This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Independent Medical Expert (IME) guidance for AAT/ART'.



Our reference: FOI 24/25-1246 
 
GPO Box 700 
Canberra   ACT   2601 
1800 800 110 
23 June 2025 
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 4 February 2025, 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 following documents: 
“Dear National Disability Insurance Agency, I request, under the provisions of the 
Freedom of Information Act, all policy, instruction, case management guidance, advice, 
briefings, training materials, etc. (either completed or in development) since 2020 about 
the NDIS as Respondent seeking involvement of a so-called Independent Medical Expert 
(IME), or similar role, in relation to either or both Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) 
or Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) reviews of NDIS decisions about an NDIS 
participants' plans (or Statements of Participant Supports). I am after general 
information, not information about reviews of individual decisions. Please omit 
information that is specific to any individual matter under review.” 
Timeframe 
A 30-day statutory period for processing your request commenced from 4 February 2025 in 
accordance with section 15(5)(b) of the FOI Act. The due date for a decision on access was 
6 March 2025I note this time has lapsed and as a result we are deemed to have refused 
your request 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. 
Decision on access to documents 
I am authorised to make decisions under section 23(1) of the FOI Act. My decision on your 
request and the reasons for my decision are set out below.  
I have identified 8 documents, which fall within the scope of your request.  
The documents were identified by conducting searches of NDIA’s systems, using all 
reasonable search terms that could return documents relevant to your request, and 
consulting with relevant NDIA staff who could be expected to be able to identify documents 
within the scope of the request. 
I have decided to grant access to 1 document in full, and 7 documents in part. 
In reaching my decision, I took the following 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 
  relevant case law concerning the operation of the FOI Act  
  consultation with relevant NDIA staff 
  factors relevant to my assessment of whether or not disclosure would be in the public 
interest 
  the NDIA’s operating environment and functions. 
Section 22 – Access to edited copies with exempt or irrelevant material deleted 
Section 22 of the FOI Act permits an agency to prepare and provide an edited copy of a 
document where the agency has decided to refuse access to an exempt document or that to 
give access to a document would disclose information that would reasonably be regarded as 
irrelevant to the request for access. 
 
I have identified both exempt and irrelevant material in seven (7) documents and am 
satisfied that it is reasonably practicable to remove this material and release the documents 
to you in material form. 
 
2 

 
Reasons for decision 
Certain operations of agencies (section 47E(d)) 
Section 47E(d) of the FOI Act conditionally exempts a document if 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. 
Document 7 contains information relating to certain operations of the NDIA, specifically, it 
contains internal instructions and guidance for arranging expert, medical or other 
assessments.  
The disclosure of this information could reasonably be expected to undermine the NDIA’s 
procedural integrity and may allow external parties to gain insight into thresholds and 
strategies allowing them to manipulate the process. 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. 
Accordingly, I find that disclosure of this information would or could reasonably be expected 
to have a substantial adverse effect on the operations of the Agency and is therefore 
conditionally exempt under section 47E(d) of the FOI Act. 
Personal privacy (section 47F)  
Section 47F of the FOI Act conditionally exempts a document(s) if its disclosure would 
involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person (including a 
deceased person). 
I have identified material in the documents falling within scope of your request which 
contains personal information, specifically, last names of non-SES staff.  
Under section 47F(2) of the FOI Act, in determining whether the disclosure of documents 
would involve unreasonable disclosure of personal information, regard must be had to: 
a.  the extent to which the information is well known; 
b.  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;  
c.  the availability of the information from publicly accessible sources; and 
d.  any other matters that the agency considers relevant. 
3 

Against these criteria, I take the view that:  
a.  it is apparent from the information that an individual is identifiable; and 
b.  the information referred to above is not readily available from publicly accessible 
sources. 
With reference to the assessment above, it would be unreasonable to disclose publicly this 
personal information and is therefore conditionally exempt under section 47F(1) of the FOI 
Act. 
Public interest considerations – section 47E(d) and 47F  
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. 
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 relevant information in Documents 7 and 8 
would promote the objects of the FOI Act by providing access to documents held by the 
government and providing access to information. 
Against disclosure, I consider that disclosure of the relevant information in Documents 7 and 
8:  
  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. 
While there is limited public interest in the disclosure of information conditionally exempt 
under section 47E(d) and 47F of the FOI Act, the harm that would result from disclosure is 
that it could reasonably be expected to:  
  reveal internal strategies and processes, which could be misused by external parties 
4 


  undermine the agency’s capacity to manage expert evidence effectively and flexibly, 
particularly where discretion is required 
  affect an individual’s right to privacy by having their personal information in the public 
domain. 
In summary, 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 7 and 8 is exempt under sections 47E(d) and 47F of the FOI Act. 
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 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 
Non Personals Team 
Information Release, Privacy and Legal Operations Branch 
Reviews and Information Release Division
5 


 
Attachment A 
 
Schedule of Documents for FOI 24/25-1246 
 
Document 
Page 
Description 
Access Decision 
Comments 
number 
number 
1 1-2 
Case Management Guide- Conciliation 
PARTIAL ACCESS 
Irrelevant material 
 
removed under section 
Date: October 2024 
22 of the FOI Act 
2 3-10 
Standard Operating Procedure: Resolved by Hearing 
PARTIAL ACCESS Irrelevant 
material 
(Obsolete) 
removed under section 
 
22 of the FOI Act 
Date: 26 August 2023 
3 11-19 
Standard Operating Procedure: Resolved by Hearing 
PARTIAL ACCESS Irrelevant 
material 
(Draft) 
removed under section 
 
22 of the FOI Act 
Date: Undated 
4 20-25 
Standard Operating Procedure: Appeals and 
PARTIAL ACCESS Irrelevant 
material 
Litigation Oversight Committee (ALOC) and Pre-
removed under section 
ALOC 
22 of the FOI Act 
 
Date: 14 March 2025 
5 26-35 
Standard Operating Procedure: Requesting an 
FULL ACCESS 
 
Independent Expert Clinician Report 
 
Date: October 2024 
6 36-43 
Standard Operating Procedure: Early Assessment 
PARTIAL ACCESS Irrelevant 
material 
 
removed under section 
Date: April 2025 
22 of the FOI Act 
7 44-52 
Standing Instructions Administrative Appeals 
PARTIAL ACCESS 
Irrelevant material 
Tribunal 
Exemption claimed: 
removed under section 
 
s47E(d) – certain 
22 of the FOI Act 
Date: October 2023 
operations of agencies 
 
 


8 53-77 
Guide to Requesting Additional Medical Evidence for 
PARTIAL ACCESS 
 
Case Managers in the AAB 
Exemption claimed: 
 
s47F – personal privacy 
Date: 25 January 2024 
 
 
 
7 


 
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 
Complaints Management & 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 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 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:  
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.