Our reference: FOI 25/26-0555
GPO Box 700
Canberra ACT 2601
1800 800 110
12 February 2026
ndis.gov.au
Zack
By email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Dear Zack
Freedom of Information request — Notification of Decision
Thank you for your correspondence of 18 August 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
Your request was in the following terms:
I request a copy of the following TAB articles (see FOI 23/24-1189):
-
Audio description TV
-
Medicinal Cannabis
-
Adverse effects of bidet use
-
Smoke alarm regulations by Australian State
-
Effectiveness of standard and specialised smoke alarms to wake children and adults
-
Translation technology
-
Customised visual alert system for hearing loss
-
Learner driver in Australia
-
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.
On 5 September 2025, you agreed to a 30-day extension of time under section 15AA of the
FOI Act, making 17 October 2025 the new date to provide you with a decision on access.
Because we did not provide you with our decision by that date, we are deemed to have
refused your request. However, we have continued to process your request and, while you
1
link to page 2
no longer have a right to internal review of this decision, your right to an external review is
unaffected.
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 9 documents, which fall within the scope of your request.
Document 9 was previously disclosed in the context of an earlier FOI request (FOI 22/23-
0607) and is available upon request to the FOI team. I have therefore decided to disclose
this to you on an administrative basis, rather than deciding upon its release under the FOI
Act.
The remaining documents were identified by 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 each document in part.
In reaching my decision, I took the following into account:
• your correspondence outlining the scope of your request
• your agreement that staff members’ surnames are irrelevant to your reques
t1
• 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
• 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.
1 By email dated 5 September 2025, you agreed that staff members’ surnames and contact details
were irrelevant to your request, but you asked whether, when we redacted staff members’ surnames,
we would label the redaction with a number to distinguish between people with the same given name.
I have taken an alternative approach and have disclosed relevant staff members’ given names and
the first initial of their surname.
2
Access to edited copies with exempt or irrelevant material deleted (section 22)
I have identified that all 9 documents contain material that is irrelevant to your request. The
irrelevant material relates to the surnames of NDIA staff members.
I have also identified that Document 7 contains material that is exempt from disclosure under
section 47F of the FOI Act.
In accordance with section 22 of the FOI Act, I have considered whether it is possible to
delete the exempt and irrelevant material from the documents and have concluded that it is
reasonably practicable to do so. Accordingly, I have prepared an edited copy of the
documents with the exempt and irrelevant material removed.
Reasons for decision
Personal privacy (section 47F)
Section 47F of the FOI Act conditionally exempts a document if its disclosure would involve
the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person (including a deceased
person).
The term “personal information" means information or an opinion about an identified
individual, or an individual who is reasonably identifiable, whether or not the information or
opinion is true, and whether or not it is recorded in a material form.
Document 7 contains material about a person who was or is a participant in the National
Disability Insurance Scheme (the NDIS). I am satisfied that the information in question is that
person’s personal information.
Under section 47F(2) of the FOI Act, in determining whether the disclosure of personal
information would be unreasonable, I must have regard to all relevant factors including:
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; and
c. the availability of the information from publicly accessible sources.
In the present case, the information is not well-known, or available from publicly accessible
sources. Nor is the NDIS participant known to be associated with the research, opinion and
advice dealt with in Document 7.
3
Although the participant is not named in the document, I consider that, if their personal
information were to be disclosed under the FOI Act, it would be possible to identify them.
Absent the provisions of the FOI Act, this would amount to an improper disclosure of Agency
protected information under the
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (the NDIS
Act).
It is not possible for me to consult with the participant in question, but I consider it
unlikely that they would agree to disclosure of their personal information without their
consent.
I therefore conclude that disclosure of the information in Document 7 would involve the
unreasonable disclosure of personal information and the relevant parts of the document are
conditionally exempt under section 47F of the FOI Act.
Public interest considerations – section 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.
Section 47F is a conditional exemption.
Section 11B of the FOI Act sets out factors that favour access to conditionally exempt
material and also sets out factors that are irrelevant to my decision about whether disclosure
would be contrary to the public interest.
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 Document 7 would
promote the objects of the FOI Act in a general way by providing access to information held
by the government. Because your FOI request is for research papers published by the
NDIA’s Technical and Practice Improvement Branch, rather than for information about
particular NDIS participants, I do not consider that the redaction of the personal information
would disadvantage you.
I do not consider that disclosure of the relevant information would achieve the outcomes set
out in section 11B(3) of the Act. In particular, disclosure:
• would not inform debate on a matter of public importance;
• would not promote oversight of public expenditure;
• would not allow you to access your own personal information.
While there is limited public interest in the disclosure of the conditionally exempt information,
the harm that would result from disclosure is that it could reasonably be expected to intrude
4
on the participant’s right to protection of their personal information. Given the protections
around unauthorised disclosure of protected Agency information established by the NDIS
Act, I consider this factor outweighs the factors in favour of disclosure and that, on balance,
it would be contrary to the public interest to disclose this information under the FOI Act.
Accordingly, I have decided that the relevant information is exempt under section 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
Helen
Senior Freedom of Information Officer [HIL533]
Information Access and Privacy Branch
Reviews and Information Release Division
5
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
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 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
