All About NIPPN
What or Who is NIPPN?
NIPPN is the acronym for the NSW Right to Information & Privacy Practitioners Network.
It is a state-wide collective of government employees in roles concerning requests for government information and for ensuring the public’s personal private information is protected.
HOWEVER, the reality is this collective covertly works together without any oversight to diminish and attack the public’s freedom of information and privacy rights.
In its current composition and the manner in which it covertly operates without oversight, it is an incubator for corruption; and corruption has been successfully incubated.
Generally, the public is completely unaware of NIPPN, with most never having heard of it until now.
But it is important to understand that this shadowy organisation is actually viciously attacking the public’s legal rights, the publicised principles of open government and the rule of law, and obstructing legislated avenues of accountability.
It is now indisputable such attitudes to the public’s fundamental pieces of legislation and thumbing their noses at mandated Codes of Conduct, Codes of Ethical Conduct, Fraud & Corruption Policies and the established processes for implementing government policy, reach into every corner of the state of NSW.
THIS IS WHY IT’S SO IMPORTANT TO READ ON!
NIPPN has been operating for over (2) two decades according to its founder Phillip Youngman of Youngman Consultancy. Mr Youngman has acted in the role of right to information officer on numerous occasions on a temporary assignment basis.
For many years NIPPN held its meetings at NSW Parliament House Theatrette or Jubilee Room, both extravagant facilities, courtesy of the NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner (IPC) or more accurately the public’s money.
Minutes of the Meeting of 08th June 2016 (page 5) disclose NIPPN membership of over (400) four hundred; it’s reasonable to expect almost ten years later those numbers have increased even if individuals have changed jobs.
The public’s enquiries about NIPPN activities first commenced in the latter part of 2021, when the administrator of this Site Telina Webb asked for some basic information. Webb had followed the trail of breadcrumbs on the IPC’s website, eventually finding an email address to an employee at iCARE NSW. That person Nicole Gibbs-Steele was at that time the Senior Privacy Officer at iCARE, and also the Chair of NIPPN since June 2017. Webb’s initial enquiries included seeking membership and asking for access to NIPPN records such as the membership list and minutes of meetings.
Gibbs-Steele informed Webb she had to have a government email address as membership criteria, which was false and misleading. Clearly this false criteria served as a vetting mechanism.
Who are members of NIPPN?
Members stem from just about every NSW government department including ICAC, NSW Police, NSW Fire Dept, NSW Ambulance, TAFE NSW, IPC, Dept of Communities & Justice, Local Councils, Dept of Customer Service, Roads & Maritime, the Cancer Institute, the Crown Solicitors Office, the NSW Ombudsman’s office, NSW Treasury, Dept of Finance, NSW Dept of Education, Universities, Legal Aid, NSW Health, Sydney Opera House; you name it, they’re in it, including Northern Territory government employees.
But a NIPPN member list (partly redacted) reveals much more. Until that release the information was kept under cover under the false pretence it was not government information. This was disqualified in the case of Webb v iCARE (2023) NSWCATAD 316.
NIPPN members also stem from private enterprise and include those peddling products and services to the NSW government directly to NIPPN members for a fee.
There are also members from the international organisation SOCAP, the Society of Consumer Affairs Professionals. SOCAP’s membership crosses over to NIPPN.
SOCAP’s founder is Chris Wheeler, former Deputy NSW Ombudsman but now of Chris Wheeler Consulting, one who has had access to the NSW Ombudsman’s policies and procedures including those pertaining to complaint handling.
The public will recall the NSW Ombudsman’s collaboration with all other Australian ombudsmen back in the early 2000’s, creating a moral panic which supported the creation of the now infamous Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct policy and guidelines (since updated), only for use against the Australian public of course.
Mr Wheeler has subsequently turned that knowledge into a thriving business on complaint handling, generating unquantified amounts of personal revenue through the secondary use of government information and collaborating against the public he once served....... Thus far there is nothing about resolving complainant issues, just 'frameworks' on what to do when a complaint is received. Clearly there's no money in the former.
(Creating wealth through moral panic is not a new business model, we all remember Al Gore and his climate propaganda which saw him create an investment fund which is since connected to Musk and Tesla)
When considering the supposed NIPPN membership criteria necessitating a NSW government email address, it really was just a ruse.
And when that ruse is presented by a Senior Privacy Officer of iCARE NSW, it can only bring that organisation into serious disrepute by the public display of a deliberate false and misleading action, particularly when we consider the recent publications concerning major data breaches by iCARE. But Gibb-Steele would go much further than that.
NIPPN Terms of Reference
It’s important to keep in mind NIPPN Terms of Reference.
These terms set out the parameters of how this gaggle operates.
One of the most important aspects of these publicly funded soirees at Parliament House and the offices of the IPC, is the fact that they all rely on and hide behind Chatham House Rules.
