Our reference: FOI 25/26-2824 (LEXD 20622)

GPO Box 700

16 July 2026

Canberra ACT 2601

1800 800 110

ndis.gov.au

David Wright

By email: redacted

Dear David Wright

Freedom of Information request — Notification of Decision

Thank you for your correspondence of 17 April 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 requested access to the following documents:

… “It follows NDIS and Health Minister Mark Butler holding a closed-door meeting with providers and advocates earlier this week, also attended by his assistant minister Jenny McAllister, and preparing the ground for “tough” decisions that would need to be made next month.”

I request access to all documents held by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) relating this meeting.

This includes, but is not limited:

Minutes or official notes of the meeting.

Any presentations made at the meeting (e.g. PowerPoint presentations, handouts etc).

Briefing notes or materials prepared for the Ministers or NDIA staff prior to, during, or subsequent to the meeting.

Delivered by the National Disability Insurance Agency

Correspondence (emails, letters, or memos) between the NDIA and the Minister’s office regarding the meeting.
Correspondence between the NDIA and any external parties about the meeting (including those parties invited to the meeting)
Attendance lists of the providers, advocates and any other parties present.

Processing timeframes

The FOI Act provides 30 calendar days for the processing of an FOI request after it is received. As your valid FOI request was received on 17 April 2026, the original due date for your request was 16 May 2026.

On 19 May 2026, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) approved an extension of time under section 15AB of the FOI Act, making the new due date 16 June 2026.

On 11 June 2026, I wrote to you to advise of my intention to undertake third party consultation. In accordance with section 15(6) of the FOI Act, this extended the statutory timeframe by a further 30 days, resulting in a revised due date of 16 July 2026.

Search efforts

I consulted with NDIA staff in the Board Secretary, Ministerial and Parliamentary Branch and Partners, Providers and Home and Living Branch. The 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 3 primary documents and 17 attachments were located, these searches were overseen by senior staff.

Third party consultation

As part of the processing of this request, I undertook consultation with the Unified Specialist Disability Accommodation Coalition (USDAC) under section 27 of the FOI Act regarding a letter submitted by USDAC to the Minister that is contained within Attachment 3.1, which was identified as falling within the scope of the request.

Consistent with the consultation requirements of the FOI Act and the FOI Guidelines, additional time was required to allow USDAC a reasonable opportunity to make submissions

regarding the potential release of the document. As a result of this consultation, the statutory processing period for this request was extended, with the revised due date being 16 July 2026.

USDAC subsequently advised that it had no concerns with the release of the letter. Having considered USDAC’s response and reviewed the document, I have determined that the letter may be released. However, I have decided to remove the signature of USDAC’s Chief Executive Officer under section 47F of the FOI Act, as I am satisfied that the signature comprises personal information and that its disclosure would be unreasonable in the circumstances.

Decision on access to documents

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

I have identified 3 primary documents and 17 attachments within scope of your request.

As referenced in the schedule of documents at Attachment A there is a combined total of 20 documents.

I have decided to refuse access to 1 document, grant access to 3 documents in full and 16 documents in part. 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.

Yours sincerely

Beau (BJA068)

A/g Assistant Director

Information Release and Privacy Branch

Reviews and Information Release Division

Attachment A

Schedule of Documents for FOI 25/26-2824

Document number	Page number	Description	Access Decision
1	1-7	Brief Template - MB26-000059 Date: 11 March 2026	FULL ACCESS
1.1	8-10	Attachment to Document 1 Email Subject: FW: Meet \| Alliance 20 - Wed 11 March 2026 11am-11:30am Date: 10 March 2026	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemption(s) claimed: s47E(d) – certain operations of agencies s47F – personal privacy
1.2	11-16	Attachment to Document 1 Email Subject: FW: Meet \| Alliance 20 - Wed 11 March 2026 11am-11:30am Date: 11 March 2026	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemption(s) claimed: s47E(d) – certain operations of agencies s47F – personal privacy
1.3	17	Attachment to Document 1 Alliance 20 priorities and attendees	FULL ACCESS
2	18-21	Ministerial Meeting Brief - MB26-000075 Date: 7 April 2026	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemption(s) claimed: s47F – personal privacy s47G – business information
2.1	22-38	Attachment to Document 2 Talking points	FULL ACCESS
2.2	39-46	Attachment to Document 2	PARTIAL ACCESS

