Editorial
Creating a Moral Panic:
Solidifying the Parameters of Unreasonable Complainant Conduct & The Cross-Over To Restricting Access to Government Records As a Methodology for Controlling & Punishing the General Public for Accessing Beneficial Legislation
This editorial and commentary is based upon and refers to existing documents emanating from the Office of the NSW Ombudsman, and which have been circulated to and embraced by every government department in the state of NSW. It is likely to also be embraced by each of the other Australian states.
It is not an empirical study. But it relies upon one.
It is not a research project. But it relies upon one.
It is a history lesson on how the Australian Ombudsman Collective created, perhaps unwittingly at first but willingly after seeing the results, a sustainable moral panic by categorising intelligent, questioning and suspecting members of the public as deviants behaving so badly, they warranted formal departmental intervention to ensure they were controlled and hopefully stopped.
The behaviours intended to be controlled and stopped include lodging valid complaints about public servant performance of duties, and exercising legislated rights to access government information.
It is a clear lesson on how our democracy denies access to democratic processes through unjust lawmaking, ensuring public servant corruption and misconduct is concealed and protected at all costs, and the public labelling of those who seek out the promised transparency and accountability of public servants as punishment for their efforts.
It is a commentary based in part on personal experiences with current access to information legislation, interacting with numerous NSW information and privacy officers, and how government employees are more focused on blaming the public for persistence and unwarranted rejection of administrative decisions than taking a long hard look at employee attitudes and departmental policies and procedures.
I first interacted with a NSW agency in endeavours to exercise my legally enforceable rights to access government information in August 2011 and in which I maintain an ongoing interest.
This editorial will detail how the embracing of the terms Managing Unreasonable Complainants and Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct would filter into every corner of the NSW government, forming the perfect excuse for actions of reprisal from those in positions of delegated authority; the targets being individuals who do nothing more than follow established processes and guidelines.
Information emanating from the NSW government thus far is considered totally biased and prejudicial, with one prominent ex-public servant now part of a group of entrepreneurs making huge sums of money at the public’s expense, in the provision of expensive training courses and guest speaking engagements concerning complaint handling and the Management of Unreasonable Complainants.
This Site and the information contained herein speaks to the reader in the context of access to NSW government information and records.
The subject of access to information is central to each and every discussion.
Accessing government information is critical to ensuring our democracy, by transparency and accountability of all public servants, provides a mechanism to drive necessary change when departmental flaws and misconduct and indeed corrupt conduct are disclosed.
As such the content includes the conduct and attitudes of NSW government agency personnel delegated the authority to process the public’s formal requests to access government records.
It is a fundamental right and those rights are naturally expected to be upheld by each and every government employee, not undermined to the detriment of the public.
Regrettably, history repeatedly documents obstruction and procrastination of the public’s right to access government information.
When the public complains about these occurrences, and at times repeatedly complains due to lack of action or refusal to act, they often find themselves labelled as Unreasonable Complainants being accused of engaging in Unreasonable Complainant Conduct.
This article like so many on this Site is scathing of our highly paid and richly benefited public servants, in particular those situated in the administration sector, and more specifically those bound by statutory constraints to process requests for government information. Some of those also process complaints and undertake investigations in parallel to those roles given they might fall under the banner of governance.
There is a direct nexus between the government’s responses to requests for its records and the impressions left indelibly imprinted on the minds and emotions of the public who has sought access.
It is a dance between a public endeavouring to exercise legally enforceable rights to access NSW government information and those delegated to decide whether or not that access will be granted.
All involved are people plain and simple. And all are naturally expected to be flawed, imperfect, shaped and influenced by their individual environments and personal experiences. In February 2020 former judge in the Industrial Relations Commission Francis Marks stated “we, all humans, are inherently biased.”
At the time of that memorable comment Francis Marks was deciding whether or not to grant an agency’s wish to formally restrain a member of the public from accessing NSW government records. He was also minded to inviting a Costs Wish Application from the agency despite such action not being founded in law. What a legend!
Individual environments can include homelife, workplace, education, extracurricular activities, social groups, political views, the list goes on as non-exhaustive. All are influential.
Now introduce power into the equation.
That power is one-sided, it is not afforded the petitioning member of the public asking for government information, seeking to exercise advertised and promoted legally enforceable rights.
The power sits with those individuals with delegated authority to make decisions.
In the context of access to information, the current freedom of information legislation is the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, or more casually known as GIPA.
Preceding the GIPA Act in 2009, was its older brother the Freedom of Information Act 1989, the FOI Act.
A great deal has been written about the FOI and GIPA Acts, particularly by the NSW Ombudsman, and for this discussion we start there. In particular, in 2006 a report was released, commissioned by the NSW Ombudsman, the result of collaboration with every other Ombudsman in Australia including the federal Ombudsman.
The purpose of the collaboration was to obtain information and records from each of those aforementioned offices, concerning problematic members of the public, specifically those who qualify as repeat and difficult or unreasonable complainants.
The ‘researcher’ for this report was given access to Ombudsman departmental records, supposedly on the basis the complainants were deidentified, but there is no evidence this occurred.
