External review of NDIA FOI 24/25-0592
Dear Office of the Australian Information Commissioner,
I hereby request an external review from the Office of the Australian Commissioner (OAIC) of the NDIA's response to my FoI request 24/25-0592 - see https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/t...
I have been refused access to the entirety of the 13 documents for the following stated reasons:
1. Documents 1-13 are said to contain information relating to certain operations of the NDIA, specifically: Internal guidance given to staff in relation to the quantum of supports to include within a participant’s plan in determining the level of supports a participant may require.
2. The disclosure of this information would reveal methodologies the NDIA uses to assist in determining levels of support provided to NDIS participants, which is to better ensure that participants receive supports that are reasonable and necessary.
3. Any disclosure resulting in the prejudice of the effectiveness of the Agency’s operational methods and procedures would, or could reasonably be expected to, result in the need for the Agency to change those methods and procedures to ensure the future effectiveness and sustainability of the Agency and the Scheme.
4. The release of this information would potentially result in the public disclosure of internal methodologies that, through improper use, would, or could, lead to a distortion of funding levels that would substantially and adversely affect the integrity of the NDIS and its financial sustainability.
5. Should the materials be available as public documents, there is a risk that the circumstances described in these articles, that resulted in a positive determination for the requested funded supports, can be utilised as a threshold criterion to meet reasonable and necessary criteria. This may enable providers to manipulate their justifications / recommendations for prescribed supports or levels of support for participants to indicate they are likely to be reasonable and necessary for the NDIS to fund. This may significantly compromise the integrity and financial sustainability of the scheme.
6. Disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the ability of the Agency to provide guidance to staff and to decision makers in classifying applicants based on support needs in order to comply with their obligations and make informed decisions in relation to the quantum of funding to add to each reasonable and necessary support, which, in turn, helps to ensure the financial stability and integrity of the NDIS.
I dispute these reasons, and seek that OAIC conducts an external review, on the following grounds:
1. The NDIA provides no reasoning or evidence to support its claim that disclosure would result in the prejudice of the effectiveness of the Agency’s operational methods and procedures.
2. The NDIA provdes no reasoning or evidence to support its claim that such disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, result in the need for the Agency to change those methods and procedures to ensure the future effectiveness and sustainability of the Agency and the Scheme.
3. The NDIA provides no reasoning or evidence to support its claim that "improper use" would, or could, lead to a distortion of funding levels that would substantially and adversely affect the integrity of the NDIS and its financial sustainability. It does not provide any examples of what might constitute "improper use", other than assumed fradulent activity by providers (see point 4 below).
4. The NDIA provides no reasoning or evidence as to how providers would or could use the information to 'manipulate their justifications / recommendations for prescribed supports or levels of support for participants to indicate they are likely to be reasonable and necessary for the NDIS to fund.' Such a statement presuposes a level of dishonesty by providers, implying they will intentionally provide false or fraudulent information to the NDIA (and also potentially the Administrative Review Tribunal). This would not only be illegal, but also contrary to these providers' professional codes of conduct/ethics. There is no valid basis for such an assumption that many (if any) providers would do this.
5. There already exists a large body of informatiion in the public realm, which is accessible to providers, explaining threshold criteria to meet reasonable and necessary supports, including guidelines and other materials published by the NDIA on its website (e.g. https://ourguidelines.ndis.gov.au/how-nd...). There also exist a multitude of Administrative Appeal Tribunal/Administrative Review Tribunal published decisions providing judicial guidance on these threshold criteria. There is no evidence that providers presently 'manipulate' this information so as to result in a distortion of funding levels, which substantially and adversely affects the integrity of the NDIS and its financial sustainability. If the agency was really concened about providers manipulating this information, it would remove this guidance material from its website. But it has not done so.
6. For all the reasons set out above, there is no basis for the claim that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the ability of the Agency to provide guidance to staff and to decision makers in classifying applicants based on support needs in order to comply with their obligations and make informed decisions in relation to the quantum of funding to add to each reasonable and necessary support, which, in turn, helps to ensure the financial stability and integrity of the NDIS.
Yours faithfully,
David Wright
Your email has been received by the Office of Australian Information
Commissioner (OAIC).