Document number	Page number	Description	Access Decision
		Briefing notes Date: 13 April 2026	Exemption(s) claimed: s47F – personal privacy s47G-buisness information
2.3	47-85	Attachment to Document 2 Alliance 20 and Ability First members Biography/Biographies	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemption(s) claimed: s47G – business information
2.4	86-92	Attachment to Document 2 Email Subject: Meeting brief: Meet (Joint) \| Alliance 20 & Ability First w/ Min. Butler, Blair Date: 25 March 2026	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemption(s) claimed: s47E(d) – certain operations of agencies s47F – personal privacy
2.5	93-98	Attachment to Document 2 Background and talking points	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47G – business information
2.6	99-101	Attachment to Document 2 Email Subject: Request for TP’s on AI and NFP - MB26-000075 Meeting Brief - Alliance20 & Ability First Australia Date: 27 March 2026	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemption(s) claimed: s47F – personal privacy
2.7	102-104	Attachment to Document 2 Email Subject: RE: Seeking integrity check for Alliance20 and Ability First members - EC26-000971 and MB26-000075 Date: 26 March 2026	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemption(s) claimed: s47F – personal privacy
2.8	105-106	Attachment to Document 2 Email Subject: RE: For review by CoB Monday: Talking Points for Minister meeting with Alliance20 & Ability First	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemption(s) claimed: s47F – personal privacy

Document number	Page number	Description	Access Decision
		Date: 27 March 2026
2.9	107-111	Attachment to Document 2 Background information	REFUSED IN FULL Exemption(s) claimed: s47C – deliberative processes
2.10	112-117	Attachment to Document 2 Email Subject: RE: Seeking contribution for meeting with Alliance20 and Ability First members - EC26-000971 and MB26-000075 Date: 1 April 2026	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemption(s) claimed: s47E(d) – certain operations of agencies s47F – personal privacy s47G – business information
2.11	118-124	Attachment to Document 2 Email Subject: Meeting brief: Meet (Joint) \| Alliance 20 & Ability First w/ Min. Butler, Blair Comley, & Graham Head Date: 25 March 2026	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemption(s) claimed: s47E(d) – certain operations of agencies s47F – personal privacy
3	125-128	Ministerial Meeting Brief - MB26-000077 Date: 7 April 2026	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemption(s) claimed: s47B – commonwealth-state relations s47F – personal privacy
3.1	129-142	Attachment to Document 3 USDA Letter Date: 27 January 2026	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemption(s) claimed: s47E(d) – certain operations of agencies s47F – personal privacy
3.2	143-147	Attachment to Document 3 Talking points	FULL ACCESS
3.3	148-149	Attachment to Document 3 Email Subject: RE: Meeting brief request \| USDAC Date: 26 March 2026	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemption(s) claimed: s47E(d) – certain operations of agencies

Document number	Page number	Description	Access Decision
			s47F – personal privacy

Attachment B

Statement of Reasons

FOI 25/26-2824

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.

Forms of access

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

I have decided that Documents 1.1, 1.2, 2, 2.2 to 2.4, 2.6 to 2.8, 2.10 to 3.1 and 3.3 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 the FOI Act, a person has a right to be given access to documents of an agency. However, the right of access is subject to limitations, including grounds for refusal of access.

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 information located in Documents 1.1, 1.2, 2, 2.2 to 2.4, 2.6 to 2.8, 2.10 to 3.1 and 3.3 on the basis that the information is conditionally exempt information

under sections 47B, 47C, 47E(d), 47F and 47G of the FOI Act, and that the disclosure of the information would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.

Commonwealth-State relations etc. (Section 47B)

Section 47B(a) of the FOI Act conditionally exempts a document if its disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage to relations between the Commonwealth and a State.

Paragraphs 6.25-6.28 of the FOI Guidelines provides that the term ‘relations’ has received judicial consideration under the term ‘working relations’, which was found to encompass all interactions of the Australian Government and the States, from formal Commonwealth-State consultation processes such as the National Cabinet through to any working arrangements between agencies undertaken as part of their day-to-day functions.