The researcher has indicated it did not access the records directly, but rather each Ombudsman’s Office specifically picked the files directly, ensuring the highest level perpetrators formed the basis of the research of course. Only the very best would do for this report to have any impact and likelihood for implementation of recommendations.
It would be easy to form the view the resultant report, based on cherry-picked information from an agency collective with a pre-determined agenda, was completely biased. This was a report for a purpose, a purpose which was not to identify any intradepartmental problems with any staff responsible for conducting investigations or processing requests for government information.
Heaven forbid, that would end up in a class action lawsuit!
"Moral Panic: A mass movement based on the false or exaggerated perception that some cultural behaviour or group of people is dangerously deviant," Oxford Reference.
And so the fundamental purpose of the report was to ensure validating the construction of a framework for dealing with problematic members of the public, as opposed to problematic lazy complacent vindictive over-zealous staff who were most likely not fit or qualified for their respective roles.
Following the Breadcrumbs:In March 2025 I lodged an Informal Access Application with the NSW Ombudsman, asking for:
“Enquiry – Access to Submissions on FOI Report of February 2009
Would you please so kind as to provide a link to the above documentation as I am not able to find anything on the website. I am also interested in accessing the documentation pertaining to the “joint Australian Ombudsman project concerning unreasonable complainant conduct, and the analysis of strategies to deal with repeat (FOI) applications”; Pittwater Council v Walker (2015) NSWCATAD 34, paragraph 64.”
.png)
.png)
Image courtesy of https://medium.com/@BrianSethHurst/starving-the-wolf-at-the-door-7c2c3b867452
"You leave a trail of breadcrumbs any wolf could follow, then act shocked when the wolf is outside your door," Victor Lavalle
A copy of that enquiry is available here.
On 31st March 2025 I received an acknowledgement email, available here.
On 04th April 2025 I received a further response advising me my request for information was invalid, available here.
However surprisingly on 11th April 2025 the NSW Ombudsman’s Office provided the requested information, available here and here.
The documents are an insight into the methodology and bias of the intended outcomes of the ‘research’.
I had earlier repeatedly read documentation emanating from the NSW Ombudsman concerning Unreasonable Complainant Conduct, and in particular the reference to Lester and Mullen’s research report, and now here it was.
These documents come together to establish a moral panic which has formed the foundation of how Australian agencies respond to those individuals they classify as problematic.
Indeed, the purpose of the report was to create a moral panic; one which would see the intended outcry for action responded to with full force and resounding applause.
There was no mention throughout the report of the conduct or misconduct of agency personnel.
In fact, this report was carefully crafted for a specific outcome, and that outcome was to provide documentary support for agency responses to the public in a particular area of government administration.
I would go so far as to say this report was completely biased as disclosed under the heading ‘limitations’, quote “The study method did not allow examination of the claimant’s experiences and state of mind, which can only be surmised from the observations of the complaints officers,” unquote.
In other words, the hearsay of agency personnel who are not documented to have any qualifications to make any kind of clinical assessment on any level whatsoever was sufficient.
This is a huge issue for the public when the assertions and carefully crafted narratives set out crisis’ demanding responses, but which the public is precluded from participation which would ensure impartiality and equity.
It is embarrasing to see the NSW Ombudsman behaving in such an undemocratic way, particularly when the propaganda suggests he represents and acts as conduit for the public of NSW.
The result of the NSW Ombudsman’s report Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct sees a guideline distributed to each and every NSW government agency; a road map for dealing with claimed problematic members of the public.
Regrettably however, like so many of the government’s policies and / or guidelines, the Ombudsman’s recommendation has been abused. How so? As an example, the agency Port Stephens Council has embraced the policy, listed on its website here, and available here. Notably, the policy sees a process inclusive of recording incidents in the lead up to activating the policy, (see Point 1(f) for example). Port Stephens Council references to the term "incident" a total of (22) twenty two times within the policy, highlighting its direct relevance. In other words, before the controlling guillotine drops, such as formally restricting access to agency services, the agency must first record incidents of difficult complainant behaviours to support the action. Sounds very democratic in theory, but can such a policy be open to abuse? It certainly can and certainly has been abused! Example of Policy Misuse and Abuse:On 10th July 2018, during the access to information process, the Port Stephens Council trainee Governance Manager Holly Jamadar wrote to me in my capacity as an Access Applicant advising Council was minded to impose formal restrictions upon me in accordance with the Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Policy. This meant that despite my having advised Council I would be utilising a nominated email address for communications in the Access to Information process, Council decided to ignore that nomination and instead procrastinate my application by sending all communications via regular mail. In effect, Council was applying the Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Policy in the Access to Information process, which is not supported by any legislation whatsoever. An agency is bound by the GIPA Act 2009, there is no mechanism within that legislation to ‘introduce’ anything new, particularly a policy. Again, this is not legislated, it’s just a policy, which the Ombudsman has categorised as a ‘guide’. In response to Council’s notification, and having read the policy setting out the requirement to document incidents, I lodged a separate Access Application for an unedited copy of those incident reports; the incident reports supporting the invoking of the policy. I did so because I was concerned Council may have fabricated evidence against me as I was certain I had not acted in any way remotely qualifying as an ‘incident’. On 08th August 2018 Council provided its Notice of Decision in response to my Access Application for the intimated