FOI 8 Notice of Decision.pdf

05 August 2025
Ref: LEX 4941
Concerned Citizen
By email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx

Dear Concerned Citizen,
Freedom of Information Request No. (8) - 25/26 - (1)
Notice of Decision on Access under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)

I refer to your email received by the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (Commission) on 8 July
2025, in which you requested access under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (FOI Act) to:
“I would like to request any information held (between 01/01/2020 - 08/07/2025) regarding
investigations, audits, complaints and raised concerns in relation to plan management services
provided by Plan Partners (NDIS Registration ID: 4050002983/ ABN 54 609 868 993), or any of
the board members and employees attached to the business.
I would also like to request any correspondence held that was sent to, or received from, Plan
Partners during this period.”

Administration of your request
On 11 July 2025, the NDIS Commission’s FOI team acknowledged your request by email. We also
asked you to provide the following information by COB 15 July 2025.

•  provide the additional information requested above relating to specifying complaints,
names of complainants/participants, names of board members and employees,
correspondence to particular line areas, and keyword searches,
•  provide your identity documents and signed consent of third parties where required,
•  confirm whether you consent to be identified as the FOI applicant for the purposes of any
third-party consultation that may be required, and
•  confirm that you do not seek the personal information of staff below SES level and consent
to the removal of duplicate documents and the provision of the final email in any email
chains.
To this date, we have not received any correspondence from you, regarding the above points.

NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission
Page 1 of 6

Authority
I am an authorised decision maker for the purposes of section 23 of the FOI Act and this letter gives
notice of my decision.

Decision
I have decided to neither confirm nor deny the existence of documents pursuant to section 25(2) of
the FOI Act.
In reaching my decision, I have taken into consideration:
•  the terms of your request;
•  the relevant provisions of the FOI Act (specifically sections 25(2) and 37(1));
•  guidelines issued by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) under s93A
of the FOI Act (FOI Guidelines).
I have made this decision on the basis that, if the documents were in existence and held by the NDIS
Commission, these documents would be exempt under section 37(1) (documents affecting
enforcement of law and protection of public safety).

REASONS FOR DECISION
Information as to existence of certain documents (section 25(2))
I am satisfied that if the NDIS Commission held documents of the kind you requested, section 25(2) of
the FOI Act would apply as these documents would be exempt under section 37(1) of the FOI Act.
Section 25(2) of the FOI Act relevantly provides:
(2) If a request relates to a document that is, or if it existed would be, of a kind referred to in subsection
(1), the agency or Minister dealing with the request may give notice in writing to the applicant that the
agency or the Minister (as the case may be) neither confirms nor denies the existence, as a document
of the agency or an official document of the Minister, of such a document but that, assuming the
existence of such a document, it would be: (a) an exempt document by virtue of section 33 or subsection
37(1) or 45A(1)…
The FOI Guidelines at [3.103]-[3.107] explain:
The act of confirming or denying the existence of a document can sometimes cause damage
similar to disclosing the document itself. For example, merely knowing that an agency has a
current telecommunications interception warrant in connection with a specific telephone
service would be sufficient warning to a suspect who could modify their behaviour and possibly
undermine an investigation into serious criminal activity.
(...)

NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission
Page 2 of 6

Agencies and ministers should use s 25 only in exceptional circumstances. For the purposes of
IC review, a notice under s 25 is deemed to be notice of a decision to refuse access on the
grounds that the document sought is exempt under s 33, 37(1) or 45A, as the case may be (s
25(2)).
Section 25(2) of the FOI Act requires an assessment of whether a document of the kind requested is,
or would be, an exempt document under section 37(1) (documents affecting enforcement of law and
protection of public safety). For the reasons explained below, I am satisfied that a document or
documents of the kind you requested would be exempt under this section 37(1) of the FOI Act.

Documents affecting enforcement of law and protection of public safety (section 37(1))
Your request seeks access to documents relating investigations, audits, complaints and raised
concerns in relation to plan management services provided by Plan Partners (NDIS Registration ID:
4050002983/ ABN 54 609 868 993), or any of the board members and employees attached to the
business.
I have found that documents of the kind requested are, or would be, exempt documents under section
37(1) of the FOI Act. I have found that release of such documents would, or could reasonably be
expected to, prejudice the conduct of a current investigation or disclose, or enable a person to
ascertain, the existence of a confidential source of information, in relation to the enforcement or the
administration of the law.
I have therefore found that subsection 37(1) of the FOI Act applies in this instance. Section 37(1) of
the FOI Act states:
(1) A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would, or could reasonably be
expected to:
(a) prejudice the conduct of an investigation of a breach, or possible breach, of the law, or a failure, or
possible failure, to comply with a law relating to taxation or prejudice the enforcement or proper
administration of the law in a particular instance;
(b) disclose, or enable a person to ascertain, the existence or identity of a confidential source of
information, or the non-existence of a confidential source of information, in relation to the
enforcement or administration of the law; or
(c) endanger the life or physical safety of any person.
The FOI Guidelines at [5.98] provide:
To be exempt under ss 37(1)(a) or 37(1)(b), the document in question should have a connection
with the criminal law or the processes of upholding or enforcing civil law or administering a
law… This is not confined to court action or court processes, but extends to the work of
agencies in administering legislative schemes and requirements, monitoring compliance, and
investigating breaches.

NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission
Page 3 of 6

In respect of section 37(1)(a) of the FOI Act, the FOI Guidelines at [5.102] – [5.103] further explain:
Section 37(1)(a) applies to documents only where there is a current or pending investigation
and release of the document would, or could reasonably be expected to, prejudice the conduct
of that investigation. Because of the phrase ‘in a particular instance’, it is not sufficient that
prejudice wil  occur to other or future investigations: it must relate to the particular
investigation at hand. In other words, the exemption does not apply if the prejudice is about
investigations in general.
(…)
The exemption is concerned with the conduct of an investigation. For example, it would apply
where disclosure would forewarn the applicant about the direction of the investigation, as wel
as the evidence and resources available to the investigating body — putting the investigation
in jeopardy. The section wil  not apply if the investigation is closed or if it is being conducted
by an overseas agency.
In order to determine whether disclosure of documents would, or could reasonably be expected to
prejudice the conduct of a current investigation, the FOI Guidelines at [5.16] - [5.17] note:
The test requires the decision maker to assess the likelihood of the predicted or forecast event,
effect or damage occurring after disclosure of a document.
The use of the word ‘could’ in this qualification is less stringent than ‘would’, and requires
analysis of the reasonable expectation rather than certainty of an event, effect or damage
occurring. It may be a reasonable expectation that an effect has occurred, is presently
occurring, or could occur in the future.
The nature of your request relates to a document or documents that, if they exist and are held by the
NDIS Commission, would pertain to a current and open investigation or would disclose, or enable a
person to ascertain, the existence of a confidential source of information, in relation to the
administration of the law.
If such documents were in existence, the release of such material prematurely could reasonably be
expected to impact the flow of information to the NDIS Commission in this matter through impacting
any relevant third parties’ confidence in the confidentiality of the NDIS Commission’s investigative
processes.
Accordingly, I have decided that such a document or documents would be exempt under section 37(1)
of the FOI Act. I consider that disclosure of any such document or documents would, or could
reasonably be expected to, prejudice the conduct of an open NDIS Commission investigation, or would
disclose or enable a person to ascertain, the existence of a confidential source of information, in
relation to the administration of the law or endanger the life or physical safety of a person or persons.
I am satisfied that to confirm or deny the existence of the document or documents you are seeking
would cause the documents to be exempt by virtue of subsection 37(1) in accordance with subsections
25(2) and 26(2) of the FOI Act.
In addition to the above, I note that you have not provided any evidence of authorisation to access
information relating to Plan Partners, or any of the individuals involved in the documents.

NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission
Page 4 of 6

As your request seeks access to documents that may contain sensitive personal and business
information, authorisation from the relevant parties is necessary before such material can be
considered for release to a third party. In the absence of this authorisation and taking into account
the reasons identified above, I have determined that access must be refused in ful .

Your review rights
If you are dissatisfied with my decision, you may apply for internal review or Information
Commissioner review of the decision. We encourage you to seek internal review as a first step as it
may provide a more rapid resolution of your concerns.

Internal review
Under section 54 of the FOI Act, you may apply in writing to NDIS Commission for an internal review
of my decision by another NDIS Commission officer. The internal review application must be made
within 30 days of the date of this letter. The request should be addressed to
xxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx. Where possible please attach reasons why you believe review of the
decision is necessary.

Information Commissioner review
Under section 54L of the FOI Act, you may apply to the Australian Information Commissioner to review
my decision. An application for review by the Information Commissioner must be made in writing
within 60 days of the date of this letter, and be lodged in one of the following ways:

Online: Using the OAIC smartform
Email: xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
Post: GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001

More information about Information Commissioner review is available on the website of the Office of
the Australian Information Commissioner.

FOI Complaints
If you are unhappy with the way we have handled your FOI request, please let us know what we could
have done better. We may be able to rectify the problem. If you are not satisfied with our response,
you can make a complaint to the Australian Information Commissioner. A complaint to the
Information Commissioner must be made in writing. Complaints can be lodged in one of the following
ways:

Online: Using the OAIC smartform
Email: xxxxx@xxxx.xxx.xx
Post: GPO Box 5288 Sydney 2001

NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission
Page 5 of 6

More information about complaints is available on the Office of the Australian Information
Commissioner website.

If you are not sure whether to lodge an Information Commissioner review or an Information
Commissioner complaint, the website of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has
more information.

Contact
If you wish to discuss my decision, please contact the FOI Team on email at
xxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx.

Yours sincerely,

Deepika
Position No - 50091780
Assistant Director – Freedom of Information
NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission

Date: 05 August 2025

NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission
Page 6 of 6