Good afternoon FOIDR,

Please see the below/attached for your action.

Kind regards,

Fern

Case Officer, Governance, Risk and Compliance (FOI)

Office of the Australian Information Commissioner

Sydney NSW | GPO Box 5288 Sydney NSW 2001

The OAIC acknowledges Traditional Custodians of Country across Australia and their continuing connection to land, waters and communities. We pay our respect to First Nations people, cultures and Elders past and present.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Wright <[FOI #14023 email]>
Sent: Wednesday, 19 November 2025 1:32 PM
To: OAIC - FOI <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - External review of NDIA FOI 24/25-2051

**************************************************************************

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.

**************************************************************************

Dear Office of the Australian Information Commissioner,

I hereby request an external review from the Office of the Australian Commissioner (OAIC) of the NDIA's response to my FOI request FOI 24/25-2051 – see https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/reference_documents_relating_to#incoming-44327

Document number 2 has only been partially released, on the basis of the following exemptions: s22 (irrelevant material), s47F (personal privacy), s47C (deliberative process).

I have no objections to sections of document 2 being redacted for reasons of irrelevant material.

However, the entirety of pages 14 to 26 of the document bundle have been removed pursuant to section 47C (deliberative processes) and section 47F (personal privacy).

As regards deliberative processes, the agency’s decision letter states that disclosure would result in ‘harm’, because it ‘could reasonably be expected to hinder the Agency’s thinking processes and the ability of Agency staff to comply with their obligations and make informed decisions, which, in turn, helps to ensure the integrity of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and assists in carrying out the Agency’s functions’.

I challenge these reasons, on the following grounds:

1) The decision letter does not meet the threshold for ‘reasonably expected to’. This threshold is explained at paragraphs 6.13 to 6.16 of the FOI guidelines, which clarifies that there must be more than merely an assumption or allegation that damage may occur if the document is released. I refer in particular to paragraph 6.16, which states ‘The mere risk, allegation, possibility, or chance of prejudice does not qualify as a reasonable expectation. There must be, based on reasonable grounds, at least a real, significant or material possibility of prejudice’. The agency’s decision letter simply alleges that release of the documents would prejudice the quality and integrity of the agency’s deliberative processes, without giving any reasoning or evidence validating this allegation. Further, it does not give any reasoning or evidence to arrive at a conclusion that such prejudice is a ‘real, significant or material possibility’.

2) The agency’s decision letter gives no reasoning or evidence validating the assertion that disclosure of the information would hinder ‘the ability of Agency staff to comply with their obligations and make informed decisions’.

3) The agency’s decision letter does not give sufficient weight to paragraph 6.249-6.250 of the FOI guidelines, which state ‘Public servants are expected to operate within a framework that encourages open access to information and recognises Government information as a national resource to be managed for public purposes (ss 3(3) and (4)). In particular, the FOI Act recognises that Australia’s democracy is strengthened when the public is empowered to participate in Government processes and scrutinise Government activities (s 3(2)). In this setting, transparency of the work of public servants should be the accepted operating environment and fears about a lessening of frank and candid advice correspondingly diminished … Agencies should therefore start with the assumption that public servants are obliged by their position to provide robust and frank advice at all times and that obligation will not be diminished by transparency of government activities’.

4) It is in the public interest for the public to see these materials, because it allows increased scrutiny, discussion, comment, and review of government held information. As set out in the FOI Guidelines, public interest factors favouring access are that it informs the community of the Government’s operations, including, in particular, the policies, rules, guidelines, practices and codes of conduct followed by the Government in its dealings with members of the community, reveals the reason for a government decision and any background or contextual information that informed the decision, and enhances the scrutiny of government decision making. All of these factors apply in this instance. Further, another stated public interest factor favouring access is that it informs debate on a matter of public importance, including to allow or assist inquiry into possible deficiencies in the conduct or administration of an agency or official, or reveal or substantiate that an agency or official has engaged in misconduct or negligent, improper or unlawful conduct. That is directly relevant in this matter, as the subject of my FOI request concerns complaints about breaches by the agency of its Model Litigant Obligations.

I therefore request that the OAIC investigates the agency’s redaction of the entirety of pages 14 to 26 of the document bundle on the stated grounds of section 47C (deliberative processes), and that OAIC concurrently reviews the agency’s redaction of any information in this bundle on the grounds of section 47F (personal privacy).

Yours faithfully,

David Wright

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[FOI #14023 email]

Is [OAIC request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information requests to Office of the Australian Information Commissioner? If so, please contact us using this form:

https://www.righttoknow.org.au/change_request/new?body=oaic

This request has been made by an individual using Right to Know. This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. More information on how Right to Know works can be found at:

https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/officers

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------