Disclosure of the document may cause damage by:

interrupting or creating difficulty in negotiations or discussions that are underway, including in the development of joint or parallel policy
adversely affecting the administration of a continuing Commonwealth-State project
substantially impairing (but not merely modifying) Commonwealth-State programs
adversely affecting the continued level of trust or co-operation in existing inter-office relationships
impairing or prejudicing the flow of information to and from the Commonwealth

Decision makers may also need to consider future working relationships where disclosure may, for example:

impair or prejudice the future flow of information
adversely affect Commonwealth-State police operations or investigations
adversely affect the development of future Commonwealth-State projects.

The potential damage need not be quantified, but the effect on relations arising from the disclosure must be adverse.

Document 3 within the scope of your request contain Commonwealth-State relations material. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a joint Commonwealth and State/Territory project seeking to reform the disability system and takes a lifetime approach to supporting and investing in people with disability early in order to improve their outcomes

later in life. The Agency’s successful delivery of the NDIS includes providing individualised supports for more than 500,000 people, and was projected to involve an estimated cost of $22 billion in the first full year of operation. The Scheme hinges on a successful undertaking of the various targets, milestones and transitional requirements and funding arrangements as specified in the Bilateral Agreements between the Commonwealth and state jurisdictions.

I am satisfied that the disclosure of the relevant information in Document 3 would, or could reasonably be expected to cause damage which interrupts or creates difficulties in continuing negotiations in relation to joint policies, or adversely affect the inter-agency trust and co-operation between Commonwealth and States/Territories, or impair or prejudice the flow of information to and from the Commonwealth and the States/Territories.

In addition, I find that disclosure of the relevant parts of Document 3 would, or could reasonably be expected to adversely affect the administration of the continuation of the Commonwealth-State project (the NDIS), and substantially impair the Commonwealth-State program (the NDIS).

Accordingly, I have decided that the relevant information in Document 3 is conditionally exempt under section 47B of the FOI Act.

Public interest considerations – section 47B

It is not enough that I have decided the document contains information that is conditionally exempt under section 47B 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 had regard to the factors set out in section 11B(3) of the FOI Act. I consider that disclosure of the information would:

promote the objects of the FOI Act (including those set out in sections 3 and 3A);
inform debate on a matter of public importance;

promote transparency and accountability in relation to the administration and governance of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS); and
provide greater insight into matters considered by the Commonwealth and State and Territory governments in relation to the NDIS.

This is because providing access to documents held by the NDIA supports transparency and enables public scrutiny, discussion, and review of government decision-making and administrative processes.

I have also considered the FOI Guidelines issued under section 93A of the FOI Act and find that disclosure could reasonably be expected to:

reveal the reasons for government decisions, including relevant background and contextual information;
enhance scrutiny of government decision-making processes;
promote public understanding of the operation and administration of the NDIS; and
contribute to the administration of justice, including procedural fairness.

I have decided to give moderate weight to these factors favouring disclosure.

Factors favouring nondisclosure

While the FOI Act does not specify factors against disclosure, the exemptions and conditional exemptions recognise that disclosure may result in harm in certain circumstances.

In this case, disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to damage relations between the Commonwealth and State and Territory governments. The information relates to the NDIS, a joint Commonwealth-State initiative that relies on ongoing cooperation, consultation and information sharing between jurisdictions. Disclosure could adversely affect the trust and cooperation necessary to support effective intergovernmental engagement and the administration of the NDIS.

Having regard to paragraph 6.233 of the FOI Guidelines, I find that disclosure could reasonably be expected to:

interrupt or create difficulties in ongoing negotiations and discussions between the Commonwealth and State and Territory governments;
adversely affect the administration of a continuing Commonwealth-State program;

substantially impair cooperation in relation to matters concerning the NDIS;
adversely affect the continued level of trust and cooperation between participating jurisdictions;
impair or prejudice the flow of information between the Commonwealth and State and Territory governments; and
adversely affect the development and implementation of future joint initiatives and policy proposals.

