Our reference: FOI 21/22-0740
GPO Box 700
Canberra ACT 2601
1800 800 110
21 March 2022
ndis.gov.au
Lesley
By email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Dear Lesley
Freedom of Information request — Notification of Decision
Thank you for your correspondence of 21 December 2021, 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 have requested access to documents about the National Disability Insurance Scheme
(NDIS). Specifically, you requested access to:
….a copy of the Salesforce cybersecurity assurance that confirms NDIS data, privacy
and information has not been compromised, affected or is at risk due to the Log4j2
Security Flaw
On 27 January 2022, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC)
provided the NDIA with an additional 14 days to process your request for information under
section 15AB of the FOI Act, making 9 February 2022, the new due date to provide you a
decision on access.
On 15 February 2022, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC)
provided the NDIA with a further 14 days to process your request for information under
section 15AB of the FOI Act, making 25 February 2022, the new due date to provide you a
decision on access.
On 25 February 2022, the Agency notified you of its intention to consult with a third party
under sections 27 and 27A of the FOI Act, and the statutory period for providing you with a
decision on access was extended until 27 March 2022.
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 one document which falls within the scope of your request.
The document was identified by conducting searches of NDIA’s systems, using all
reasonable search terms that could return documents relevant to your request, and
consulting with relevant NDIA staff who could be expected to be able to identify documents
within the scope of the request.
1
I have decided to grant access to this document in part.
In reaching my decision, I took into account the following:
your correspondence outlining the scope of your request
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
third party consultation
factors relevant to my assessment of whether or not disclosure would be in the public
interest
the NDIA’s operating environment and functions.
Access to edited copies with exempt or irrelevant material deleted (section 22)
I have decided that Document 1 contains material that is exempt from disclosure under the
FOI Act, as well as material that is irrelevant to your request. The irrelevant material relates
to the names of NDIA staff.
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).
Paragraph 6.129 of the FOI Guidelines provides that personal information is:
information about an identified individual or an individual who is reasonably identifiable
says something about a person
may be opinion
may be true or untrue
may be recorded in material form or not.
Document 1 contains information or opinion that, is about an identified individual, or about an
individual who is reasonably identifiable, says something about a person, may be an opinion,
may be true or untrue, and is recorded in material form. As such, I am satisfied that the
relevant material in Document 1 meets the definition of ‘personal information’.
Section 47F(2) of the FOI Act provides that in determining whether the disclosure of
documents would involve unreasonable disclosure of personal information, regard must be
had to:
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;
c. the availability of the information from publicly accessible sources
d. any other matters that the agency considers relevant.
Against these criteria, I take the view that:
a. it is apparent from the information that an individual is identifiable; and
2
b. the information referred to above is not readily available from publicly accessible
sources.
I have also had regard to the key factors for determining whether disclosure is unreasonable,
in line with Paragraph 6.142 of the FOI Guidelines and I am of the view that:
a. Document 1 contains third party personal information
b. release of the relevant information in Document 1 would cause stress on the third party
c. no public purpose would be achieved through release.
With reference to the assessments above, I have decided that it would be unreasonable to
publicly disclose the personal information in Document 1, and is, therefore, conditionally
exempt under section 47F(1) of the FOI Act. My considerations of the public interest test are
set out below.
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.
I have not considered any of the irrelevant factors as set out under section 11B(4) of the FOI
Act in making this decision.
After considering the public interest factors outlined in section 11B(3) of the FOI Act, I have
determined that disclosure of the material identified as subject to conditional exemptions
would promote the objects of the FOI Act by providing access to government-held
information. However, I consider that:
disclosure of the information would not contribute to the publication of information of
sufficient public interest to justify the likely harm caused by release
disclosure of the information would not enhance Australia’s representative democracy in
the ways described in section 11B(3) of the FOI Act
disclosure of the information would not inform any debate on a matter of public
importance or promote oversight of public expenditure.
While there is limited public interest in the disclosure of information conditionally exempt
under section 47F of the FOI Act, the harm that would result from disclosure is that it could
reasonably be expected to affect an individual’s right to privacy by having their personal
information in the public domain.
In summary, I am satisfied that the factors against disclosure of the information outweigh the
factors in favour of disclosure and that, on balance, it would be contrary to the public interest
to release this information to you. Accordingly, I have decided that the relevant information in
Document 1 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.
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 Assistant Director FOI
Parliamentary, Ministerial & FOI Branch
Government Division
4
Attachment A
Schedule of Documents for FOI 21/22-0740
Document
Page
Description
Access Decision
Comments
number
number
Email
PARTIAL ACCESS
Irrelevant material removed
1
1-2
Subject: Log4j2 vulnerability
under section 22 of the FOI
Exemption claimed:
Act
Date: 13 December 2021
s47F – personal privacy
5
Attachment B
Your review rights
Internal Review
The FOI Act gives you the right to apply for an internal review of this decision. The review
will be conducted by a different person to the person who made the original decision.
If you wish to seek an internal review of the decision, you must apply for the review, in
writing, within 30 days of receipt of this letter.
No particular form is required for an application for internal review, but to assist the review
process, you should clearly outline your grounds for review (that is, the reasons why you
disagree with the decision). Applications for internal review can be lodged by email to
xxx@xxxx.xxx.xx or sent by post to:
Freedom of Information Section
Parliamentary, Ministerial & FOI Branch
Government Division
National Disability Insurance Agency
GPO Box 700
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Review by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
The FOI Act also 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:
Online:
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
1