Chatham House Rules operates on the premise “say what you want, about who you want, share whatever you want, but don’t disclose who’s doing it.”
So to hang with the NSW government’s numerous mandated Codes of Conduct, Codes of Professional Ethics, binding legislation, and simple common decency and respect for the public’s information; when they all get together at a NIPPN meeting they are all acting in breach of policy, procedure, and legislation!
No, it’s not a good look especially when we think of the players in this game of deception!
What is the purpose of NIPPN?
The IPC website makes reference to the group under its page titled Practitioners Network:
“The NSW Right to Information and Privacy Practitioners' Network consists of practitioners who carry out functions or have responsibility for compliance of the NSW Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, the NSW Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, and the NSW Health Records and Information Protection Act 2002 in the NSW public sector.
The Network consists of currently employed members from government agencies, health services, local government, State Owned Corporations, and the universities.
The Network meets quarterly and has an online method of delivering meetings.
The agenda usually includes group discussions, feedback from the Practitioners’ Consultative Committee, reports on recent cases, legislative and other developments and guest speakers. Both the Information Commissioner and Privacy Commissioner, as well as IPC staff, attend.”
It all sounds as though these people are somehow wellness or healthcare practitioners, when this is clearly not the case and could not be further from the truth. None of them are actually qualified to do anything………..And they make no consideration for the public they serve.
A right to information or privacy “officer” is a fancy title for someone who is a clerk; they push paper around.
But what’s of serious concern is whilst they’re not actually qualified to do anything, they are given statutory powers and authority to make administrative law decisions which impact on the lives of the general public they’re employed to serve.
The Terms of Reference state under “1. Role and Purpose”:
“The Consultative Committee will provide a means for the Practitioners Network to consider and respond to relevant matters that arise between the quarterly meetings. It will meet with the Information and Privacy Commissioners to discuss matters of concern that practitioners have raised directly with the Committee and to provide feedback to the Commissioners. The Consultative Committee is able to make submission to the Commissioners or any other relevant body or office, or the public, on topics of interest to the Network. It will report quarterly to the Network on its activities and any matters raised by the Commissioners.
To encourage openness and the sharing of information the Practitioners Network provides a safe space for practitioners to raise concerns and express ideas in regards to the information access and privacy legislation. Practitioners are not considered to be representing the view of their respective agencies and therefore Chatham House Rules apply.”
Hmmmmm, if they’re not representing the views of their employer agencies, why are they there? Given they’re not qualified to do anything of substance, who are they there for if not for their employer agency?
And how are they able to leave work to attend a regular non-work event during government business hours if they’re not representing the government?
Why is the Information Commissioner footing the function bills if these public servants are not participating for work purposes?
What information are they sharing?
It’s not a cooking course or crochet club, is it?
And what’s this extraordinary claim our NSW government employees do not feel safe in the workplace?!
Of course, none of this is remotely believable, and casts an even darker shadow on this group which has now gone underground since late 2021 when it deactivated its website and ran for the hills.
NIPPN also has a Consultative Committee which is evidenced through the meeting minutes to have direct access to the Information and Privacy Commissioners and the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal, NCAT.
They just make a quick call and get straight in. In one NIPPN meeting minutes (page 4), they refer to the Deputy President of NCAT as just plain Hennessy............ So disrespectful.
Notably the public does not have such privileged access to the judiciary determining their access and privacy applications.
But one thing which must be highlighted here as a definitive purpose of NIPPN is the reality they collude and collaborate to the detriment of the public, working together as a collective which often involves making aligned submissions for legislative change and review of the judiciary.
As an example, through NIPPN organising submissions towards the statutory review of the GIPA Act 2009, in 2014, (57) Local Council’s utilised an almost identical letter template for the purposes of legislative change concerning open access information mandated for release, Development Application (DA) records.
DA records to that point were readily accessible allowing any interested party to simply ask for the information no matter the date of creation.
However, this collective managed to succeed in amending the legislation, making it more difficult for the public.The submissions also managed to cover copyright issues, making it more difficult to access DA drawings and images.
Mind you, those submissions go straight to the Dept of Communities & Justice, where NIPPN members formulate reports to parliament in order to secure the desired legislated amendments. But more on that in another section of this Site.
Another great example of good collaborative covert work was the suggestion to the whole of NIPPN to craft a collective response strategy for Sydney Morning Herald Investigative Reporter Nigel Gladstone, operator of the website www.righttoknow.org.au.
This was recorded in NIPPN minutes (page 1), apparently agencies were concerned Mr Gladstone might publish released information on his Site?
Of course, it’s highly likely Mr Gladstone’s further GIPA Applications were compromised state-wide the direct result of this recommendation on how to corrupt the GIPA Act and prejudice the public’s legislated rights to access NSW government information.
But let’s not tell anyone who suggested it!
