Don’t put it in writing, NDIS advisers told

NDIS bureaucrats want to avoid creating documents referring to a secret cost-cutting group to thwart FoI laws.

Bureaucrats in charge of the $22 billion National Disability ­Insurance Scheme want to avoid creating documents referring to a secret cost-cutting committee to thwart Freedom of Information laws, flagging the problem at a meeting of its advisers last week.

NDIS agency deputy chief executive Louise Glanville told members of the Independent ­Advisory Council in Melbourne on Friday that she was concerned “a lot of documents” were being ­requested under FOI — many by The Australian — and the agency had to be careful about discussions relating to a cost-cutting committee being put in writing.

Ms Glanville said future briefings about the review into how the scheme could save money might have to be given orally, to avoid creating documents that would become discoverable under FOI.

“Not that we are trying to hide anything,” she added at the end of the discussion, sources said.

Some jurisdictions, such as New Zealand, have laws that can compel bureaucrats to create documents even if none existed previously, but this is not the case under the Australian legislation.

The cost-cutting committee is deemed to be so important that it is being chaired by the agency’s chief executive, David Bowen. The scheme actuary, Sarah Johnson, is also on the committee that will identify areas where cost blowouts are likely or already observed.

The agency has taken a dim view of reporting of its activities, with advisers told at the same meeting that this reporter is “public enemy No 1”.

The NDIS agency has rejected this account, but The Australian confirmed the conversation with multiple independent sources.

“The agency categorically ­denies these claims,” a spokeswoman said. “The NDIA is absolutely committed to transparency and any claims otherwise are completely untrue.”

FOI expert and deputy dean of law at the University of Tasmania Rick Snell said the agency should “desist from this type of practice”.

“People play the FOI game in attempting to attract the exemptions coverage in the act but this, in my view, is tantamount to trying to rig the game,” Associate Professor Snell said. “The agency should play by the rules, but this is much more the rorting or the ­intention to rort the system. This is clearly an attempt to circumvent the ­requirement of commonwealth legislation. Somehow, some officers in some agencies believe it is acceptable to deliberately subvert or work around legislative requirements.

“The question that comes to mind is why are you putting so much effort into avoiding the FOI Act rather than making decisions that are justifiable and accountable through scrutiny?”

The acting Australian Information Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim, said government-held information was a national resource.

“I encourage an ‘open access by default’ approach to government information and my office has worked with agencies and departments to embed these principles into their internal policies and procedures,” he said.

A spokeswoman for Social Services Minister Christian Porter said he expected all agencies under his portfolio to comply with FOI obligations and had no notification this was not happening.