FOI 25.26 3696 Decision Notice of Decision | FOI release material

Our reference: FOI 25/26-3696 (LEXD 25262)

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

28 August 2026

Meaz Right to Know

By email: foi+request-15008-740f4ef4@righttoknow.org.au

Dear Meaz,

Freedom of Information request — Notice of Decision

Thank you for your correspondence of 29 June 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 originally requested access to the following documents:

“Please provide access under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to NDIA internal guidance available to staff between 1 January 2025 and 14 May 2026 about how section 100 internal reviews are processed and decided.

This request includes current and superseded SOPs, knowledge articles, practice guides, checklists, templates, training material and decision-making guidance about:

receiving, triaging, allocating, processing and deciding section 100 internal reviews.

considering new evidence, changed circumstances, risks, complaints, escalations and activity history after the original decision.

assessing professional reports, functional capacity evidence, family/carer evidence and requested supports.

recording reasons where requested supports are refused, reduced or not included.

deciding when to seek team leader, technical advice, TAPIB or other specialist advice.
preparing internal review records, desktop review notes, decision notes and explanation-of-decision letters.

Please include document titles, version numbers, dates created or updated, document owner/business area, attachments and linked guidance.”

On the 10 July 2026 have subsequently revised the scope of your request as follows:

“I have reviewed the section 100 internal-review documents already released. I exclude those documents and seek only the following materials available between 1 January 2025 and 14 May 2026:

IRT - Adding and linking evidence to an internal review case.

IRT - Requests for further information.

IRT - Planning request internal note templates.

IRT - Sending a manual letter, including the relevant planning internal-review outcome-letter templates.

The risk and escalation matrix used by the Internal Review Branch.

The PACE justification, sub-justification or decision-reason lists used to record support-by-support internal-review outcomes.

Please provide the named documents and their directly associated templates or picklists only. Where a document was renamed or incorporated into another article, please provide the replacement article.”

Extension of time

On 22 July 2026, you agreed to a 30-day extension of time under section 15AA of the FOI Act, making the date 28 August 2026 by which to provide you with a decision on your request.

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 Internal Reviews Branch 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 20 documents which fall within the scope of your request.

Decision on access to documents

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

I have decided to:

grant access to 14 documents in full
grant access to 5 documents in part
refuse access to 1 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
factors relevant to my assessment of whether or not disclosure of information would be in the public interest
the operating environment and functions of the NDIA

I have decided that some information will not be released as it comprises exempt information under sections 47E and 47F of the FOI Act. I have also determined that the release of some information would be contrary to the public interest, in accordance with section 11A(5) of the FOI Act. Additionally I have found that that there are no documents that meet certain points of your scope, I therefore find that those points are refused subject to section 24A 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.

Additional Information

Yours sincerely

Rebecca – REM471

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 25/26-3696

Document number	Page number	Description	Access Decision
1	1-3	Adding and linking documents to an internal review case Date: 19 March 2026	FULL ACCESS
2	4-5	Adding and linking evidence to an internal review case KA Date: 10 November 2025	FULL ACCESS
3	6-10	Conduct a desktop review Date: 13 July 2026	FULL ACCESS
4	11-13	Conduct a desktop review KA Date: 1 December 2025	FULL ACCESS
5	14-39	Intake of an internal review request. Date: 13 July 2026	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemptions claimed: s47E(d) — certain operations of agencies s47F(1) — personal privacy

Document number	Page number	Description	Access Decision
6	40-50	Intake of an internal review request KA Date: 7 April 2026	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemptions claimed: s47E(d) — certain operations of agencies s47F(1) — personal privacy
7	-	Internal Review Branch Triage Framework Date: 3 July 2026	REFUSED IN FULL Exemptions claimed: s47E(d) — certain operations of agencies
8	51-54	Internal Review Outcome for other s100 types of Letters	FULL ACCESS
9	55-66	IRT - Planning request internal note templates Date:	FULL ACCESS
10	67-73	Planning request internal note templates KA PACE Date: 1 December 2025	FULL ACCESS
11	74-80	IRT — Requests for further information Date: 11 February 2026	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemptions claimed: s47E(d) — certain operations of agencies

Document number	Page number	Description	Access Decision
12	81-83	Requests for further information KA PACE Date: 20 January 2025	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemptions claimed: s47E(d) — certain operations of agencies
13	84-90	Miscategorised request. Date: 19 March 2026	FULL ACCESS
14	91-94	Miscategorised request KA PACE Date: 20 January 2025	FULL ACCESS
15	95-98	Outcome of Internal Review of Planning Decision All Supports Approved Letter	FULL ACCESS
16	99-106	Outcome of Internal Review of Planning Decision All Supports Declined Letter	FULL ACCESS
17	107-114	Outcome of Internal Review of Planning Decision Some Supports Approved Letter	FULL ACCESS
18	115-122	Requests for further information Date: 14 May 2026	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemptions claimed: s47E(d) — certain operations of agencies
19	123-125	Sending a manual letter.	FULL ACCESS

Document number	Page number	Description	Access Decision
		Date: 19 March 2026
20	126-127	Sending a manual letter KA PACE Date: 10 November 2025	FULL ACCESS

Attachment B

Statement of Reasons

FOI 25/26-3696

Forms of access

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

I have decided that documents 5-7, 11, 12 and 18 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 only in the case of documents 5, 6, 11, 12 and 18. Accordingly, I have prepared an edited copy of those documents with the exempt material removed. Document 7, I find that it is not possible to provide an edited copy as the extent of the exempt information would make the remaining information unreadable, I therefore find that document 7 is exempt in full.

