Our reference: FOI 25/26-2331 (LEXD 17837)
GPO Box 700
Canberra ACT 2601
1800 800 1104 May 2026 ndis.gov.au
Frank N Fearless
By email: foi+request-14427-ca01e2cb@righttoknow.org.au
Dear Frank N Fearless
Freedom of Information request — Notice of Decision
Thank you for your correspondence of 5 March 2026, in which you requested access to
documents held by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), under the Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (FOI Act).
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with a decision on your request.
Scope of your request
You have sought access to the following documents:
…the latest outcome report or briefing summarising the outcome of the “10,000 desktop
exercises" you referred to in your media statement to Crikey today.Extension of time
On 26 March 2026, we wrote to you seeking your agreement to an extension of time under
section 15AA of the FOI Act. As we did not receive a response, we subsequently applied to
the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) for an extension of time.
On 2 April 2026, the OAIC granted a 30-day extension under section 15AB of the FOI Act.
Accordingly, the due date for providing you with a decision on access was extended to 4
May 2026.
1Searches Conducted
Searches were conducted by the Scheme Actuary and Chief Data Branch for documents
relevant to the scope of your request. Documents were identified by conducting searches of
NDIA’s systems, using all reasonable search terms that could return documents relevant to
your request, and consulting with relevant NDIA staff who could be expected to be able to
identify documents within the scope of the request. As a result of these searches, 6
documents were located, the searches were conducted in consultation with, and overseen
by senior staff. I am satisfied that all relevant documents to the scope of your request have
been located.
Decision on access to documents
I am authorised to make decisions under section 23(1) of the FOI Act. My decision on your
request and the reasons for my decision are set out below.
I have decided to refuse access to 6 documents in full. The reasoning for my decision is set
out below.
In reaching my decision, I took the following 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 • factors relevant to my assessment of whether or not disclosure would be in the public
interest• the NDIA’s operating environment and functions.
Access to edited copies with exempt or irrelevant material deleted (section 22)
Section 22 of the FOI Act requires an agency to consider whether it is reasonably practicable
to provide access to an edited copy of a document with exempt or irrelevant material
deleted.
I have considered whether it would be reasonably practicable to prepare edited copies of the
documents by deleting exempt or irrelevant material. I am satisfied that it is not reasonably
practicable to do so, as any factual material in the documents is mixed with analysis and
2early modelling, and cannot be understood on its own. Separation of such material would
render the remaining information misleading or unintelligible.
Accordingly, I have decided to refuse access to the documents in full.
Reasons for decision
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, recommendation, or consultation or
deliberation that has taken place in the course of, or for the purposes of, the deliberative
processes of an agency.
Paragraph 6.54 of the FOI Guidelines explains that a deliberative process generally refers to the process of weighing up or evaluating competing arguments or considerations,
including thinking or reflective processes concerning the wisdom or suitability of a proposal,
decision or course of action.
Documents 1 to 6 contain deliberative matter in the form of early, interim modelling, and
opinions, advice and recommendations prepared to inform senior NDIA staff about the
potential impacts of planning reforms. These documents were developed as part of an
ongoing desktop testing and review process and were used in presentations to senior NDIA
governance bodies to support internal consideration of reform options.
The documents do not represent a settled Agency position. The modelling approaches and
estimates contained within the documents remain subject to significant further testing and
refinement. In particular:
• the estimates were produced shortly after funding policies and rulesets were
developed and would differ materially if generated now due to changes in calculation
methods and ongoing policy development;
• the modelling relies on out-of-date or incomplete assessment tools, with major
elements still under development;
• the documents were circulated only within the Budget Models team and senior
executive governance forums, reflecting their role in ongoing internal deliberations;
and
• the policies and scenarios discussed have not been endorsed by the Minister.
3Section 47C(2) of the FOI Act provides that deliberative matter does not extend to purely
factual material. To the extent that the documents contain factual material, I am satisfied that
this material is an integral part of the deliberative content and is intertwined with opinion,
analysis and preliminary estimates. Accordingly, it would be impractical to meaningfully
separate purely factual material for release.
I am satisfied that Documents 1 to 6 contain deliberative matter and are conditionally exempt
under section 47C of the FOI Act.
Certain operations of agencies (section 47E(d))
Section 47E(d) of the FOI Act conditionally exempts a document where 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.
