This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'evidence supporting speech pathologists on s10 "Supports that are ‘NDIS supports’" list for autistic children'.



Our reference: FOI 24/25-0439 
 
GPO Box 700 
Canberra   ACT   2601 
1800 800 110 
27 November 2024 
ndis.gov.au 
 
 
Bob Buckley 
 
By email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx  
 
 
Dear Bob Buckley 
 
Freedom of Information request — Notice of Decision 
 
Thank you for your correspondence of 2 October 2024 (your correspondence), seeking 
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 have requested access to the fol owing documents: 
 
“The new "Supports that are ‘NDIS supports’" list released on 1/10/2024 indicates 
under "Early intervention supports for early childhood" that "therapy provided by ... 
speech pathologists" is an "NDIS support" for children which includes autistic 
children. 
 
Please provide, under the provisions of the FoI Act 1982, all evidence held by the 
NDIA that shows explicitly that speech pathology "achieves better long-term 
outcomes for" autistic children than either doing nothing or so-called treatment-as-
usual (TAU). Or any other information that justifies including "speech pathology" on 
the list of NDIS supports.” 
 
Extension of time 

On 23 October 2024, you agreed via email to a 30-day extension of time under section 15AA 
of the FOI Act, making 1 December 2024 the new date to provide you with a decision on 
access. 
 
Searches conducted 
The NDIA’s Technical Advice & Practice Improvement Branch, Service Guidance Division, 
Evidence and Practice Division and Policy Division conducted searches and did not locate 
any documents relevant to the scope of your request. 
 
Decision 
I am the authorised officer pursuant to section 23(1) of the FOI Act to make a decision on 
this FOI request. 
 
I have decided to: 
  •  Refuse access to documents pursuant to 24A of the FOI Act on the grounds that the 
documents do not exist or cannot be located. 
 



A statement of reasons for this decision are set out in Attachment A. 
 
Rights 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 xxx@xxxx.xxx.xx. 
Yours sincerely 
 
Patrick (PHO293) 
Senior Freedom of Information Officer 
Complaints Management & FOI Branch 
General Counsel Division 
2 


 
Attachment A 
Statement of Reasons 
FOI 24/25-0439 
_________________________________________________________________________ 
 
REFUSAL UNDER 24A 

I have refused access to the information you requested under section 24A of the FOI Act on 
the basis that documents are unlocatable or do not exist. 
 
Relevant Law 
Under the FOI Act, a person has a right to be give access to documents of an agency. 
However, the right of access is subject to limitations, including grounds for refusal of access. 
Section 24A of the FOI Act states that an agency may refuse a request for access to a 
document if all reasonable steps have been taken to find the document and the agency is 
satisfied that the document cannot be found or does not exist. 
 
Searches for documents 
After reviewing the scope of your request, I identified the need to make enquiries with the 
NDIA’s Technical Advice & Practice Improvement Branch, Service Guidance Division, 
Evidence and Practice Division and Policy Division for documents relevant to your scope. 
 
Based on the search results from the relevant business areas and consultation with subject 
matter experts, I am satisfied that documents relevant to the scope of your request do not 
exist. 
 
I therefore refuse access to the information under section 24A of the FOI Act on the basis 
that the information cannot be found or does not exist. 
 
 



 
ATTACHMENT B 
Your review rights  
 
Internal Review 
The FOI Act gives you the right to apply for an internal review of this 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 
xxx@xxxx.xxx.xx or sent by post to: 
  Freedom of Information Section  
Complaints Management and FOI Branch  
General Counsel 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 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: 
xxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx 
Phone: 
1300 363 992 (local cal  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 wil  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 cal charge) 
Email:  
xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx  
 
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.