Dear Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority,

I am writing to request access under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) to the following documents:

Requested Documents:

The NAPLAN Literacy and Numeracy test papers for Years 3, 5, and 7 for each year from 2017 to 2025, inclusive.

- The corresponding test administration guides, scoring guides, marking guides, and/or answer keys for each of the above papers.

- I note that ACARA has previously declined release of NAPLAN materials under exemptions relating to copyright or concerns regarding future test integrity. However, I wish to proceed with an FOI request so that ACARA may consider:

1. Whether any exemptions apply specifically to each requested document,

2. Whether partial access, redacted access, or release with conditions is possible, and

3. Whether the public interest test supports disclosure of some or all materials given the age of some test years and the educational value of transparency.

If any documents are considered exempt in full or in part, I request that ACARA provide:

1. The specific exemption(s) relied upon,

2. Reasons for the decision,

3. Consideration of whether access can be given to edited copies under s.22 of the FOI Act, and

4. The possibility of providing documents under alternative licensing or with copyright conditions attached.

I also request that, where documents are available in electronic form, they be provided electronically.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to your response within the statutory timeframe.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Wang

Dear FOI,

Thank you for your email of 23 December 2025 acknowledging my FOI request.

1. I agree to the requested 14-day extension of time under section 15AA of the FOI Act.
Please consider the new due date to be 27 January 2026.

2. Clarification of Scope

To confirm, I am seeking access to:
- the NAPLAN Literacy and Numeracy test papers for Years 3, 5, and 7, for the years 2017-2025 inclusive, and the corresponding marking guides, scoring guides, and answer keys, being the same categories of documents as the publicly released 2008-2016 NAPLAN papers.

These include the primary test forms delivered nationally each year.

3. Access to these more recent papers is important for understanding how the NAPLAN assessments have evolved since 2016, particularly in:
- test structure and delivery,
- the types of skills being assessed,
- shifts from paper-based to online formats, and
- any significant changes in curriculum alignment.

Obtaining these materials would assist educators, parents, and students in understanding how NAPLAN is currently administered and how expectations have changed over time. This directly supports transparency, informed preparation, and equity, especially given the national significance of NAPLAN results.

4. I also request that, if any material is considered exempt in part, ACARA consider release of edited copies under s.22 of the FOI Act.

If you require any additional clarification, please let me know.
Thank you for your assistance, and I look forward to your response after the shutdown period.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Wang

Dear Geraghty, Jackie,

Thank you for your email.

I agree to the further extension of time under section 15AA of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, extending the due date for the decision to 6 February 2026.

Please let me know if you require anything further.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Wang

Dear Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority's decision dated 27 January 2026 regarding FOI request FOI/2526/001, in which access was refused to 350 of 352 documents. I believe the decision contains several material errors in the application of the FOI Act and should be reconsidered.

1. Misapplication of Section 17 – Screenshotting Burden Does Not Apply to Paper-Based Tests
In Attachment C, ACARA states that producing online test items would require manually screenshotting 17,202 test items and 1,413 testlets, amounting to approximately 519 hours of work, and therefore constitutes an unreasonable diversion of resources under s17.

However, this argument does not apply to the large portion of NAPLAN tests that were still delivered in paper form before the full transition to online adaptive testing in 2022. Paper-format NAPLAN test booklets were produced and retained in PDF form for 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2021 (2020 having been cancelled). These documents already exist as complete, fixed-form papers and do not require screenshotting or extraction of any kind.
ACARA’s decision incorrectly treats all 350 documents as if they must be created through item-by-item screenshotting, despite acknowledging that paper tests continue to be administered:
“Although, for the most part NAPLAN is now administered online, paper tests are still administered…”

ACARA failed to separately assess the paper-based tests. This constitutes a material error because the screenshotting burden under s17 is irrelevant to documents that are already held as discrete written forms. Section 17 cannot be used to refuse access to documents that require no production effort.

2. Incorrect Assumption That All Test Items Remain “In Circulation”
ACARA asserts that all test items from 2017–2025—paper and online—remain active candidates for reuse in future NAPLAN tests.

This sweeping claim is neither substantiated nor plausible:
• Items used in fixed-form paper booklets do not necessarily suit the adaptive online model introduced later.
• Item banks are routinely refreshed and retired.
• ACARA released 2008–2016 test papers without compromising test integrity.
• It is not credible that nine years’ worth of items (17,000+ online items plus all paper items) are ALL still operational in 2026.
The FOI Guidelines require agencies to demonstrate, not merely assert, that disclosure would compromise future assessments. No evidence is provided that paper-era items from 2017–2021 remain in operational use.
This undermines the reasoning under sections 47E(a), 47E(b), and 47E(d).

3. Failure to Consider Partial Release or Edited Copies (Section 22)
ACARA was required to consider whether:
• older items (e.g., 2017–2018) could be released,
• only structural elements or non-sensitive sections could be released,
• decommissioned items could be disclosed,
• items could be redacted,
• online items could be excluded while releasing paper tests.
No such consideration appears in the Statement of Reasons.
Instead, ACARA applied exemptions globally to 350 documents without demonstrating that each document individually meets the threshold for harm.
A failure to apply s22 is a well-recognised error of law and a common basis for OAIC overturning FOI refusals.

4. Paper-Based NAPLAN Tests (2017–2021) Were Not Properly Assessed Under Sections 47E(a), 47E(b), or 47E(d)
The decision relies heavily on case law involving live operational test items, such as Re Marko, Crawley, and Marty Ross. These authorities concern situations where the exact same questions were scheduled for immediate reuse.
Paper tests from 2017–2021, however:
• relate to a now-superseded fixed-form delivery model,
• predate the adaptive online environment,
• are unlikely to remain fully operational in 2026, and
• can be treated differently from online-only content.
ACARA’s decision fails to recognise these distinctions and does not explain why older paper tests cannot be released even in edited form.

5. Misapplication of Public Interest Test
The public interest factors cited against disclosure include:
• potential for cheating,
• interference with government cooperation,
• risk of inaccurate reporting.
However, these factors presuppose that paper-era items remain active, which has not been demonstrated.
There is strong public interest in:
• understanding changes in NAPLAN structure since 2016,
• transparency around national assessments,
• enabling educators, parents, and researchers to interpret NAPLAN reporting meaningfully,
• accountability for decisions concerning national educational standards.
The public interest test was not properly balanced.

6. Requested Outcome
I respectfully request that the internal review:
1. Separately assess the paper-based test booklets (2017–2021), which already exist in discrete written form and cannot be refused under s17.
2. Consider partial release or edited copies under s22.
3. Provide evidence, if maintained, that specific items remain operational and cannot be released.
4. Reassess the application of ss 47E(a), 47E(b), and 47E(d) to older fixed-form tests.
5. Rebalance the public interest test with proper consideration of transparency and accountability.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your decision within the statutory timeframe.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/n...

Yours faithfully,

Michael Wang