Our reference: FOI 24/25-0870
GPO Box 700
Canberra ACT 2601
1800 800 110
2 May 2025
ndis.gov.au
David Wright
By email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Dear Mr Wright
Freedom of Information request — Notice of Decision
Thank you for your correspondence of 29 November 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:
“I make an FOI request for any information regarding Model Litigant Obligation (MLO)
complaints to, and investigations conducted by, the NDIA over the past three years.
I do not seek information for individual complaints. My request encompasses any
aggregate-level information held by the NDIA about the MLO complaints and
investigations, including (but not limited to) the number of complaints, the type of
complaints (e.g. which elements of the MLOs were alleged to have been breached),
the complaint investigation process, the number of complaints upheld and dismissed,
the reasons why they were upheld or dismissed, and the results of any complaints
which were upheld.
The form of information I seek may include (but is not limited to) reviews, reports,
briefings, and other internal correspondence.
The contact details and surnames of NDIA staff are irrelevant to my request.”
1
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 29 November 2024, the original due
date for your request was 29 December 2024.
On 9 December 2024, you agreed via email to a 30-day extension of time under section
15AA of the FOI Act, making 28 January 2025 the new date to provide you with a decision
on access.
As we were unable to provide you with a decision on your request by the legislated due date,
your application is regarded as a deemed refusal under section 15AC of the FOI Act.
Despite this, I have continued to process your application. I apologise for the delay and
confirm that you retain your right to seek external review of this decision. Details are set out
in
Attachment C to this letter.
Request Consultation Process
On 10 April 2025, I wrote to you explaining that searches conducted by the agency had
resulted in advice that the scope of your request was too broad, and we required you to
narrow the scope to remove the practical refusal reason.
You responded to my notice on 10 April 2025, advising you were not agreeable to our
suggestion to limit the scope to a single document, and proposed limiting the scope by
timeframe, stating you would be agreeable to reducing the timeframe to 12 months.
After further consultation with the relevant business area, we were advised that limiting the
scope by timeframe would stil not remove the practical refusal reason.
Decision on Access to Documents
I made this decision as a delegated decision maker under section 23(1) of the FOI Act.
I have decided to refuse your request pursuant to section 24(1)(b) of the FOI Act on the
grounds that a practical refusal reason exists as per 24AA(1)(a)(i). A detailed statement of
reasons for my decision can be found at
Attachment A.
2
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
Kate (KIM627) A/ Assistant Director – Freedom of Information
Information Release, Privacy and Legal Operations Branch
Reviews and Information Release Division
3
link to page 4
ATTACHMENT A
Statement of Reasons
FOI 24/25-0870
_________________________________________________________________________
Relevant law – s24AA
A practical refusal reason exists in relation to a request for documents if the work involved in
processing the request would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the
agency from its other operations
1. In determining whether processing the request would substantially and unreasonably divert
the agency’s resources, I am required to consider the resources that would have to be used
for the following components:
• identifying, locating or collating the documents within the Agency
• deciding whether to grant, refuse or defer access to a document, including resources
used for examining the document and consulting with any person or body in relation
to the request
• making a copy or an edited copy of the document
• notifying the decision on the request
Practical refusal reason
A search was conducted by the following business area for documents relevant to the scope
of your FOI request:
• Information Release, Privacy and Legal Operations Branch
As a result of this search, we were advised that the scope of your request was too broad and
processing it in its current form would divert the resources of the MLO complaints Team from
their usual duties.
On 10 April 2025 we emailed you a request consultation notice pursuant to section 24AB of
the FOI Act, as a practical refusal reason existed. In this notice I explained that I intended to
refuse your request but was giving you an opportunity to revise your scope to remove this
practical refusal reason.
1 24AA(1)(a) of the FOI Act.
4
You were advised that the time required to gather all information and summaries from the
past three years would be excessive and would require extensive searches of various
files/records to extrapolate information between multiple staff in multiple business areas,
both internal and external to the agency.
It was noted, however, that a documents titled MLO Deep Dive was located, and we
believed this document would satisfy most points of your request and suggested limiting your
scope to just this document.
On 10 April 2025, you responded to our notice advising that you were not agreeable to
narrowing the scope of your request to only the MLO Deep Dive document and stating you
did not wish to limit your request to a specific type of document. You instead advised you
would be agreeable to limit the scope of the request by timeframe and would be prepared to
revise the scope to the last 12 months.
We again consulted with the Information Release, Privacy and Legal Operations Branch with
this information for advice on whether limiting the scope of the request by timeframe would
remove the practical refusal reason.
We were advised that limiting the scope of the request by timeframe would not remove the
need for extensive searches of various files/records and engagement of multiple business
areas both internal and external to the agency.
We were also advised that currently, there is one staff member trained to handle MLO
complaints within the Branch. Processing of your request would pose a risk to the efficient
management of active matters and may mean a delay in processing new matters. It would
also require a shifting of resources more broadly to satisfy your request, meaning there
would also be impacts to the Administrative Reviews Tribunal and Legal Services Teams.
Decision
In coming to my decision, I took the following into consideration:
• Your correspondence of 29 November 2024 outlining the scope of your request
• Your response to my request consultation notice of 10 April 2025
• The provisions of the FOI Act, including ss 24, 24AA and 24AB
5
link to page 6
• The FOI Guidelines published under s 93A of the FOI Act, particularly parts 3.111 to
3.121 that outline resource impact of processing a request and ‘substantial and
unreasonable’
• Consultations with relevant NDIA staff
• The operational needs of the agency
I believe we have made reasonable efforts to assist you with removal of the practical refusal
reason, including our obligations under section 24AB where we issued you with a request
consultation notice.
As such, I am satisfied that the work involved in processing your request in its current form
would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the Agency from its other
operations.
2 Additionally, I am not satisfied that limiting the scope of your request by
timeframe would remove the practical refusal reason. Therefore, I am refusing your request
pursuant to s24(1)(b) of the FOI Act.
2 Section 24AA of the FOI Act.
6
ATTACHMENT B
Your review rights
As this matter was a deemed refusal, internal review of this decision is not an option.
However, if you have concern with any aspect of this decision, please contact the NDIA FOI
team by email
xxx@xxxx.xxx.xx or by post:
Freedom of Information Section
Information Release, Privacy and Legal Operations 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 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:
Onli
ne: 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.
7
