Submissions in Reply from the colluding Applicants in this matter, Dept of Communities & Justice, Port Stephens Council, and Goulburn Mulwaree Council, arrived by email today. No evidence attached, no delivery by stalking couriers demanding to see proof of ID, nice and quiet.
These Applicants had delivered (3) three archive boxes to Webb and McEwan’s private residence, stalking to get the information to let them know “we know where you live!” Hope they’re smiling when their picture’s taken.
These Applicants, with all the documentation they tipped over the opposition, are now complaining the Respondents’ submissions are too big. Nothing about interacting with NSW government agencies shows any sign of equality or balance; nothing.
The thrust of these latest supplementary arguments is that Webb and McEwan have been deliberately lodging unmeritorious access applications; basically not having anything better to do than pay fees and charges to the government for no other reason other than to harass and intimidate public servants; applications based on random thoughts out of mid-air, not for any real purpose or with any real intention. Hmmm, yes and all that time it takes too……….
And they have made complaints. Yes, in accordance with policy, procedure and legislation.
And they have criticised a number of agencies and pointed the finger at several NCAT members. Yes that’s true. Are they not permitted to critique the handling of their matters or express any opinion about that? Looks like NO is the answer.
And of course these public servants are outraged their non-personal departmental contact information is shared publicly.
Really?! So pretentious and privileged.
But it’s okay to stalk members of the public, breach their privacy, wage a costs war when there is no basis in law to do so, threaten bankruptcy unless monies not based in law are paid, issuing false access application determinations, fabricating public interest considerations against disclosure, making unlawful agreements with close associates to conceal government information, and spending closer to $500,000.00 than was thought possible for one single NCAT matter.
Don’t ever make the mistake of thinking anything you submit to any NSW government agency will be filed and forgotten.
NOPE!
They save everything up waiting for that day you dare to ask a question or suspect foul play.
Webb and McEwan cannot compare to this kind of conduct.
It is the full intention of these Access Applicants that every single access application is successful. They want an outcome. They seek very specific documentation. They want the documents. They want answers. They interrogate agency actions. They follow the paper trail. Sometimes they follow the money trail. They act with certainty the requested information exists. They rely on policy and procedure, and a great deal of published information to do so. They don’t expect their carefully compiled access applications to be determined “information not held.”
They have no interest or plan to seek reviews or tromp off to NCAT for the sake of it, incurring more expenses, stress and time delays; Webb herself has seen one single Access Application through Port Stephens Council and NCAT processes soaking up a staggering (2) two years………..
But what these three Section 110 Applicants are saying today is that the unmeritorious access applications are deliberate and these people must be stopped, restrained, halted, and hopefully extinguished. At the very minimum, these access applicants need to be taught a lesson. Port Stephens Council has already been informed of McEwan's fragile health; maybe they could finally push him over the edge with this one?
What’s always interesting though is that whilst there’s a legislated obligation under the GIPA Act 2009 to help Access Applicants get their applications right or in some kind of agency-determined acceptable format for processing, there doesn’t seem to be anything specific concerning an Agency assisting the public towards avoiding an unmeritorious application.
And when they do determine one to be unmeritorious, it goes straight into the Potential Section 110 Application dossier file, ready to pounce at the first opportunity. They just wait and watch for the next one, and the next one, and hopefully the opportunity to collude with other agencies and stack the pile higher. Of course, the planets must align on the timeframe, but that is a mere logistic detail which can be easily orchestrated to fit.
These Applicants had delivered (3) three archive boxes to Webb and McEwan’s private residence, stalking to get the information to let them know “we know where you live!” Hope they’re smiling when their picture’s taken.
These Applicants, with all the documentation they tipped over the opposition, are now complaining the Respondents’ submissions are too big. Nothing about interacting with NSW government agencies shows any sign of equality or balance; nothing.
The thrust of these latest supplementary arguments is that Webb and McEwan have been deliberately lodging unmeritorious access applications; basically not having anything better to do than pay fees and charges to the government for no other reason other than to harass and intimidate public servants; applications based on random thoughts out of mid-air, not for any real purpose or with any real intention. Hmmm, yes and all that time it takes too……….
And they have made complaints. Yes, in accordance with policy, procedure and legislation.
And they have criticised a number of agencies and pointed the finger at several NCAT members. Yes that’s true. Are they not permitted to critique the handling of their matters or express any opinion about that? Looks like NO is the answer.
And of course these public servants are outraged their non-personal departmental contact information is shared publicly.
Really?! So pretentious and privileged.
But it’s okay to stalk members of the public, breach their privacy, wage a costs war when there is no basis in law to do so, threaten bankruptcy unless monies not based in law are paid, issuing false access application determinations, fabricating public interest considerations against disclosure, making unlawful agreements with close associates to conceal government information, and spending closer to $500,000.00 than was thought possible for one single NCAT matter.
Don’t ever make the mistake of thinking anything you submit to any NSW government agency will be filed and forgotten.
NOPE!
They save everything up waiting for that day you dare to ask a question or suspect foul play.
Webb and McEwan cannot compare to this kind of conduct.
It is the full intention of these Access Applicants that every single access application is successful. They want an outcome. They seek very specific documentation. They want the documents. They want answers. They interrogate agency actions. They follow the paper trail. Sometimes they follow the money trail. They act with certainty the requested information exists. They rely on policy and procedure, and a great deal of published information to do so. They don’t expect their carefully compiled access applications to be determined “information not held.”
They have no interest or plan to seek reviews or tromp off to NCAT for the sake of it, incurring more expenses, stress and time delays; Webb herself has seen one single Access Application through Port Stephens Council and NCAT processes soaking up a staggering (2) two years………..