Further, I consider that disclosure of this information:

could reduce the willingness of Commonwealth and State and Territory agencies to engage in frank and candid discussions on sensitive matters;
may undermine the effectiveness of intergovernmental consultation and decision-making processes;
would not enhance transparency to a degree that outweighs the potential harm to Commonwealth-State relations; and
could reasonably be expected to prejudice the effective operation of a significant national program that depends on strong intergovernmental cooperation.

I have decided to give significant weight to these factors favouring non-disclosure.

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 47B of the FOI Act.

Deliberative processes (section 47C)

Section 47C of the FOI Act conditionally exempts a document if its release would disclose deliberative matter in the nature of, or relating to, opinion, advice or recommendation obtained, prepared or recorded, or consultation or deliberation that has taken place, in the course of, or for the purposes of, the deliberative processes involved in the functions of an agency.

Paragraph 6.54 of the FOI Guidelines provides that a deliberative process involves the weighing of competing considerations and the formulation of opinions, advice or recommendations to assist decision-making.

Document 2.9 comprises background material prepared for a Ministerial briefing pack relating to Alliance 20 and Ability First providers. This includes summaries of provider engagement and assessments of sensitivities, which were compiled to inform consideration and decision-making on matters relevant to the agency’s functions. As such, the information forms part of the agency’s deliberative processes.

Section 47C(2) of the FOI Act provides that deliberative matter does not extend to ‘purely factual material.’ The FOI Guidelines provide that ‘purely factual material’ does not extend to factual material that is an integral part of the deliberative content and purpose of a document, or is embedded in or intertwined with the deliberative content such that it is impractical to excise it.

After viewing the contents of Document 2.9 I am satisfied that the documents contain information that meets the definition of ‘deliberative matter’. I am also satisfied that to the extent that factual material is contained in Document 2.9, it is an integral part of the deliberative content, or is embedded or intertwined with the deliberative content such that is it impractical to excise.

Accordingly, I find that the relevant information in Document 2.9 that does not contain purely factual material is conditionally exempt under section 47C of the FOI Act.

Public interest considerations – section 47C

It is not enough that I have decided the document contains information that is conditionally exempt under section 47C 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 had regard to the factors set out in section 11B(3) of the FOI Act. I consider that disclosure of the information would:

promote the objects of the FOI Act (including those set out in sections 3 and 3A);
inform debate on a matter of public importance;
promote transparency and accountability in the NDIA’s decision-making processes; and
provide greater insight into the information considered by the NDIA in relation to matters concerning Alliance 20 and Ability First providers.

I have also considered the FOI Guidelines issued under section 93A of the FOI Act and find that disclosure could reasonably be expected to:

reveal the reasons for a government decision, including relevant background and contextual information;
enhance scrutiny of government deliberative processes;
promote public understanding of the NDIA’s functions and decision-making activities; and
contribute to the administration of justice, including procedural fairness.

I have decided to give moderate weight to these factors favouring disclosure.

Factors favouring nondisclosure

While the FOI Act does not specify factors against disclosure, the exemptions and conditional exemptions recognise that disclosure may result in harm in certain circumstances.

In this case, disclosure of the deliberative material could reasonably be expected to prejudice the integrity of the NDIA’s deliberative processes. The information reflects internal opinions, advice, and recommendations prepared for the purpose of assisting decision-makers and was provided in an environment where frank and candid discussion is necessary.

Disclosure could reasonably be expected adversely affect the openness and effectiveness of future advice and deliberations of views within the NDIA, as staff and external contributors may be less willing to provide comprehensive or candid advice if it is likely to be disclosed

prematurely or out of context.

This may, in turn, impact the quality and efficiency of the NDIA’s decision-making processes.

Having regard to paragraph 6.233 of the FOI Guidelines, I find that disclosure could reasonably be expected to:

prejudice the ability of the NDIA to obtain comprehensive and candid advice and recommendations in the future;
inhibit open and effective internal deliberation and consultation processes;
result in the misinterpretation or misunderstanding of preliminary views, opinions or analysis that do not reflect final decisions;
adversely affect the quality of agency decision-making by discouraging full participation in the deliberative process; and
undermine the effectiveness of briefing processes that support informed decision-making.

