Our reference: FOI 26/27-0454 (LEXD 28116)

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

31 August 2026

Danielle Bell

By email: foi+request-15295-41caa560@righttoknow.org.au

Dear Danielle Bell

Freedom of Information request — Notice of Decision

Thank you for your correspondence of 31 July 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:

“…I am requesting clarification on the upper limit on how may hours for an occupational therapist the NDIS can approve for a 12 month plan. Please reference this in relation to the common justification from NDIA planners that occupational therapy can only be funded up until a certain point, before it is considered “rehabilitation” which the NDIS does not fund (which I acknowledge).

Please reference the evidence base used for this upper limit/threshold for occupational therapy hours. I request this information in relation to adults participants…”

On 5 August 2026, you have subsequently clarified the scope of your request as follows:

“…internal guidance documents that discuss the allocation of occupational therapist hours in NDIS plans for adult participants, and the evidence base for any upper limit/threshold on occupational therapy hours in adult participants…”

Search efforts

I have consulted with relevant NDIA staff in the Service Guidance Branch and Technical Advisory and Practice Improvement Branch (TAPIB) 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 three (3) 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 three (3) documents in part

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
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 section 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.

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

Elizabeth

(ECN120)

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 26/27-0454

Document number	Page number	Description	Access Decision
1	1-23	Research paper: Therapy Best Practice Date: 28 June 2021	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47F(1) – personal privacy
2	24-29	Research paper: Therapy for chronic incomplete cervical spinal cord injury Date: 13 June 2024	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47F(1) – personal privacy
3	30-42	Research paper: Length of High Intensity Intervention for ABI, SCI and Amputees Date: 09 July 2021	PARTIAL ACCESS Exemption claimed: s47F(1) – personal privacy

Attachment B

Statement of Reasons

FOI 26/27-0454

Forms of access

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

I have decided that documents 1 - 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 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 1 to 3 on the basis that the information is conditionally exempt information under section 47F(1) of the FOI Act, and that the disclosure of the information would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.

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 1 to 3 meets the definition of personal information. The identified material contains personal information of NDIA personnel, including their middle and last names. 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 1 to 3 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 1 to 3 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)

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

I have decided to afford little weight to these two (2) 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 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 seven (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

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