Our reference: FOI 25/26-0105 (LEXD 1458)
GPO Box 700
Canberra ACT 2601
1800 800 110
21 November 2025
ndis.gov.au
David Wright
By email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Dear David Wright
Freedom of Information request — Notice of Decision
Thank you for your correspondence of 15 July 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 originally requested access to the following documents:
FOI 24/25-0251, document 2 includes a Ministerial Brief that records Matthew
Swainson, Chief Counsel, as the contact officer.
I request copies of all briefings provided to the Minister for the NDIS, and/or to the
CEO of the NDIA, which record Matthew Swainson as the contact officer.
On 30 September 2025, you revised the scope of your request as follows:
…the 68 briefs from 1 May 2022–30 April 2023.
Extension of time
On 24 July 2025, you agreed to a 30-day extension of time under section 15AA of the FOI
Act, making 13 September 2025 the date by which to provide you with a decision on your
request. We have been experiencing processing delays, and were unable to provide you
with our decision by this date. Consequently, your application is deemed to have been
refused under section 15AC of the FOI Act.
1

I note that this access decision is being released to you after the due date, and I apologise
for the delay. In the interests of not causing any further delays, I have decided not to apply
for an extension from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) under
section 15AC of the FOI Act. This means that you are unable to seek an internal review of
this decision. However, your right to apply for an external review with the OAIC remains
protected. Please see Attachment B for more information about your rights of review.
Background to request
On 13 August 2025, we wrote to you to ask you to clarify the scope of your request to
determine which minister you were referring to, which CEO you were referring to, what type
of briefs you were referring to, and to ask you to provide a date range.
On 14 August 2025, you provide the following clarifications:
1)
I am referring to all NDIS Ministers and all CEOs who occupied those roles
once Mr Swainson was appointed to the position of Chief Counsel.
2)
I refer to all briefings that are in the form contained in FOI 24/25-0251,
document 2, i.e. formal briefing notes with standardised fields. I note that the briefing
at FOI 24/25-0251, document 2 is given the file name ‘MB22-000042’. I assume all
such Ministerial briefings in this form are also given a discrete briefing number in the
‘MB’ sequence, and that there is also a standardised briefing note file
pathway/sequence for all briefings to the CEO. I am not requesting other forms of
briefings, such as email briefings.
3)
The method of confirming Mr Swainson as the contact officer would be as
listed in that field of the formal briefing note. I assume ‘Contact’ (or an equivalent
such title in the CEO briefing note template, should it be slightly different) is a
standard field of the briefing note template, so this should be readily searchable to
identify the requested briefings. Please also include all briefings where Mr
Swainson’s name is listed in the ‘Cleared by’ field.
4)
The date range is from the time Mr Swainson was appointed to the position of
Chief Counsel.
We used this information to run searches for any relevant documents, as advised in our
emails to you on 15 August 2025, where we outlined the keywords we were using, and the
systems where we were conducting these searches.
2

On 15 September 2025, we issued you with a request consultation notice in accordance with
section 24AB of the FOI Act on the grounds that a practical refusal reason exists for your
request, as the work involved in processing your request as originally worded would
unreasonably divert the resources of the NDIA from its other operations. We advised you
that more than 500 documents were identified as falling within scope of the request. During
discussions with you as part of the request consultation process, we broke the number of
briefs down for you into smaller timeframes as follows:
1 May 2022 - 30 April 2023 - 68
1 May 2023 - 30 April 2024 - 156
1 May 2024 - 15 July 2025 - 434
Following further consultation with you, on 30 September 2025, you revised the scope of
your request to:
…the 68 briefs from 1 May 2022-30 April 2023.
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 access to your request in accordance with section 24(1)(b) of the
FOI Act, on the grounds that after consultation with you, I am satisfied that a practical refusal
reason still exists.
In reaching my decision, I took the following into account:
• your correspondence outlining the scope of your request
• the FOI Act
• the FOI Guidelines published under section 93A of the FOI Act
• the documents that fall within scope of your request
• relevant case law concerning the operation of the FOI Act
• consultation with relevant NDIA staff.
A detailed statement of reasons for my decision can be found at Attachment A.
3

Should you have any enquiries concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me
by email at xxx@xxxx.xxx.xx.
Yours sincerely
Carolyn (CJW205)
A/g Assistant Director – Information Access
Information Access and Privacy Branch
Reviews and Information Release Division
4

Attachment A
Statement of Reasons
FOI 25/26-0105
Section 24AA(1) of the FOI Act states that a practical refusal reason exists in relation to a
request for a document if either (or both) of the following 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; or
(ii) in the case of a Minister--would substantially and unreasonably interfere
with the performance of the Minister's functions.
Section 24(1) of the FOI Act provides that 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 or Minister is satisfied that
the practical refusal reason still exists--the agency or Minister may refuse to give
access to the document in accordance with the request.
Paragraph 3.209 of the FOI Guidelines states that it is recommended that agencies …
examine a sample of the documents to assess the complexity of the material to determine
whether the work involved in processing the request would constitute a substantial and
unreasonable diversion of resources from the agency’s other operations … A person with
appropriate knowledge or expertise should assess the sample, looking at each document as
if they were making a decision on access…
I assessed a 10% sample, analysing 7 documents of the 68. These documents included
topics such as participant complaints, contract variations, spending proposals and
Administrative Review Tribunal decisions.
• 5 documents contained more than 1 attachment
• Each document was more than 5 pages
• 6 documents require consultation with third parties in line with sections 27 and 27A of the
FOI Act
• Each document would require internal consultation to determine sensitivities and
possible exemption under the FOI Act
5

Paragraph 3.200 of the FOI Guidelines provides that in deciding whether a practical refusal
reason exists, an agency or minister must have regard to the resources required to perform
the following activities specified in s 24AA(2):
• identifying, locating or collating documents within the filing system of the agency or office
of the minister
• examining the documents
• deciding whether to grant, refuse or defer access
• consulting with other parties
• redacting exempt material from the documents
• making copies of documents
• notifying an interim or final decision to the applicant.
In taking these factors into account, along with third-party consultation and internal
consultation, I have assessed it would take 4-5 hours to process each document. In
expanding this sample assessment to all 68 documents, in using an estimate of 4 hours per
document, it would take an officer more than 270 hours to process your revised scope. This
equates to an FOI Officer being taken offline from all other FOI requests for more than 7
weeks, working 37.5 hours each week. In my view, this would substantially and
unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other operations. Accordingly, I
have decided that a practical refusal reason still exists for your request, and I have decided
to refuse access to your request in accordance with section 24(1)(b) 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 Access and Privacy 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 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.
1

Document Outline