Our reference: IR 25/26-037 / FOI 25/26-2328 (LEXD 21550)
GPO Box 700 Canberra ACT 2601 1800 800 110 2 June 2026 ndis.gov.au
Frank N Fearless
By email: foi+request-14425-a63f0e06@righttoknow.org.au
Dear Frank N Fearless
Freedom of Information request — Internal Review Decision
Thank you for your correspondence of 4 May 2026, in which you requested an internal review of the decision made by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) on 23 April 2026 (Original Decision), in relation to your request for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act).
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a decision on your request for internal review.
Original Decision
On 23 April 2026, you were notified of the NDIA’s decision on request for information. That decision refused access to two documents.
In the original decision, deletions and redactions were applied under 47C(1) and 47E(d) of the FOI Act.
Internal Review
You have requested an Internal Review on the following grounds:
I wish to request a review of the denial of the request.
I don’t feel the agency has discharged its onus in relation to the entirety of the document.
The reasoning appears to me to be far too sweeping and not adequately particularised to the all the various elements of the document. At a minimum there is a basic expectation that more specific justifications for the application of the exemption for each section/type of content featured in the document would be provided. For some useful further reference points/pointers you may consult the annotation on the request that has been left by a helpful user of this website.
The public interest reasoning is also underdeveloped and not adequately particularised. I note the high public interest value to this independent review to the evolving debate regarding the budget method. This strongly connects to the Act’s objects around expenditure, democratic oversight. The government has again delayed the rollout of the new framework planning method despite publicly instancing this document as a basis for confidence in it. This taxpayer funded independent review will provide valuable insights
on the reasons the public confidence in, or the nature of further work required, on the budget method. As noted previously the agency itself placed this work at the centre of public debate on the scheme.
I am authorised to make internal review decisions under section 54C of that Act. As a review officer, I can decide all issues raised by an applicant’s FOI request and exercise all the powers available to the original decision maker. I am however, not bound in any way by the Original Decision and am required to make a fresh decision.
Search efforts
Searches were conducted by relevant staff in the Scheme Actuary and Chief Data Branch, using all reasonable search terms to locate documents relevant to the scope of your request. These searches were overseen by senior staff, and I am satisfied that the searches undertaken were sufficient to locate all documents that fall within the scope of your request.
I confirm that no additional documents were identified relevant to the scope of your request.
Decision on your request for Internal Review
I have reviewed the original decision, and I have decided to affirm the original decision being to: • refuse to release 2 documents as they contain information exempt under sections 47C(1) and 47E(d) of the FOI Act.
In making my decision, I have considered the following:
• your correspondence in relation to your original request
• the Original Decision dated 23 April 2026
• your grounds for seeking an internal review of Original Decision
• the NDIA’s operating environment and functions
• the FOI Act
• the FOI Guidelines published under section 93A of the FOI Act.Section 11A(5) of the FOI Act provides that access to a document covered by a conditional exemption must be provided unless disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.
I have refused access to the documents within scope of your request on the basis they are conditionally exempt under sections 47C(1) and 47E(d) 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 if its disclosure would disclose deliberative matter in the nature of opinion, advice or recommendation, or consultation or deliberation that has taken place in the course of, or for the purposes of, the deliberative processes of an agency.
Paragraphs 6.57-6.59 of the FOI Guidelines explains that the term deliberative process generally refers to the process of weighing up or evaluating competing arguments or considerations, including an agency’s thinking processes, reflection upon proposals, and consideration of decisions or courses of action.
Section 47C(2) of the FOI Act provides that deliberative matter does not include purely factual material. However, the FOI Guidelines clarify that material is not “purely factual” where it is an integral part of the deliberative content or purpose of a document, or where it is embedded in or intertwined with deliberative material such that it is impractical to excise.
The requested documents each contain early, interim modelling and first estimates developed as part of an ongoing process to develop a new budget methodology and support needs assessment. These approaches are still being tested, with significant additional testing planned, and the results do not reflect a settled Agency position.
Estimates were generated within weeks of Funding Policies and rulesets completed with policy areas within the Agency. Estimates produced now would differ significantly due to changes to calculation methods and other ongoing changes.
The documents have been shared only within the Budget Models team and senior executive governance forums, reflecting their role in ongoing deliberations. Policies and scenarios presented alongside them have not yet been endorsed by the Minister.
The estimates are highly uncertain and presented without the explanatory context or caveats that would be required for public release. This context would include clear articulation of analytical limitations and an assessment of confidence in the estimates. There is a risk of prematurely releasing this information in the absence of this context.
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, have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of an agency.
Paragraph 6.115 of the FOI Guidelines provides that the predicted effect must bear on the agency’s ‘proper and efficient’ operations, that is, the agency is undertaking its operations in an expected manner. Where disclosure of the documents reveals unlawful activities or inefficiencies, this element of the conditional exemption will not be met and the conditional exemption will not apply.
The documents include data and estimates which are highly uncertain and presented without the explanatory context or caveats that would be required for public release. This context would include clear articulation of analytical limitations and an assessment of confidence in the estimates. In the absence of explanation of policy intent, safeguards, transitional arrangements or alternatives, there is a risk of prematurely releasing this information.
Release of the documents at this stage, particularly where detail is provided on the magnitude of projected scheme impacts (in the billions of dollars), could disrupt planned communications about reforms, require reactive clarification and stakeholder management (participants, providers and the broader community), and divert resources away from core operational activities.
Public Interest Consideration
As I have decided that the material in Documents 1 and 2 is conditionally exempt under sections 47C and 47E(d), I must also decide whether the public interest lies in favour of, or against, the release of this information.
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 factors in reaching my decision.
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 * promote transparency in relation to evidence relied upon by government to understand how internal considerations contribute to budget methodology. * support informed engagement by stakeholders.
I assign moderate weight to these factors.
I consider that the following factors are against disclosure: * Disclosure would prematurely release internal methodologies that have not yet been contextualised or formally adopted, highlighting the deliberative nature of the documents. * Disclosure may undermine the integrity of the Agency’s decision-making processes, including the orderly release and communication. * The documents contain evaluative material, the disclosure of which may inhibit the Agency’s ability to engage in deliberative internal processes in future. * Various business areas are actively engaged in the review of budget methodology, and release of this information may prejudice these discussions.
I assign significant weight to these factors.
In summary, 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. Accordingly, I have decided that the documents are exempt under section 47C and 47E(d) of the FOI Act.
Rights of Review
I have set out your rights to seek a review of my decision at Attachment A.
If you would like to clarify any aspects of my decision, please do not hesitate to contact me via email as foi@ndis.gov.au.
If there is further information you wish to access, I invite you to make a fresh FOI request outlining the kind of information you wish to access.
Yours sincerely
Lucy (LAK926) Assistant Director Freedom of Information Information Access and Privacy Reviews and Information Release Division
Attachment A
Your rights of review
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.auPhone: 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