NDIA Accountability Project

NDIS — FOI 26/27-0372, FOI 26/27-0373, FOI 26/27-0374, FOI 26/27-0375, FOI 26/27-0376 and FOI 26/27-0377: Notification of Decision

‹ PrevPage 1 of 9 · Source p. 1Next ›
Comments

Our reference: FOI 26/27-0372, FOI 26/27-0373, FOI 26/27-0374,

         FOI 26/27-0375, FOI 26/27-0376 and FOI 26/27-0377
        (LEXD 27602, 27603, 27605, 27607, 27609 and 27610)

GPO Box 700 Canberra ACT 2601 1800 800 110

ndis.gov.au

18 September 2026

Erin Right to Know

By email: foi+request-15240-ca104ce3@righttoknow.org.au foi+request-15241-041e26ed@righttoknow.org.au foi+request-15242-0a389779@righttoknow.org.au foi+request-15243-068d1cb8@righttoknow.org.au foi+request-15244-47ac6ffd@righttoknow.org.au foi+request-15245-bbf43755@righttoknow.org.au

Dear Erin,

Freedom of Information request — Notice of Decision

Thank you for your correspondence of 25 July 2026, in which you made 6 separate requests 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 requests.

Scope of your request

In your first request, you requested access to the following documents:

"…1. Policy and guidance documents

Any document held by the NDIA — including internal operational guidelines, evidence reviews, position statements, delegate briefing or training material, decision-making frameworks, or correspondence with an internal evidence/clinical advisory function — that specifically discusses, evaluates, or provides guidance on Mentalization-Based Treatment (including any use of the acronym “MBT”) in relation to funding decisions under the NDIS.

 2. Statistics — internal reviews and reassessments
For each of the past five financial years (or the longest period for which this data is
 readily available), the number of:"

  • Internal review requests, and

    - Plan reassessment requests,

    in which Mentalization-Based Treatment was specifically identified as a requested

    support, broken down by outcome (e.g. approved, partially approved, declined).

    1. Statistics — tribunal applications

    For the same period, the number of applications to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

    (AAT) and/or its successor, the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), in which funding

    for Mentalization-Based Treatment was a matter in dispute, broken down by outcome

    where known to the Agency…

You further made 5 additional requests which were identical to the above request, except for

the therapy/treatment type at issue. These additional requests asked for the same

information as the above for the following therapy/treatment types:

  • Cognitive Analytic Therapy (including any use of the acronym “CAT”)

  • Radically-Open DBT (including any use of acronym (RODBT)

  • Interpersonal Therapy

  • Brief Relational Therapy

  • Social Skills Training

To avoid duplication of effort, I have decided to combine each of these requests and am

providing a single decision in response to all 6 requests. As the Right to Know platform

assigns each request its own unique email address, I have copied my decision to all 6 of the

addresses attached to your requests. Further information regarding this is outlined in the

detailed statement of reasons at Attachment A.

Extension of time

On 20 August 2026, you agreed to a 30-day extension of time under section 15AA of the FOI

Act on these 6 combined requests, making Wednesday 23 September the date by which to

provide you with a decision on your request.

This decision is being provided to you within the statutory timeframe and that means that you

can seek an internal review of this decision, should you wish. You are also able to apply to

the OAIC for an external review of this decision.

                                                                     2

Search efforts

Please see Attachment B for more information about your rights of review.

Search efforts

I have consulted with relevant NDIA staff in the Actuarial, Data and Analytics (ADA) team, as

well as Service Guidance (SG) and Technical Advice and Practice Improvement (TAPIB)

branches who could be reasonably expected to be able to identify documents within the

scope of your request. Further consultations were carried out with Service Delivery, and

External Reviews staff to determine whether they held the data sought locally.

Despite these search efforts, I have been unable to identify any documents falling 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 refuse access in full under section 24A of the FOI Act.

Reasons for decision

In reaching my decision, I have considered:

  • 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
  • the operating environment and functions of the NDIA

I am satisfied that the 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 A.

Rights of review

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

Attachment B.