Hiding Behind Chatham House Rules
The Director / Business Unit Manager of the Dept of Communities & Justice Open Government Information & Privacy Unit (OGIPU), (and don’t cha just love that longwinded title) one Ms Jodie Cobbin, did state under oath in July 2024 she actually expected information she shared with NIPPN was protected under Chatham House Rules.
Yes, the tip of the NSW Legal and Justice spear, the dedicated department purposed with processing requests for government information and protecting the public’s personal information, has publicly stated under oath and on the record that she has effectively placed Chatham House Rules above the legislation of the state of NSW.
Not a good look from the NSW Attorney-General’s Dept; particularly with Ms Cobbin an ex-NSW Police Superintendent.
Both the GIPA and PPIP legislation, which apply to Ms Cobbin and her subordinates, binds the Crown.
Let me just say that again.
Ms Cobbin is bound by both the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 and the Personal Privacy & Information Protection Act 1998, legislation which she administers.
And yet she expects protection under Chatham House Rules and to hell with the legislation.
But this reliance on Chatham House Rules by an executive officer of the Dept of Communities & Justice pales significantly when her other NIPPN activities were made public in 2024.
Ms Cobbin is directly responsible for:
27th March 2019
Public presentation to NIPPN "Tale of a Fixated Applicant".
This presentation singled out and identified member(s) of the public by breaching their privacy and recommended response strategies including involving NSW Police, seeking costs in NCAT proceedings which are not founded in law, colluding with other agencies, and seeking restraint orders under Section 110 of the GIPA Act 2009.
Whilst heavily redacted, the reader gets the idea of Ms Cobbin's intentions particularly what she views as her "light at the end of the tunnel".
This is a policy document, a strategy, created by Ms Cobbin in departmental time, with departmental resources, using a departmental template, which she shares with the full NIPPN membership, effectively providing a roadmap on how to identify and control targeted members of the public. She has revealed she considers a person's chosen writing style to be socially unacceptable behaviours; highlighting text, using capitals or italics, underlining............ She takes objection to the public following up on correspondence or seeking meetings with decision-makers. Clearly this makes Ms Cobbin angry. But she claims it is harassing and intimidating, causing her and her staff distress and anxiety.
This policy document does not have departmental approval; it has not been through due process including any stakeholder engagement . It is Ms Cobbin's personal creation.
Of most concern is her reckless personal recommendation agencies seek costs that are not based in law, exposing the State to serious risk.
It is solely the result of Ms Cobbin's presentation recommending pursuing legal costs not based in law that Port Stephens Council has pursued the Administrator of this Site Telina Webb and her husband for amounts initially in the vicinity of $55,000.00, in the context of GIPA and PPIP; neither of which makes provision for costs other than concerning penalties against an agency.
22nd May 2019
Public submission to NSW Law Reform Commission on the part of the OGIPU all-but naming individuals who publish government information, seeking stronger controls under NCAT and Court non-publication orders and restrictions.
12th June 2019
Bypassing statutory obligations by soliciting the whole of the state's population of right to information and privacy officers through the NIPPN group, requesting agency records concerning difficult applicants.
Ms Cobbin falsely claimed Dept of Communities & Justice was conducting a study and required the information for that purpose.
25th July 2019
Public submission towards the Statutory Review of the NCAT Act 2013, seeking Parliament's approval to grant NCAT wider powers to restrain members of the public from exercising legally enforceable rights under the GIPA Act 2009. Essentially, Ms Cobbin wanted Section 110 of the GIPA Act to be fully integrated into the NCAT Act, forcing any Applicant seeking a review of an agency decision to first go through the arduous task of gaining NCAT's approval.
Chatham House Rules is a prep-school rule or principle which claims to protect individuals sharing sensitive or private information from accountability.
It protects those who breach the public’s privacy and has enabled NIPPN members, thus far anyway, to throw statutory mandates right out of the Parliament House Function Room window!
It protects those who breach the public’s privacy and has enabled NIPPN members, thus far anyway, to throw statutory mandates right out of the Parliament House Function Room window!
What about the legislation which legally binds NIPPN members?
As stated, first and foremost the legislation applicable to right to information and privacy “officers” is both the GIPA and PPIP Acts.
It’s not new information that both GIPA and PPIP bind the Crown; that is to say these “officers” are legally bound by them.
The agencies employing them are bound by them.
And the Tribunal and Courts reviewing decisions made under them are also bound by them.
But clearly, it’s more convenient to rely on Chatham House Rules when people are intending to cover their actions from accountability. As mentioned above, both the Information and Privacy Commissioners attend these soirees, so why aren’t they doing anything about these breaches of the public’s privacy and corralling these law breakers into accountability? After all, they are the bodies of oversight!
Well, NIPPN has cleverly managed to break up their tea parties into two separate components; Part 1 Closed Session, and yes you guessed it, Part 2 Open Session.
