood intervention supports overview Date: 06 April 2026	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47E(d) — certain operations of agencies

Attachment B

Statement of Reasons

FOI 26/27-0105

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

I have decided that documents 1, 2 and 3 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. 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 and 2 on the basis that the information is conditionally exempt information under section 47E(a) 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(d))

Section 47E(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

Documents 1-3 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.

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.

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
contribute to the administration of justice generally, including procedural fairness

I have decided to afford moderate weight to these five (5) 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:

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 13 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(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 Document 1 meets the definition of personal information. The identified material contains personal information of third-party information and personal information of NDIA personnel, including their identities and photo verification of individuals. These details have 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
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

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)
inform debate on a matter of public importance
allow a person to access their own personal 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:

contribute to the administration of justice generally, including procedural fairness

I have decided to afford little weight to these four (4) 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 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 third party names into the public domain could

reasonably be expected to pose a risk to the health and safety of individuals, given the

public-facing nature of our work and the risk of this information being used to cause harm or

online disrepute.

Further, 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
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

I have decided to afford significant weight to these four (4) 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 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 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

                                                                    13