Further, I consider that disclosure of this information:

would not contribute meaningfully to public debate without risking misunderstanding of incomplete or preliminary information
would not enhance transparency to a degree that outweighs the potential harm to the deliberative process
would not significantly advance the objects of the FOI Act in the circumstances

I have decided to give significant weight to these factors favouring nondisclosure.

Balancing the relevant factors

With reference to the assessment above, I conclude that this information is exempt from release 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 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.

Documents 1.1,1.2, 2.4, 2.10, 3.1 and 3.3 contain information relating to certain operations of the NDIA, specifically, the contact details of internal mailboxes intended for use by NDIA staff only, and information relating to risks and budgeting requirements of the NDIA.

Specialist mailboxes are not intended for public or general use; emails that are sent to these mailboxes can be effectively allocated to particular 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.

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.

Accordingly, I have formed the view that if the relevant information within Documents 1.1,1.2, 2.4, 2.10, 3.1 and 3.3 were to be released, it would have a substantial adverse effect on the NDIA’s proper and efficient conduct of its operations. I have, therefore, decided that the relevant material is conditionally exempt in accordance with section 47E(d) of the FOI Act.

Public interest considerations – section 47E(d)

It is not enough that I have decided the document contains business 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 had regard to the factors set out in section 11B(3) of the FOI Act. I consider that disclosure of the information would:

promote the objects of the FOI Act (including those set out in sections 3 and 3A);
inform debate on a matter of public importance;
promote transparency and accountability in the NDIA’s administration of its functions; and
provide greater insight into the NDIA’s operational processes and decision-making activities.

This is because providing access to documents held by the NDIA supports transparency and enables public scrutiny, discussion, and review of government decision-making and administrative processes.

I have also considered the FOI Guidelines issued under section 93A of the FOI Act and find that disclosure could reasonably be expected to:

reveal information about how the NDIA conducts its operations and administers its functions;
enhance scrutiny of government decision-making and administrative processes;
contribute to public understanding of the NDIA’s operations; and
contribute to the administration of justice, including procedural fairness.

I have decided to give moderate weight to these factors favouring disclosure.

Factors favouring nondisclosure

While the FOI Act does not specify factors against disclosure, the exemptions and conditional exemptions recognise that disclosure may result in harm in certain circumstances.

In this case, disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the NDIA’s operations. The information comprises internal mailbox contact details and operational information relating to internal risks and budgeting requirements. Disclosure could result in the inappropriate use of specialist internal communication channels, reducing their effectiveness and impairing the NDIA’s ability to efficiently manage and allocate work.

Further, disclosure of information relating to internal risks and budgeting requirements could reasonably be expected to affect the Agency’s ability to effectively manage its operational activities and internal planning processes.

Having regard to paragraph 6.233 of the FOI Guidelines, I find that disclosure could reasonably be expected to:

prejudice the proper and efficient conduct of the NDIA’s operations;
impair the effectiveness of internal communication channels and operational processes;
require the NDIA to alter established communication methods and administrative procedures;
divert Agency resources to managing the consequences of disclosure;
reduce the effectiveness of systems used to allocate and manage work requiring specialist expertise; and
adversely affect the NDIA’s ability to efficiently perform its statutory functions.

Further, I consider that disclosure of this information:

would provide limited additional insight into the substantive decisions or functions of the NDIA;
would not significantly enhance transparency or accountability to a degree that outweighs the potential harm to the Agency’s operations;
would not materially contribute to public debate on a matter of public importance; and
could reasonably be expected to undermine the effectiveness and efficiency of the NDIA’s operational and administrative processes.

I have decided to give significant weight to these factors favouring non-disclosure.

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 47E(d) of the FOI Act.

Personal privacy (section 47F)

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

I have identified material within the documents that contains the names, contact details and signatures of individuals, including NDIA staff members and third parties.

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) has released guidance to agencies when considering whether to release staff names as part of an FOI request. The guidance provides that ‘A public servant’s name, and information about where they work and how they can be contacted, is personal information. It is information about an identified individual, or an individual who is reasonably identifiable… Section 19 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 requires employers to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of their workers. This means employers must eliminate risks to health and safety so far as it is reasonably practicable to do, or minimise the risks if it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate them (section 17).’

