Our reference: IR 25/26-039 / FOI 25/26-2331 (LEXD 21898)
GPO Box 700 Canberra ACT 2601 1800 800 110 4 June 2026 ndis.gov.au
Frank N Fearless
By email: foi+request-14427-ca01e2cb@righttoknow.org.au
Dear Frank N Fearless
Freedom of Information request — Internal Review Decision
Thank you for your correspondence of 8 May 2026, in which you requested an internal review of the decision made by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) on 4 May 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 4 May 2026, you were notified of the NDIA’s decision on request for information, at Attachment A. The decision refused access to 6 documents in full.
Internal Review
You have requested an Internal Review on the following grounds:
I am writing to request an internal review of National Disability Insurance Agency’s handling of my FOI request ‘Report or Briefing on Outcome of 10,000 Desktop exercises’.
Firstly, I feel the reasoning in the initial decision is highly general and not adequately particularised to the various documents.
While a briefing document may contain deliberative material, it is also likely to include: summaries of technical findings factual descriptions of the reviewed methodology high-level outcome metrics contextual or background information extracted data or key results from the review.
I especially feel that particular reasoning should be supplied in relation to the March document “Final endorsement of funding policies”. The title appears to indicate progress to a final decision by the Policy Committee. This may have been subsequently been rowed back in the course of the budget process. But access to this document allow the public to understand why the funding approach requires, in the words of the Minister, ‘more work’. It will highlight the failure to codesign or adequately impact assess proposed
changes, and what we should focus on in the coming months. It will also allow the public to assess the need, if any, for refreshed evidence base ahead of the rollout. It will enable the agency to be held to account for its financial sustainability workings, perhaps the key public interest issue at the heart of the 2026 Federal Budget.
Secondly, I fear that the agency reasoning here is thinly veiled recasting of factors which the FOI Act bars from consideration. The initial decision makes sweeping claims about frankness and candour when appeals to this element need to be far more targeted and judicious. I think the agency has strayed into reasoning which effectively amounts to claims that access to the document could result in a person misinterpreting or misunderstanding the document; and, secondly, the fact that access to the document could result in confusion or unnecessary debate.
I ask the reviewer take on board the insights of Member Manetta who rejected the purported ‘chilling effect’ of releasing preliminary advice in Patrick and Secretary, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (Freedom of information) [2025] ARTA 535 (17 February 2025). That decision sets a model framework for the application of 47C which is not reflected in the initial decision here. Consider for instance at [26]:
“I do not accept the general premise of [the department’s] contention; namely, that public servants in the respondent’s Department expect today to work in an environment of confidentiality in relation to their preliminary advice and reports to the Minister. I do accept that public servants understand that they are not generally at liberty to divulge or disseminate information arising in the course of their employment, and that they understand that even colleagues within their agency may enjoy only restricted access to their work if it is sensitive (or perhaps no access at all). But that does not mean that today’s public servants believe that they work in an environment where FOI officers may not have to divulge departmental records to the public. That would be a very strange expectation, indeed. To the contrary, I believe I should proceed on the basis that public servants are aware, at least in a general way, that the FOI Act may require disclosure of departmental work, whether of a preliminary nature or otherwise. I doubt strongly – in any event, I am not satisfied by [the department official’s] statement – that public servants in her branch generally expect that the preliminary departmental work to which they contribute is not open to public access under the FOI Act regime or that they generally tailor their written work in accordance with this assumption. That may well have been different in the past; but the FOI Act has been in operation for many decades now, as I have said.”
The contention that my request will disrupt the process of deliberation within the department needs to be framed carefully against the background of the responsibilities that APS managers and employees have under the Public Service Act 1999 (Cth) (‘PS Act’):
Section 10(5) of the PS Act provides that the APS is ‘apolitical and provides the Government with advice that is frank, honest, timely and based on the best available evidence’. Section 13 of the PS Act then requires public servants to act honestly, with integrity, with care and diligence, and in a manner that supports APS values.
in similar fashion to the departmental submissions in the Patrick matter, the Agency’s first instance decision assert what it ‘perceives to be a risk in giving access, but without according any weight to [the PS Act] regime’.
