FOI 24.25 2144 Decision Notice of Decision.pdf

Our reference: FOI 24/25-2144 (LEX ID 733)
GPO Box 700
Canberra   ACT   2601
1800 800 110

ndis.gov.au

27 October 2025

Mark Pietsch

By email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx

Dear Mark Pietsch

Your Freedom of Information request — Notification of Decision

Thank you for your correspondence of 31 May 2025, 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 requested access to the following documents:
  1.  Internal Briefings, Rogers’s Reports and Documentation
•  Any internal briefing papers, presentations, reports, or executive
summaries relating to:
°  The NDIA PACE system implementation
°  The “Point of Support” claims processing
°  Any documents relating to eInvoicing pilot programs, the c-pos
program and PACE procurement.
Date range: 1 January 2019 to the date of this request.
  2.  Costs and Expenditure
•  Documents outlining:
°  Budgets, expenditures, or financial reports associated with the
implementation or trial of the PACE system, Point of Support
claims, and eInvoicing mechanisms
°  Any procurement contracts, service agreements, or invoices
issued to external vendors relating to these systems or pilots.
Date range: 1 January 2018 to the date of this request.
  3.  Correspondence involving Alex Stewart or Andrew Colvin
•  Any correspondence, meeting notes, or memos:
°  To, from, or mentioning either Alex Stewart, Garth O’Brien or
Andrew Colvin relating to technical errors, system concerns, or
operational issues associated with the PACE program 3P, C-pos
or any other system-related changes within the NDIS to senior
government officials internal and external
1

This includes (but is not limited to):
•  Discussions of technical faults
•  Issues affecting participants or providers
•  Escalated complaints or concerns received internally or from external
stakeholders.
Date range: 1 January 2022 to the date of this request.

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 decided to refuse your request for access under section 24AA of the FOI Act on the
basis that:
•  The  work involved in processing the request would substantially and unreasonably
divert the NDIA’s resources from its other operations; and
•  The request does not provide such information concerning the documents to which
you seek access as is reasonably necessary to enable responsible officers of the
Agency to identify them.

In reaching my decision, I have considered:
  •  your correspondence outing the particulars of your request;
•  your failure to respond during the request consultation period;
•  the FOI Act;
•  the FOI Guidelines; and
•  consultation with relevant officers of the NDIA.

Reasons for decisions

Refuse a request for access (section 24AA)

Section 24AA of the FOI Act relevantly provides:

(1)  For the purposes of section 24, a practical refusal reason exists in relation to a request for a
document if either (or both) of the fol owing applies:
(a)  the work involved in processing the request”
(i)
in the case of an agency – would substantially and unreasonably divert the
resources of the agency from its other operations; …
(ii)
…
(b)  the request does not satisfy the requirement in paragraph 15(2)(b) (identification of
documents.
(2)  Subject to subsection (3), but without limiting the matters to which the agency … may have
regard, in deciding whether a practical refusal reason exists, the agency …must have regard
to the resources that would have to be used for the fol owing:
(a)  identifying, locating or collating the documents within the filing system of the agency …;
(b)  deciding whether to grant, refuse or defer access a document to which the request
relates, or to grant access to an edited copy of such a document, including resources that
would have to be used for:
(i)
examining the document; or
(ii)
consulting with any person or body in relation to the request;
(c)  making a copy, or an edited copy, of the document;
(d)  notifying an interim or final decision on the request.

Section 24(1) of the FOI Act provides:
2

If an agency … is satisfied, when dealing with a request for a document, that a practical refusal
reason exists in relation to the request …, the agency …:
(a) must undertake a request consultation process …; and
(b) if, after the request consultation process, the agency … is satisfied that the practical refusal
reason stil  exists – the agency …. may refuse to give access to the document in accordance
with the request.

On 1 September 2025, I emailed you foreshadowing that it would be necessary to enter into
a request consultation process.

I explained that we had carried out preliminary consultations with various Agency business
area that might be expected to hold relevant documents. We had received advice from the
Branch Manager, Procurement, that the scope of your request was insufficiently clear to
enable the team to search for documents. In particular, the team would require clarification
of your reference to “procurement contracts, service agreements, or invoices issued to
external stakeholders relating to eInvoicing pilot programs, the c-pos program and PACE
procurement”. There were various projects and procurements undertaken that could be
considered as “related” to those programs.

We had also received advice from the Executive Of icer to the Chief Information Officer that
they were unable to respond to the request, adding that, to do so, would require multiple
resources across the Agency weeks of effort to bring together.

I informed you that the Agency’s Cyber Security and Resilience Branch had advised they
were unable to search our data storage system for “any correspondence to, from, or
mentioning” Alex Stewart, Garth O’Brien or Andrew Colvin without relevant email addresses.

Further, Alex Stewart and Garth O'Brien were former NDIA General Managers; even if
searches were able to be conducted, the number of hits resulting from a search for emails
to, from or mentioning them and concerning system-related changes within the NDIS over a
2-year period, would likely be unmanageable.

On 10 October 2025, I wrote to you initiating a formal request consultation process.

I stated that, due to inconsistencies between the heading of Part 3 of the request and the dot
points that were intended to particularise it, that part of the request was unclear to me. Due
to that, and the advice provided to use by the Executive Of icer to the General Manager,
Technology Division, my view was that you had not provided such information as is
reasonably necessary to enable Agency officials to identify the documents outlined in Part 3.

I confirmed the advice received from Cyber Security and Resilience Branch and pointed out
that, as neither Alex Stewart nor Garth O’Brien were stil  employed by the Agency, it was not
possible to seek their guidance about which documents might fall within Part 3 of the
request.

I set out a brief history of the PACE system, including that the Agency began designing and
building PACE in June 2021. I pointed out that this meant that Parts 1 and 2 of your request
are likely to encompass many hundreds of documents. This was putting aside those parts of
Parts 1 and 2 of your request, that relate to C-POS, a completely dif erent project.

In my letter, I advised you that I was satisfied that processing your request would
substantially and unreasonably divert the NDIA’s resources from its other functions. I
suggested ways in which you might refine your request and offered to discuss it with you. I
3

advised that, if you did not contact me by 24 October 2025, I would make a decision on the
current scope of your request.

As you have not contacted me, I conclude that the practice refusal reasons continue to exist,
and I therefore refuse to give you access to the documents to which you seek access in
accordance with section 24(1)(b) of the FOI Act.

Rights of review

Your rights to seek a review of my decision, or lodge a complaint, are set out at Attachment A.

Please contact us at xxx@xxxx.xxx.xx if you have any questions or require help.

Yours sincerely

Helen [HIL533]
Freedom of Information Officer
Information Release, Privacy and Legal Operations Branch
Reviews and Information Release Division

4

ATTACHMENT A

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
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 OAIC’s website via: OAIC Web
Form, within 60 days of receipt of this letter.

Applications for review can be lodged with the OAIC in the following ways:
  Online:  OAIC Web Form
Post:
GPO Box 5218, Sydney NSW 2001
Email:
xxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
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 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 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.

5