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 Internal Reviews Branch who could be reasonably expected to be able to identify documents within the scope of your request.

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

The PACE justification, sub-justification or decision-reason lists used to record support-by-support internal-review outcomes.

This is because the Internal Reviews Branch does not own PACE justification, sub- justification or decision-reason lists used to record support-by-support internal-review outcomes, the Knowledge Article refer to these functions as needed whilst conducting an internal review.

The Knowledge Articles pertain to completion of all types of internal reviews including Access, Planning, Compensation Recoveries, Specialist Disability Accommodation enrolment. The advice received the Internal Reviews Branch was that Knowledge Articles are used in conjunction with the NDIS Act 2013, appropriate rules and operational guidelines.

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 documents 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 5-7, 11, 12 and 18 on the basis that the information is conditionally exempt information under sections 47E(d) and 47F(1) of the FOI Act, and that the disclosure of the information would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.

Certain operations of agencies (section 47E)

Documents 5-7, 11, 12 and 18 contain information relating to certain operations of the NDIA, specifically the contact details of internal mailboxes intended for use by NDIA staff only, and internal guidance material for Internal Review Delegates and Participant Support Officers. This material assists with escalation criteria, decision-making tools for access, and planning matters within the internal review branch. The internal guidance material is not used in isolation and must be considered in conjunction with the NDIS Act 2013, relevant rules, and operational guidelines.

Section 47E(d) of the FOI Act conditionally exempts a document from release if its disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of an agency.

Section 47E(d) – As these specialist mailboxes are not intended for public or general use, 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 to ensure NDIA communication channels remain effective. I am satisfied this is a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient operations of the NDIA.

Documents 7, 11, 12 and 18 contain internal guidance material designed to assist Internal Review delegates and Participant Support Officers in assessing risk. The material provides examples of risk indicators, escalation scenarios, and associated timeframes. Disclosure of this information could reasonably be expected to enable some individuals to manipulate internal review processes for personal advantage, potentially expediting the review of their matters ahead of others.

Accordingly, I conclude that the relevant information contained in documents 7, 11, 12 and 18 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 documenta 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 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 protect established internal communication channels, points of contact, and 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:

result in aggrieved members of the public using this information to seek to gain advantage over others
impede the ability of specialist teams within the NDIA to efficiently respond to emails requiring their subject matter expertise
negatively impact the NDIA customer service experience

discourage the use of NDIA’s services
prejudice the protection of an individual’s right to privacy through the release of their personal information into the public domain
prejudice the NDIA’s ability to attract, retain, and appropriately manage 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 these 9 factors favouring nondisclosure.

Balancing the relevant factors

I am satisfied that the factors against disclosure of the information outweigh the factors in favour of disclosure and that, on balance, it would be contrary to the public interest to release this information to you.

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

Personal privacy (section 47F)

Section 47F(1) of the FOI Act conditionally exempts a document from release if its disclosure would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person (including a deceased person).

In determining whether information is conditionally exempt under section 47F(1) of the FOI Act, I must first determine whether the material meets the definition of personal information. I must then determine whether its disclosure would be reasonable or unreasonable.

The FOI Act shares the same definition of ‘personal information’ as the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). Personal information means information or an opinion about an identified individual, or about an individual who is reasonably identifiable:

whether the information or opinion is true or not

whether the information or opinion is recorded in a material form or not.

I am satisfied that information contained in documents 5 and 6 meets the definition of personal information. The identified material contains the names of NDIA personnel. 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 documents 5 and 6 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
advance the fair treatment of individuals and other entities, in accordance with the law in their dealings with the NDIA

I have decided to afford moderate weight to these 5 factors.

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.

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

The FOI Guidelines provides a non-exhaustive list of factors against access to information at paragraph 6.233. I have examined those factors, and I am satisfied that the disclosure of the personal information in question could reasonably be expected to:

prejudice the protection of an individual’s right to privacy through the release of their personal information into the public domain

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

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 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

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 the review, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of 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 to 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 form available on the OAIC’s website at www.oaic.gov.au , within 60 days of receipt of this letter.

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

Online: www.oaic.gov.au

Post: GPO Box 5218, Sydney NSW 2001

Email: enquiries@oaic.gov.au

Phone: 1300 363 992 (local call charge)

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 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 identified above. Your complaint to the Ombudsman can be directed to:

Phone: 1300 362 072 (local call charge)

Email: ombudsman@ombudsman.gov.au

Your complaint should be in writing and should set out the grounds on which it is considered that the actions taken in relation to the request should be investigated.