Similarly the idea that my request will chill any input from third actors is well handled by Member Manetta at [34], who notes that those actors are fully aware of the obligations of the public service in relation to project documents.
Search efforts
I have engaged with the Scheme Actuary and Chief Data Branch who completed additional searches for documents relevant to the scope of your request.
As a result of these searches, I can confirm that no additional documents were identified relevant to the scope of your request.
Decision on your request for Internal Review
I am authorised to make internal review decisions under section 54C of the FOI 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 I am required to make a fresh decision.
I have decided to affirm the original decision being to refuse access to 6 documents in full.
In making my decision, I have considered the following:
• your correspondence in relation to your original request
• the Original Decision dated 4 May 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
• consultation with relevant NDIA staff.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 affirm the decision that it is not reasonably practicable to prepare edited copies of the documents by deleting exempt or irrelevant material.
Any factual material in the documents is mixed with analysis and early modelling and cannot be understood on its own. Separation of such material would render the remaining information unintelligible.
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.
I have examined documents 1 to 6 and I am satisfied they contain deliberative matters for the purposes of section 47C of the FOI Act. The documents were prepared during the development and testing of proposed planning reforms and contain preliminary modelling, analysis, opinions, advice and recommendations prepared to assist internal Agency considerations of potential reform outcomes. The material formed part of an ongoing desktop testing exercise, and review process and was used to brief senior executives responsible for assessing reform options.
In reaching this view, I have considered the circumstances and context in which the documents were created. The modelling and estimates contained within the documents were developed at an early stage of the reform process and before key policy settings, methodologies and assessment tools had been finalised. As a result, the assumptions, calculations and projected outcomes reflected in the documents are provisional in nature and remain subject to substantial review and refinement. The documents do not reflect a settled agency position.
I have considered whether any factual material could be separated from the deliberative material, and I have concluded that the material cannot be meaningfully separated.
Therefore, I affirm the decision that documents 1 to 6 are conditionally exempt under s47C 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.
I have examined documents 1 to 6 and affirm that they contain sensitive material that reveals information about the internal operations of the NDIA.
The documents contain preliminary analytical work prepared to support the Agency’s considerations of potential reform options. They comprise draft modelling outputs, early- stage assumptions and indicative projections that remain subject to ongoing testing, validation and revision.
The material forms part of an iterative internal process through which modelling methodologies are developed, challenged and refined.
The disclosure of the information would undermine the Agency’s reform development and adversely effect the conduct of planning and communication activities.
Based on the further consultation, the Scheme Actuary and Chief Data Branch has confirmed that the latest update is that there have been 7,000 assessments completed out of 10,000. This confirms that the operations of this process are still underway and have not yet been finalised.
Therefore, I affirm the decision that documents 1 to 6 are conditionally exempt under s47E(d) of the FOI Act.
Public interest considerations – sections 47C and 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.
I have considered the following factors are in favour of disclosure: • To promote the objects of the FOI Act. • To inform debate on a matter of public importance. • To promote effective oversight of public expenditure.
I assign a moderate weight to these factors.
I have considered the following factors against disclosure: • Disclosure would prejudice the effective conduct of Agency operations by disrupting ongoing reform analysis and development. The documents contain preliminary analysis that is being tested and disclosure may jeopardise these processes. • Impairment of the decision-making processes where officers and senior executive may be less willing to explore or challenge different options if their work and recommendations are a risk of being disclosed before finalisation. • Diversion of Agency resources away from core functions, including policy development and scheme administration, to explain and contextualise and respond to public scrutiny of this information. • Risk of undermining the effectiveness of future planning and reform discussions. • Risk of adverse impact on stakeholder engagement and consultation processes where preliminary estimates are disclosed before the Agency has completed its assessments.
I assign a significant weight to these factors.
Overall, 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.
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.
If you have any questions in regard to this request, please contact the FOI Team on the above contact details.
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