                                                                     3

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

by email at foi@ndis.gov.au.

Yours sincerely

Rebecca – REM471 Senior Freedom of Information Officer Information Access and Privacy Branch Reviews and Information Release Division

Attachment A

Statement of Reasons

FOI 26/27-0372, FOI 26/27-0373, FOI 26/27-0374, FOI 26/27-0375, FOI 26/27-0376 and FOI 26/27-0377

Combining multiple FOI requests

Section 24(2)(b) of the FOI Act states that multiple requests my be combined into a single request for the purposes of considering practical refusal reasons if the requests relate to substantially similar subject matter.

It is my view that these requests are of substantially similar subject matter as they ask for the same information relating to 6 treatment/therapy types, therefore the documents would all be held by the same areas of the Agency. I have therefore treated them as a single request when conducting preliminary enquiries with the relevant business units in order to determine whether the volume of documents in scope would constitute an unreasonable diversion of resources to process.

In my review of the responses received from those business areas, I found that there were no documents held by the NDIA which fall within the scope of your requests and therefore no practical refusal reasons exist in relation to your requests.

The FOI Act is silent as to whether combined requests must then be separated if no practical refusal reason is found to exist. In the interest of not duplicating effort, I have therefore chosen not to separate the requests and have processed all 6 requests as though they were a single request.

Forms of access

Access to information not available in discrete or written form (section 17)

Section 17(1)(c) of the FOI Act provides that, to enable the release of information, an agency can produce a written document containing information which is not otherwise available in discrete or written form, in one of two ways. These are:

  • by using a computer to retrieve the information,
  • by making a transcript from a sound recording.

Section 17 does not require that an agency undertake significant work to create new documents or answer questions, but rather allows for the compiling of information already held within our systems. In this instance, it was not possible to create a document containing the information you have requested.

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 business areas:

  • Actuarial, Data and Analytics (ADA)
  • Service Delivery
  • External Reviews
  • Service Guidance
  • Technical Advice and Practice Improvement Branch (TAPIB)

These teams could be reasonably expected to be able to identify documents within the scope of your request. Despite these search efforts, I am satisfied that no documents falling within the scope of your requests could not be found or do not exist.

Regarding the data and statistical information you have requested, consideration was given to section 17 of the FOI Act, and as to whether a document could be created using a computer. Paragraph 3.238 of the FOI Guidelines states that when considering whether it is possible to create a document under section 17, that the computer or equipment involved in creating a document for the purposes of section 17 must be capable of functioning independently to collate or retrieve the stored information needed to produce the requested information.

Some of the statistical information you have requested, may exist within individual participant records, however it is not tracked at the level of specificity you have requested, by any of our reporting systems. Section 17 of the FOI Act requires that a document be created only when it is possible to do so where the information can be collated by a computer or program. Undertaking a manual search of potentially thousands of individual participant records to manually collate the data falls outside the remit of section 17. I am therefore satisfied that there are no documents in the possession of the NDIA which meet the scope of your request.

You have also requested policy or guidance documents which specifically discuss or evaluate each of the following 6 therapy/treatment types:

  • Mentalization-Based Treatment

  • Cognitive Analytic Therapy (including any use of the acronym “CAT”)

  • Radically-Open DBT (including any use of acronym (RODBT)

  • Interpersonal Therapy

  • Brief Relational Therapy

  • Social Skills Training

TAPIB are the business unit responsible for the type of advice your request seeks, and their

advice comes in two forms. Specific advice on an individual case or circumstance, and

general advice which collates and summarises peer reviewed research from various

academic sources on a specific topic. TAPIB identified two documents which might be

relevant to your request, these were literature summaries for particular

disabilities/impairments. Upon further review I found no relevant mention of the therapies

listed above in either document, and certainly no specific discussion or evaluation of any of

the above.

I am satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to locate the documents you have

requested and that the documents cannot be found or do not exist. I have therefore decided

to refuse your request for access to the document in accordance with section 24A(1) of the

FOI Act.

                                                                     7

Attachment B

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:

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:

Comments

Loading comments…

Add a comment