FOI requests to the OAIC
Please note that this email address is only used for making requests to
obtain access to a document held by the OAIC pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (Cth) (FOI Act). We will only action and respond to
emails making FOI requests to the OAIC. For information on how to make an
FOI request to the OAIC, and to ensure that your request complies with the
requirements of the FOI Act, please refer to the FOI page on the OAIC’s
website at:
[1]https://www.oaic.gov.au/about-us/access-...
Once your request has been assessed by the OAIC, and registered on our
system, a separate acknowledgement email will be sent to you with a
reference number.
The OAIC does not hold all documents of other Commonwealth government
agencies, other state government agencies, or private organisations.
Accordingly:
1) if you are seeking to access documents of a particular
Commonwealth agency, you will need to make your request directly to the
relevant agency. For example, if you are requesting a copy of your visa
records, please make an FOI request and send it to the Department of Home
Affairs.
2) if you are seeking to access documents of a state or local
government agency, as each Australian state and territory also have
separate FOI legislation that governs information held by state government
agencies, please contact the relevant agency as to how to make an
application to access the documents. For example, if you are seeking
access to police report from NSW Police Force, it is governed by the
Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (NSW) (GIPA Act), and you
will need to contact NSW police to find out how to make a GIPA application
for the police report.
3) if you are seeking to access documents of a private organization,
which the FOI Act does not apply to, please contact the organization
directly to find out how to access the documents you are seeking. For
example, if you are seeking to access to hospital records or your medical
centre records, please contact these organisations directly.
Enquiries and other matters
If your email relates to any of the following, please utilise our online
forms instead, which are available at
[2]https://www.oaic.gov.au/about-us/contact...
- Enquiry
- Privacy Complaint
- Notifiable Data Breach
- Consumer Data Right Complaint
- FOI Complaint
- Freedom of Information Review
- Agency FOI Extension of Time Requests
- Speech requests.
Notice:
The information contained in this email message and any attached files may
be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal
professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use,
disclosure or copying of this email is unauthorised. If you received this
email in error, please notify the sender by contacting the department's
switchboard on 1300 488 064 during business hours (8:30am - 5pm Canberra
time) and delete all copies of this transmission together with any
attachments.
References
Visible links
1. https://www.oaic.gov.au/about-us/access-...
2. https://www.oaic.gov.au/about-us/contact...
Our reference: MR25/00136
Agency reference: FOI 24/25-0592
Applicant: David Wright
Respondent: National Disability Insurance Agency
By email: [FOI #12747 email]
Your Information Commissioner review application
Good afternoon David,
On 18 January 2025, you applied for Information Commissioner review (IC review) about a Freedom of Information (FOI) decision made by the respondent referenced at the top of this email.
Why we are writing to you:
We have received, and are currently considering, your application for IC review.
Please note paragraph 2.7 the Direction as to certain procedures to be followed by applicants in Information Commissioner reviews advises:
‘An application for IC review must be made in writing and should be made online using the Information Commissioner Review Application form available on the OAIC website.’
In future, and to avoid any delays with manual registration, please use our online webform.
Assistance
Please note: You can withdraw an IC review application at any time. There is no penalty if you do this. You can also lodge a new FOI request to the Agency at any time.
If you require assistance regarding this email, please contact us at [email address].
Please quote the reference MR25/00136 in all correspondence.
Kind regards,
Alex
Intake and Eligibility Branch
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Sydney | GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001
P: 1300 363 992
W: Enquiry form
The OAIC acknowledges Traditional Custodians of Country across Australia and their continuing connection to land, waters and communities. We pay our respect to First Nations people, cultures and Elders past and present.
Subscribe to Information Matters
-----Original Message-----
From: David Wright <[FOI #12747 email]>
Sent: Saturday, 18 January 2025 12:25 AM
To: OAIC - FOI <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - External review of NDIA FOI 24/25-0592
**************************************************************************
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.
**************************************************************************
Dear Office of the Australian Information Commissioner,
I hereby request an external review from the Office of the Australian Commissioner (OAIC) of the NDIA's response to my FoI request 24/25-0592 - see https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/t...