Documents 1 to 6 relate to internal NDIA operations, specifically the development and
testing of modelling methodologies used to inform planning reforms, budget projections, and
assessments of participant and scheme-level impacts.
The estimates and projections contained within the documents are highly preliminary and
form part of an ongoing analytical and testing process. The modelling approaches,
assumptions and methodologies reflected in the documents are still under development and
are subject to further refinement.
Disclosure of the documents at this stage could reasonably be expected to:
• interfere with the Agency’s processes for developing, testing and refining modelling used
to support planning reforms and budget development;• divert Agency resources away from core operational activities, including policy
development, scheme administration and service delivery.
In addition, the documents include early estimates of participant and scheme budget impacts
associated with reforms that have not been finalised or endorsed. Release of such
information at this stage would, or could reasonably be expected to have a substantial,
adverse effect on Agency operations by compromising the effectiveness of the NDIA’s
internal reform processes and materially affect how the Agency conducts its planning,
modelling and communications functions.
I am, therefore, satisfied that disclosure of Documents 1 to 6 would, or could reasonably be
expected to, have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the
4operations of the NDIA. Accordingly, I have decided that the documents are conditionally
exempt under section 47E(d) of the FOI Act.
Public interest considerations – sections 47C, 47E(d)
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 not considered any of the irrelevant factors as set out under section 11B(4) of the FOI
Act in making this 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 relevant information in Documents 1 to 6
would promote the objects of the FOI Act by providing access to documents held by the
government.
Against disclosure, I consider that disclosure of the relevant information in Documents 1 to 6
would not:
• contribute to the publication of information of sufficient public interest to justify the likely
harm caused by release
• enhance Australia’s representative democracy in the ways described in section 11B(3) of
the FOI Act
• inform any debate on a matter of public importance, or promote oversight of public
expenditure.While there is limited public interest in the disclosure of information conditionally exempt
under sections 47C and 47E(d) of the FOI Act, the harm that would result from disclosure is
that it could reasonably be expected to result in harm to the public interest by:
• prejudicing the Agency’s deliberative processes by discouraging the development,
testing and evaluation of early modelling, analysis and reform options;• hindering the ability of Agency decision‑makers to make informed decisions by relying on
incomplete or unsettled analytical material, which supports the effective and sustainable
administration of the Agency.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 relevant information in
Documents 1 to 6 is exempt under sections 47C and 47E(d) of the FOI Act.
5Rights of review
Your rights to seek a review of my decision, or lodge a complaint, are set out at
Attachment B.
Should you have any enquiries concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me
by email at foi@ndis.gov.au.
Yours sincerely
Carolyn (CJW205) Assistant Director – Information Access Information Access and Privacy Branch Reviews and Information Release Division
6Attachment A
Schedule of Documents for FOI 25/26-2331Document Description Access Decision number Validation for SIG funding policies ACCESS REFUSED 1
Date: 30 January 2026 Exemptions claimed:
s47C – deliberative processes
s47E(d) – certain operations of agencies
Validation of SIG funding policies ACCESS REFUSED 2
Date: 9 February 2026 Exemptions claimed:
s47C – deliberative processes
s47E(d) – certain operations of agencies
Validation for SIG funding policies ACCESS REFUSED 3
Date:16 February 2026 Exemptions claimed:
s47C – deliberative processes
s47E(d) – certain operations of agencies
Policy Committee - Final endorsement of funding policies ACCESS REFUSED 4
Date: 3 and 4 March 2026 Exemptions claimed:
s47C – deliberative processes
s47E(d) – certain operations of agencies
NFP Program Control Board Meeting Agenda ACCESS REFUSED 5
Date: 28 January 2026 Exemptions claimed:
s47C – deliberative processes
s47E(d) – certain operations of agencies
Program Control Board analysis update ACCESS REFUSED 6
Date: 28 January 2026 Exemptions claimed:
s47C – deliberative processes
s47E(d) – certain operations of agencies
7Attachment B 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 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 OAIC’s website via: OAIC Web Form, within 60 days of receipt of this letter.
Applications for review can be lodged with the OAIC in the following ways:
Online: OAIC Web Form
Post: GPO Box 5218, Sydney NSW 2001
Email: enquiries@oaic.gov.auPhone: 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 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.
8