Our reference: FOI 25/26-0017 [LEXD 1109]
GPO Box 700
Canberra ACT 2601
1800 800 110
19 December 2025
ndis.gov.au
David Wright
By email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx Dear David Wright
Freedom of Information request — Notification of Decision
Thank you for your correspondence of 1 July 2025 in which you requested access to
documents held by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), under the
Freedom of
Information Act 1982 (FOI Act).
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:
[...The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) advised me on 15 June
2025 that you had advised OAIC of the following:
"The NDIA is currently contending with a significant upward trajectory of FOI matters. In
this financial year, we expect to receive 2,300-2,400. An approximate increase of 1,000
matters from the previous reporting year. We have received a significant increase that
impacts our ability to process them in the prescribed timeframes. We are currently
recruiting more staff, upskilling current staff and creating processes which support timely
decision making with a focus on early resolutions." (OAIC Reference CP25/01516, re
NDIA FOI 24/25-0251)
Please provide:
1) The information upon which this prediction of 2,300-2,400 FOI requests was based.
2) The actual number of FOI requests that the NDIA received in the 2024-2025 financial
year.
2) The current number of staff employed in the NDIA FOI unit..."
1
On 22 July 2025, the Information Access Team emailed you regarding your request to
provide some background information that could potentially provide clarity on how the
Information Access Team tracks FOI requests. We also advised that we were treating your
request as invalid, as it did not meet the requirements of section 15(2)(b) of the FOI Act.
On 23 July 2025, you responded to this email providing further clarity, as such, I believe your
request became valid as of this date with the following scope:
"The NDIA is currently contending with a significant upward trajectory of FOI matters.
In this financial year, we expect to receive 2,300-2,400. An approximate increase of
1,000 matters from the previous reporting year. We have received a significant
increase that impacts our ability to process them in the prescribed timeframes. We
are currently recruiting more staff, upskilling current staff and creating processes
which support timely decision making with a focus on early resolutions." (OAIC
Reference CP25/01516, re NDIA FOI 24/25-0251)
1) The date (or approximate date) on which this prediction[sic] was made; and
2) The number of FOI requests made in the 2024-25 financial year up to that date.
3) The current number of staff employed in the NDIA FOI unit.
• The number of APS Level 3-4 staff, including their job titles and duties
• The number of APS Level 5 staff, including their job titles and duties
• The number of APS Level 6 staff, including their job titles and duties
• The number of EL1 staff, including their job titles and duties
• The number of EL2 staff, including their job titles and duties
• Any other staff, including their job titles and duties.”
Extension of time
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 23 July 2025, the original due date for
your request was 22 August 2025.
On 4 July 2025, we incorrectly issued you an acknowledgement stating the date your valid
request was received was 1 July 2025. In this email we requested a 30-day extension of
time under section 15AA of the FOI Act to which you agreed. As we had stated that your
request was invalid on 22 July, and you provided further clarification about the documents
you were seeking on 23 July, I do not consider the extension of time under 15AA to be valid.
2
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 B to this letter.
Processing history
Point 1 of your request
You amended the scope of point 1 of your request to be for the date (or approximate date)
the prediction that the NDIA was expected to receive 2,300-2,400 FOI request for the 2024-
25 financial year was made. Given your request provided the FOI reference 24/25-0251 and
OAIC reference CP25/01516, I have taken this part of your request to be the date we sent
the advice to the OAIC that included this prediction.
As such, I conducted a search of our case management system, and, as a result, I have
located one (1) document relevant to the scope of your request.
Point 2 of your request
You have requested the number of FOI requests that the NDIA had received up until the
date the prediction was made. As per document 1, I consider this date to be 6 June 2025.
In your email of 23 July 2025, you indicated that this point of your request is compliant with
section 17 of the FOI Act. As such, I have not conducted a search to attempt to locate a
document in existence and instead have reviewed the systems available that capture this
data to see if we can reliably provide you with this information.
As such, after interrogating the database where our FOI matters were recorded for the
purposes of reporting to the OAIC for the 2024/25 financial year, I have been able to create
a document pursuant to section 17 of the FOI Act.
In addition, regarding the original wording of your scope where you requested the total
number of FOI requests the NDIA received for the 2024/25 financial year, the OAIC have
reported these statistics her
e Australian Government freedom of information statistics |
OAIC.
3
Point 3 of your request
You have requested the number of staff within the FOI Team broken down by APS/EL level,
including their titles and duties. As with the previous point, your email of 23 July 2025
indicated this part of your request is compliant with section 17 of the FOI Act.
I agree that part of this point of your request is compliant, that being the number of staff the
FOI Team had around the time you originally submitted your FOI request. However, I am
satisfied that job titles and duties would be captured in documents and believe it is more
appropriate to conduct searches for this information.
We consulted with the Information Access and Privacy’s Workforce and Capability Team to
determine whether a document could be created, and to conduct searches for documents
relevant to the scope of your request.
In total, one (1) document was created pursuant to section 17 of the FOI Act, and five (5)
documents were located relevant to this point of your request.
It is noted that in late June 2025, the Information Access Team onboarded approximately 30
new staff, and, after consulting with senior staff of the Worforce and Capability Team, the
staffing numbers for the month prior were around the low 40’s. As such, the information
provided does not accurately reflect the number of staff capable of processing a Freedom of
Information request as a majority were conducting training or receiving said training.
In total, one (1) document was created pursuant to section 17 of the FOI Act containing
information for points 2 and 3 of your request, and six (6) documents were located after
conducting searches.
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:
• Grant access to 2 documents in full
• Grant access to 5 documents in part in accordance with section 22 –
Access to
edited copies with exempt or irrelevant matter deleted on the grounds that the
deleted material is irrelevant to your request
4
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.
On 4 July 2025, you emailed to confirm that staff members surnames and contact details are
irrelevant to your request. While this confirmation was received before your request became
valid, I do consider it still relevant to this matter.
I have identified irrelevant material in five (5) documents and am satisfied that it is
reasonably practicable to remove this material and release the documents to you in material
form. To provide further clarification, I consider the irrelevant material to be staff surnames
and contact details, and information within document 1 that does not relate to the prediction
referenced in the scope of your request.
The decision in relation to each document is detailed in the schedule of documents at
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
Information Access and Privacy Branch
Reviews and Information Release Division
5
Attachment A
Schedule of Documents for FOI 25/26-0017
Document
Page
Description
Access Decision
Comments
number
number
1
1-4
Email: NDIA FOI to the OAIC regarding CP25/01516
PARTIAL ACCESS
Irrelevant material removed under section 22 of
the FOI Act
Dated 6 June 2025
2
5
Document Created Pursuant to Section 17 of the FOI
FULL ACCESS
Document created under section 17 of the FOI
Act
Act
3
6-21
APS 4 Information Access officer job pack
PARTIAL ACCESS
Irrelevant material removed under section 22 of
the FOI Act
4
22-36
APS 5 Information Access officer job pack
PARTIAL ACCESS
Irrelevant material removed under section 22 of
the FOI Act
5
37-52
APS 6 Information Access officer job pack
PARTIAL ACCESS
Irrelevant material removed under section 22 of
the FOI Act
6
53-67
EL 1 Information Access officer job pack
PARTIAL ACCESS
Irrelevant material removed under section 22 of
the FOI Act
7
68-84
EL 2 Information Access officer job pack
FULL ACCESS
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 emai
l 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:
Onli
ne: 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.
7