incident reports. Council had correctly determined “No Information Held,” available here. Notably Council imposed fees of $120.00 and produced nothing, albeit Council knew on receipt of the Access Application there were no Incident Reports in existence as there were no incidents to report. Port Stephens Council has been effectively exposed by its own documentation invoking the Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Policy, which encompassed procrastinating the legislated Access to Information process, without any reason to do so. Epilogue:No person perusing the information on this Site would be surprised with the confirmation Port Stephens Council acted on this occasion, without due cause. It’s just more of the same. Port Stephens Council has been repeatedly documented acting in contradiction to legislation, policy and procedure by the Site Administrator Telina Webb; and no doubt will continue to be documented doing so. This singular account of agency misuse and abuse of the Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct policy, as recommended by the NSW Ombudsman, is evidence of how easy it is to create and sustain a moral panic such that deprives the public of access to NSW government services, which is precisely what it’s designed to do. It's a controlling mechanism. And it's not legislated. From the perspective of the NSW Ombudsman and NSW government agencies, the policy is a resounding success.However from the public’s perspective it is a total failure and evidence of agencies collaborating to undermine the public’s fundamental rights. Has a NSW government agency invoked the Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Policy against you? Have you had your access to government services restricted on a false claim you are acting unreasonably in the bringing of legitimate complaints to a particular agency? You are invited to share your story; your community wants to hear from you. It’s only by sharing our stories that we can hope to reverse the direction of the panic; rightfully back towards agencies and public servants funded by taxpayers for the public’s benefit.
The result of the NSW Ombudsman’s report Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct sees a guideline distributed to each and every NSW government agency; a road map for dealing with claimed problematic members of the public.
Regrettably however, like so many of the government’s policies and / or guidelines, the Ombudsman’s recommendation has been abused. How so? As an example, the agency Port Stephens Council has embraced the policy, listed on its website here, and available here. Notably, the policy sees a process inclusive of recording incidents in the lead up to activating the policy, (see Point 1(f) for example). Port Stephens Council references to the term "incident" a total of (22) twenty two times within the policy, highlighting its direct relevance. In other words, before the controlling guillotine drops, such as formally restricting access to agency services, the agency must first record incidents of difficult complainant behaviours to support the action. Sounds very democratic in theory, but can such a policy be open to abuse? It certainly can and certainly has been abused! Example of Policy Misuse and Abuse:On 10th July 2018, during the access to information process, the Port Stephens Council trainee Governance Manager Holly Jamadar wrote to me in my capacity as an Access Applicant advising Council was minded to impose formal restrictions upon me in accordance with the Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Policy. This meant that despite my having advised Council I would be utilising a nominated email address for communications in the Access to Information process, Council decided to ignore that nomination and instead procrastinate my application by sending all communications via regular mail. In effect, Council was applying the Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Policy in the Access to Information process, which is not supported by any legislation whatsoever. An agency is bound by the GIPA Act 2009, there is no mechanism within that legislation to ‘introduce’ anything new, particularly a policy. Again, this is not legislated, it’s just a policy, which the Ombudsman has categorised as a ‘guide’. In response to Council’s notification, and having read the policy setting out the requirement to document incidents, I lodged a separate Access Application for an unedited copy of those incident reports; the incident reports supporting the invoking of the policy. I did so because I was concerned Council may have fabricated evidence against me as I was certain I had not acted in any way remotely qualifying as an ‘incident’. On 08th August 2018 Council provided its Notice of Decision in response to my Access Application for the intimated incident reports. Council had correctly determined “No Information Held,” available here. Notably Council imposed fees of $120.00 and produced nothing, albeit Council knew on receipt of the Access Application there were no Incident Reports in existence as there were no incidents to report. Port Stephens Council has been effectively exposed by its own documentation invoking the Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Policy, which encompassed procrastinating the legislated Access to Information process, without any reason to do so. Epilogue:No person perusing the information on this Site would be surprised with the confirmation Port Stephens Council acted on this occasion, without due cause. It’s just more of the same. Port Stephens Council has been repeatedly documented acting in contradiction to legislation, policy and procedure by the Site Administrator Telina Webb; and no doubt will continue to be documented doing so. This singular account of agency misuse and abuse of the Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct policy, as recommended by the NSW Ombudsman, is evidence of how easy it is to create and sustain a moral panic such that deprives the public of access to NSW government services, which is precisely what it’s designed to do. It's a controlling mechanism. And it's not legislated. From the perspective of the NSW Ombudsman and NSW government agencies, the policy is a resounding success.However from the public’s perspective it is a total failure and evidence of agencies collaborating to undermine the public’s fundamental rights. Has a NSW government agency invoked the Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Policy against you? Have you had your access to government services restricted on a false claim you are acting unreasonably in the bringing of legitimate complaints to a particular agency? You are invited to share your story; your community wants to hear from you. It’s only by sharing our stories that we can hope to reverse the direction of the panic; rightfully back towards agencies and public servants funded by taxpayers for the public’s benefit.