Eventually, the NDIA delivered its outcome from A4's FOI request for information about the development of the NDIA's ABA policy for young children - see https://a4.org.au/node/2567

The NDIA's FOI response is available below.

The response indicates:

• the NDIA's policy was developed by "the Quality, Strategy and Training team within the AAT Case Management Branch in August 2022" in consultation with "Branch’s Executive team, Subject Matter Experts both within the Branch and the wider NDIA". The development and endorsement process involves no discernible expertise in early intervention for severely/profoundly autistic children nor relevant clinical expertise ... unless there is expertise among the "Subject Matter Experts" (but A4 has never seen any evidence of relevant expertise in the NDIA) - see Document 2 in the FoI bundle.
• there is no record of the evidence/material used in creating the AAT CM Guide – Applied Behavioural Analysis. The FOI response lacks information describing processes to ensure the NDIA's policy/guide is fair and balanced (given the contentious nature of the issue within the autism sector).
• there were meant to be 6-monthly policy reviews.
• the source of the material is described as "distilling [from?] already published information from the NDIS Guidelines on the internet, published decisions of the AAT and interpretations of the relevant legislation – the Act and Rules". Apparently, they are not based on relevant evidence or any co-design or sector consultation.
• The Oversight Committee who are responsible for the guide/policy did not consider the impacts on autistic children and their families/carers that A4 describes in https://a4.org.au/node/2567.
• it took the NDIA from 22/8/2023 until 24/5/2024 to provide this information - that is significantly more than the 30 days that the FoI Act stipulates. 

Key information in the response is the draft resolution that was put to the NDIA's Hearing Oversight Committee to endorse six Case Management Guides. A4 cannot tell from the documents the outcome of the draft resolution. Apparently, since it's not included in the FOI response, the outcome is undocumented. 

What is clear is that a subsequent document was provided in previous FOI request FOI 23/24-0029 ... the policy appears to be operational.

Over 12 months on, A4 was shown evidence that a review of the guide started - see here and here - but A4 has not been shown evidence of the conduct or outcomes of any (6-month?) review(s) of the NDIA's AAT CM Guide – Applied Behavioural Analysis - see here. 

Update - 17/1/2025 - FOI 24/25-0731

The NDIA finally responded to a request asking for the disposition of the ABA CM Guide and its review process (see above). The review process started but was quickly stopped. Responsibility for the review process was handed back to the authors of the original CM Guide. They stopped the review. The FoI document (17/1/2025 - see below) says

The NDIA’s Chief Counsel Division is responsible for leading the review of the AAT Case Management Guide for Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA). 

Following the enactment of the NDIS Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No 1) Act 2024, the work program of the division will be focused on new guidance material and revisions to existing material. 

It is expected that the review of the NDIA’s AAT Case Management Guide for Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) will occur in 2025.

Note that the NDIA’s Chief Counsel wrote the original version with no discernible or relevant clinical guidance or input. It is not appropriate that he is also responsible for its review.

The FoI response goes on to say

Conclusion 

Based on the information I have received from NDIA’s Legal Practice and Capability Branch, I consider there are reasonable grounds to be satisfied that documents containing the information you seek do not exist. I have therefore decided to refuse access to the information under section 24A(1) of the FOI Act on the basis that the information does not exist.

It's a bit rough of the FoI staff that FoI law requires them to say they refused the request when there is no information that they could provide.