In Warren; Chief Executive Officer, Services Australia and (Freedom of information) [2020] AATA 4557 (9 November 2020), Deputy President S A Forgie found (at [130]):

An individual may include his or her direct telephone number in correspondence directed to other persons. Unless published on an agency’s website or made public in some other way, such as on a pamphlet or report available to the public, I consider that disclosure of an individual’s telephone number in his or her place of employment is unreasonable. Its disclosure will provide an avenue by which others may choose to express their displeasure with the individual or with that for which he or she is responsible but its disclosure does not make any positive contribution to increasing public participation in Government processes or in increasing scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of the Government’s activities.

Paragraph 6.123 of the FOI Guidelines provides that personal information is information about an identified individual, or an individual who is reasonably identifiable:

a. whether the information is true or not, and

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

With this in mind, I am of the view that the following factors do not support the release:

the information is not well known, nor is it available from publicly available sources
the information will not advance or contribute to the information sought as part of this request
the information will not advance scrutiny of the decision
disclosure could expose the individuals to unsolicited and inappropriate contact from third parties
disclosure may cause distress to the identified individuals
disclosure would prejudice the individuals’ right to privacy.

Accordingly, I have formed the view that it would be unreasonable to publicly disclose the relevant personal information, and it is, therefore, conditionally exempt under section 47F of the FOI Act.

Public interest considerations – section 47F

It is not enough that I have decided the document contains 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 had regard to the factors set out in section 11B(3) of the FOI Act. I consider that disclosure of the information would:

promote transparency and accountability in the activities of the NDIA, including how its staff carry out their official functions
provide context about the decision-making process, including the roles of NDIA staff involved in handling the matter
support a general level of public scrutiny of government administration and the handling of requests or decisions
```
  										21
```

This is because providing access to documents held by the NDIA supports transparency and enables a level of public scrutiny, discussion, and review of government administration and decision-making processes.

I have also considered the FOI Guidelines issued under section 93A of the FOI Act and find that disclosure could reasonably be expected to:

contribute to the administration of justice, including procedural fairness
advance the fair treatment of individuals and other entities in their dealings with the NDIA

I have decided to give moderate weight to these factors favouring disclosure.

Factors favouring nondisclosure

While the FOI Act does not specify factors against disclosure, the exemptions and conditional exemptions recognise that disclosure may result in harm in certain circumstances.

In this case, disclosure of the personal information could reasonably be expected to have an unreasonable impact on the privacy of the individuals concerned, as the information identifies NDIA staff members whose identities are not publicly known in the context of this request.

The NDIA also has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) to protect the personal information, health, and safety of its staff. Releasing staff names into the public domain could reasonably be expected to increase the risk of those individuals being subjected to unwanted or inappropriate contact, including potential harassment. This may cause distress and adversely affect their wellbeing, as well as their ability to perform their duties effectively.

Having regard to paragraph 6.233 of the FOI Guidelines, I find that disclosure could reasonably be expected to:

prejudice the protection of an individual’s right to privacy through the release of their personal information
```
  										22
```

expose individuals to an unreasonable risk of unwanted or inappropriate contact, including harassment
adversely affect the safety, wellbeing, and interests of the individuals concerned
prejudice the NDIA’s ability to meet its obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth)
negatively impact staff confidence in the handling of their personal information and their ability to carry out their duties

Further, I consider that disclosure of this information:

would not contribute meaningfully to public debate on a matter of public importance
would not enhance scrutiny of government decision-making to a degree that outweighs the identified harm
would not significantly advance the objects of the FOI Act in the circumstances

I have decided to give significant weight to these factors favouring nondisclosure.

Balancing the relevant factors

With reference to the assessment above, I conclude that this information is exempt from release under section 47F(1) of the FOI Act.

Business Information (section 47G)

Some documents falling within scope of your request contain information that is conditionally exempt from release under section 47G of the FOI Act.

Section 47G conditionally exempts information where disclosure would reveal information concerning the business, commercial or financial affairs of an organisation, and where that disclosure could reasonably be expected to unreasonably affect those affairs.