But what these three Section 110 Applicants are saying today is that the unmeritorious access applications are deliberate and these people must be stopped, restrained, halted, and hopefully extinguished. At the very minimum, these access applicants need to be taught a lesson. Port Stephens Council has already been informed of McEwan's fragile health; maybe they could finally push him over the edge with this one?
What’s always interesting though is that whilst there’s a legislated obligation under the GIPA Act 2009 to help Access Applicants get their applications right or in some kind of agency-determined acceptable format for processing, there doesn’t seem to be anything specific concerning an Agency assisting the public towards avoiding an unmeritorious application.
And when they do determine one to be unmeritorious, it goes straight into the Potential Section 110 Application dossier file, ready to pounce at the first opportunity. They just wait and watch for the next one, and the next one, and hopefully the opportunity to collude with other agencies and stack the pile higher. Of course, the planets must align on the timeframe, but that is a mere logistic detail which can be easily orchestrated to fit.
Interesting too is the fact no agency sends a friendly reminder, something like:
"Dearest Valued Access Applicant and Major Stakeholder of NSW Government Information,
Regrettably we've noticed your unmeritorious access applications now total (2) in the last couple of years. This leaves you in a very precarious position as any other such applications may see you before the Tribunal for a Section 110 Restraining Order, particularly if we become aware of unmeritorious access applications with other agencies.
We advise we are members of the NIPPN covert government cartel and regularly share the public's information to ensure we remain informed and poised to act in these matters.
To avoid this unnecessary action, which we do realise is discretionary on our part, we kindly ask that you carefully consider the composition your future access applications within the next couple of years. Better yet, stop trying to exercise your legally enforceable rights (supposed) to access NSW government information."
Copyright RedPeg Marketing, Geico
Well, that's about the size of it now that it's all out in the open. And when the Section 110 Calvary Charge is being led by the Dept of Communities & Justice (is that a joke?), then anything's possible for the most resourced agency in the state.
Agencies now know, or at least are pretty confident, those Section 110 targets are self-represented; these guys don't stand a chance.
And they know they have ready access to an unlimited arsenal of resources to terminate these pests.
The Submissions in Reply today didn’t make mention of why those unmeritorious access applications were made, the basis for the requests. And they don't say how many hours they took to process, and no screen shot of claimed searches undertaken; no proof at all. Seems it's not required, just a claim of unmeritorious does the trick.
Those basis’, that is the Respondent's reasoning to make the access applications, support the intention of the Access Applicants’ seeking existing information. They were legitimate. BUT, the documents requested were damning to the organisations. These applications had to be determined ‘information not held’ because corruption had been exposed and these guys were hiding it!
The Applicants’ Submissions in Reply are here. The Respondents’ Submissions of January 2025 are here.
• Paragraphs 355 to 412 address the Claimed (4) Unmeritorious Access Applications of Applicant 1 Dept of Communities & Justice.
• Paragraphs 416 to 435 address the Claimed (2) Unmeritorious Access Application of Applicant 2 Port Stephens Council.
• Paragraphs 437 to 452 address the Claimed (2) Unmeritorious Access Applications of Applicant 3 Goulburn Mulwaree Council.
Contact:
Jodie Cobbin, Jodie.cobbin@dcj.nsw.gov.au
Justin Cahill, justin.cahill@dcj.nsw.gov.au
Michael McIntosh, Michael.mcintosh@dcj.nsw.gov.au
Jonathan Franklin, Jonathan.franklin@dcj.nsw.gov.au
Tony Wickham, tony.wickham@portstephens.nsw.gov.au
Lisa Marshall, lisa.marshall@portstephens.nsw.gov.au
Maria Timothy, maria.timothy@goulburn.nsw.gov.au
Agencies now know, or at least are pretty confident, those Section 110 targets are self-represented; these guys don't stand a chance.
And they know they have ready access to an unlimited arsenal of resources to terminate these pests.
The Submissions in Reply today didn’t make mention of why those unmeritorious access applications were made, the basis for the requests. And they don't say how many hours they took to process, and no screen shot of claimed searches undertaken; no proof at all. Seems it's not required, just a claim of unmeritorious does the trick.
Those basis’, that is the Respondent's reasoning to make the access applications, support the intention of the Access Applicants’ seeking existing information. They were legitimate. BUT, the documents requested were damning to the organisations. These applications had to be determined ‘information not held’ because corruption had been exposed and these guys were hiding it!
The Applicants’ Submissions in Reply are here. The Respondents’ Submissions of January 2025 are here.
• Paragraphs 355 to 412 address the Claimed (4) Unmeritorious Access Applications of Applicant 1 Dept of Communities & Justice.
• Paragraphs 416 to 435 address the Claimed (2) Unmeritorious Access Application of Applicant 2 Port Stephens Council.
• Paragraphs 437 to 452 address the Claimed (2) Unmeritorious Access Applications of Applicant 3 Goulburn Mulwaree Council.
Contact:
Jodie Cobbin, Jodie.cobbin@dcj.nsw.gov.au
Justin Cahill, justin.cahill@dcj.nsw.gov.au
Michael McIntosh, Michael.mcintosh@dcj.nsw.gov.au
Jonathan Franklin, Jonathan.franklin@dcj.nsw.gov.au
Tony Wickham, tony.wickham@portstephens.nsw.gov.au
Lisa Marshall, lisa.marshall@portstephens.nsw.gov.au
Maria Timothy, maria.timothy@goulburn.nsw.gov.au
Contact us using this form to comment on this article.