I have been refused access to the entirety of the 13 documents for the following stated reasons:
1. Documents 1-13 are said to contain information relating to certain operations of the NDIA, specifically: Internal guidance given to staff in relation to the quantum of supports to include within a participant’s plan in determining the level of supports a participant may require.
2. The disclosure of this information would reveal methodologies the NDIA uses to assist in determining levels of support provided to NDIS participants, which is to better ensure that participants receive supports that are reasonable and necessary.
3. Any disclosure resulting in the prejudice of the effectiveness of the Agency’s operational methods and procedures would, or could reasonably be expected to, result in the need for the Agency to change those methods and procedures to ensure the future effectiveness and sustainability of the Agency and the Scheme.
4. The release of this information would potentially result in the public disclosure of internal methodologies that, through improper use, would, or could, lead to a distortion of funding levels that would substantially and adversely affect the integrity of the NDIS and its financial sustainability.
5. Should the materials be available as public documents, there is a risk that the circumstances described in these articles, that resulted in a positive determination for the requested funded supports, can be utilised as a threshold criterion to meet reasonable and necessary criteria. This may enable providers to manipulate their justifications / recommendations for prescribed supports or levels of support for participants to indicate they are likely to be reasonable and necessary for the NDIS to fund. This may significantly compromise the integrity and financial sustainability of the scheme.
6. Disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the ability of the Agency to provide guidance to staff and to decision makers in classifying applicants based on support needs in order to comply with their obligations and make informed decisions in relation to the quantum of funding to add to each reasonable and necessary support, which, in turn, helps to ensure the financial stability and integrity of the NDIS.
I dispute these reasons, and seek that OAIC conducts an external review, on the following grounds:
1. The NDIA provides no reasoning or evidence to support its claim that disclosure would result in the prejudice of the effectiveness of the Agency’s operational methods and procedures.
2. The NDIA provdes no reasoning or evidence to support its claim that such disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, result in the need for the Agency to change those methods and procedures to ensure the future effectiveness and sustainability of the Agency and the Scheme.
3. The NDIA provides no reasoning or evidence to support its claim that "improper use" would, or could, lead to a distortion of funding levels that would substantially and adversely affect the integrity of the NDIS and its financial sustainability. It does not provide any examples of what might constitute "improper use", other than assumed fradulent activity by providers (see point 4 below).
4. The NDIA provides no reasoning or evidence as to how providers would or could use the information to 'manipulate their justifications / recommendations for prescribed supports or levels of support for participants to indicate they are likely to be reasonable and necessary for the NDIS to fund.' Such a statement presuposes a level of dishonesty by providers, implying they will intentionally provide false or fraudulent information to the NDIA (and also potentially the Administrative Review Tribunal). This would not only be illegal, but also contrary to these providers' professional codes of conduct/ethics. There is no valid basis for such an assumption that many (if any) providers would do this.
5. There already exists a large body of informatiion in the public realm, which is accessible to providers, explaining threshold criteria to meet reasonable and necessary supports, including guidelines and other materials published by the NDIA on its website (e.g. https://ourguidelines.ndis.gov.au/how-nd...). There also exist a multitude of Administrative Appeal Tribunal/Administrative Review Tribunal published decisions providing judicial guidance on these threshold criteria. There is no evidence that providers presently 'manipulate' this information so as to result in a distortion of funding levels, which substantially and adversely affects the integrity of the NDIS and its financial sustainability. If the agency was really concened about providers manipulating this information, it would remove this guidance material from its website. But it has not done so.
6. For all the reasons set out above, there is no basis for the claim that disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the ability of the Agency to provide guidance to staff and to decision makers in classifying applicants based on support needs in order to comply with their obligations and make informed decisions in relation to the quantum of funding to add to each reasonable and necessary support, which, in turn, helps to ensure the financial stability and integrity of the NDIS.
Yours faithfully,
David Wright
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #12747 email]
Is [OAIC request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information requests to Office of the Australian Information Commissioner? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/change_re...
This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:
https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will be delayed.
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice:
The information contained in this email message and any attached files may be confidential information, and may also be the subject of legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure or copying of this email is unauthorised. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender by contacting the department's switchboard on 1300 488 064 during business hours (8:30am - 5pm Local time) and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.