The relevant material comprises breakdowns of provider payments by organisation, and details made by providers who participated in the consultation for the annual pricing review

This information relates to the financial operations and business views of identifiable providers and was obtained and compiled by the Agency for the purposes of administering the Scheme.

The FOI Guidelines (paragraphs 6.180–6.188) recognise that financial information about a business, including revenue and payment data, may be commercially sensitive where its disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause competitive or reputational harm.

I am satisfied that disclosure of the payment information would, or could reasonably be expected to, unreasonably affect the business affairs of the relevant providers. In particular, release could expose commercially sensitive financial information and impact the providers’ competitive position and dealings within the sector.

Accordingly, I consider this information to be conditionally exempt under section 47G(1)(a) of the FOI Act.

Public interest considerations – section 47G

It is not enough that I have decided the document contains business information that is conditionally exempt under section 47G(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 had regard to the factors set out in section 11B(3) of the FOI Act. I consider that disclosure of the information would:

promote the objects of the FOI Act (including those 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 supports transparency and enables public scrutiny, discussion, and review of government decision-making processes.

I have also considered the FOI Guidelines issued under section 93A of the FOI Act and find that disclosure could reasonably be expected to:

reveal the reasons for a government decision, including relevant background and contextual information
enhance scrutiny of government decision-making
contribute to the administration of justice, including procedural fairness

I have decided to give moderate weight to these factors favouring disclosure

Factors favouring nondisclosure

While the FOI Act does not specify factors against disclosure, the exemptions and conditional exemptions recognise that disclosure may result in harm in certain circumstances.

In this case, disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to have an unreasonable adverse effect on the business, commercial, or financial affairs of a third party. This includes the risk of compromising commercially sensitive information and interfering with the third party’s ability to conduct its lawful business activities.

Having regard to paragraph 6.233 of the FOI Guidelines, I find that disclosure could reasonably be expected to:

expose commercially sensitive financial information relating to the operations of individual providers;
prejudice the competitive position of providers by revealing information regarding the scale and nature of payments received under the Scheme;
harm the legitimate business, commercial or financial interests of the relevant providers;
result in the misuse or exploitation of commercially sensitive information by competitors or other third parties; and
undermine confidence that commercially sensitive provider information will be appropriately protected by the Agency.

Further, I consider that disclosure of this information:

would provide limited additional insight into the Agency’s expenditure of public funds beyond that already available through other transparency mechanisms;
```
  										25
```

would not significantly enhance public understanding of the NDIA’s decision-making processes;
would not advance oversight of public expenditure to a degree that outweighs the potential harm to the commercial interests of the relevant providers; and
could reasonably be expected to cause harm to the business affairs of third parties in circumstances where the public interest benefit of disclosure is limited.

I have decided to give significant weight to these factors favouring nondisclosure.

Balancing the relevant factors

With reference to the assessment above, I conclude that this information is exempt from release under section 47G(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

NDIS correspondence: Notification of Decision - FOI 25/26-2824 (LEXD 20622)

Scope of your request

Processing timeframes

Search efforts

Third party consultation

Decision on access to documents

Release of documents

Rights of review

Schedule of Documents for FOI 25/26-2824

Statement of Reasons

FOI 25/26-2824

Forms of access

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

Conditionally exempt information contrary to the public interest

Relevant law

Commonwealth-State relations etc. (Section 47B)

Public interest considerations – section 47B

Irrelevant factors

Factors favouring disclosure

Factors favouring nondisclosure

Balancing the relevant factors

Deliberative processes (section 47C)

Public interest considerations – section 47C

Irrelevant factors

Factors favouring disclosure

Factors favouring nondisclosure

Balancing the relevant factors

Certain operations of agencies (section 47E(d))

Public interest considerations – section 47E(d)

Irrelevant factors

Factors favouring disclosure

Factors favouring nondisclosure

Balancing the relevant factors

Personal privacy (section 47F)

Business Information (section 47G)

Freedom of Information request – Your review rights

Internal review

Review by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner

Complaints to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner or the Commonwealth Ombudsman