It is during the closed sessions all the real excitement happens, where the public’s privacy is routinely breached, where confidential information is shared, and where actions to bypass legislated obligations are trampled on. Heck, there’s even evidence of seeking access to government information unlawfully and suggesting punitive actions against the public which are not based in law; oh dear, and conveniently out of sight of the Commissioners too although.
The open session is the one the Commissioners attend. I know, right?! Thankfully the NSW Attorney-General totally debunked Chatham House Rules, making clear it does nothing to extinguish agency obligations. But let's not get too excited as there's no actual evidence it's not just business as usual for the NIPPN free-for-all to breach the public's privacy and share government information in a forum littered with individuals from private enterprise.
But clearly, it’s more convenient to rely on Chatham House Rules when people are intending to cover their actions from accountability. As mentioned above, both the Information and Privacy Commissioners attend these soirees, so why aren’t they doing anything about these breaches of the public’s privacy and corralling these law breakers into accountability? After all, they are the bodies of oversight!
Well, NIPPN has cleverly managed to break up their tea parties into two separate components; Part 1 Closed Session, and yes you guessed it, Part 2 Open Session.
It is during the closed sessions all the real excitement happens, where the public’s privacy is routinely breached, where confidential information is shared, and where actions to bypass legislated obligations are trampled on. Heck, there’s even evidence of seeking access to government information unlawfully and suggesting punitive actions against the public which are not based in law; oh dear, and conveniently out of sight of the Commissioners too although.
The open session is the one the Commissioners attend. I know, right?! Thankfully the NSW Attorney-General totally debunked Chatham House Rules, making clear it does nothing to extinguish agency obligations. But let's not get too excited as there's no actual evidence it's not just business as usual for the NIPPN free-for-all to breach the public's privacy and share government information in a forum littered with individuals from private enterprise.
Are the State's Right to Information and Privacy Officers formally qualified?
NO.
They are not formally qualified.
They are not qualified to do anything specific to their roles.
Neither are they regulated.
Who provides Training?
This is another layer on the governmental cake.
Presently there are a number of training service providers, including:
• The Office of the NSW Crown Solicitor• Salinger Privacy• Information Consultants• Youngman Consultants
(Read more about these consultants shortly)
These trainers peddle their services direct to NIPPN members during meetings.
They effectively bypass legislated procurement processes and have direct access to decision makers, while sipping on designer coffee and chowing down on patisserie delicacies courtesy of the public’s money.
This is clearly corrupt (not the cakes and coffee……), where privileged private enterprise and the NSW Crown Solicitor bypass legislated procurement processes.
What a perk!
And yes, the Crown Solicitor charges for her training, both GIPA and PPIP.
But nowhere on the annual reports is there any record of the revenue generated, leaving the public wondering if this is just money for jam or for the Christmas Party on that swanky DJ'd rooftop restaurant overlooking Darling Harbour……………….
And no, the CSO is not accredited to train anyone, with its Kiri Sue Mattes Principle Solicitor stating under oath in October 2022, “I don’t need accreditation, I’m a solicitor!”
Geez Louise.
What about guest speakers?
Well, some guest speakers are not active members, but the list of regular speakers includes the Crown Solicitor, the NSW Ombudsman, Salinger Privacy, Information Consultants (both private enterprise), even NCAT gets a look in.
NIPPN Goes Underground
In December 2021 the nominated Google Website for NIPPN was abandoned and NIPPN has since gone completely underground.
And these days they don’t meet at Parliament House but that could change at any moment.
They meet at the premises of the IPC! The Commissioners provide everything necessary for in-house personal attendance as well as video conferencing facilities. (I wonder how they get upstairs given they need security access?)
Morning tea is provided between the open and closed sessions.
Key minutes of meetings will be published and available here.
The redacted membership list is available here.
It's interesting to note, as the redacted membership list shows, NIPPN administers different versions of the law. On the one hand it breaches the public's privacy, unlawfully sharing the public's personal information.
On the other hand it acts to deny the public rightful legislated access to government information under the false premise it relates to personal information, when the legislation states otherwise.
This single action discloses the whole of the State's population of right to information and privacy officers false beleif they are above the legislation, and exemplifies their blatant willingness to breach the legislation when it comes to the public's rights to access NSW government information.
How does the public gain access to NIPPN information?
NIPPN makes it as difficult as possible, despite caselaw making it clear such information is governmental in nature and so the GIPA Act 2009 applies.
But they don’t release any information freely.
NIPPN is intentionally covert, hence it going underground, deactivating its website, and vetting membership.
Anyone wanting information about NIPPN must lodge a Formal Access Application at an initial cost of $30.00.
At the time of this publication (August 2025) Robert Sparshott Privacy & GIPA Manager at Sydney Water is the current Chair, at privacy@sydneywater.com.au.