Evidence today of numerous government agencies colluding to act in troll-like manner to dig up as much dirt and documents possible to be used against law abiding citizens shows NSW government employees acting to undermine the legislation, take advantage of unrepresented parties, and blatantly using and abusing delegated powers and public monies to achieve planned out agenda.
Webb and McEwan, Respondents in this case, were approached by a delivery agent at their private residence for the purpose of delivering boxes of Statements, Submissions and Evidence relied upon to support a Multi-Agency Section 110 Application for a Restraint Order under the GIPA Act 2009.
This NSW government department under the umbrella of the Attorney-General is titled the Secretary, Dept of Communities & Justice (DCJ), but there’s clearly no thought whatsoever for the community it serves or the justice that same community expects.
It concerns DCJ collaborating / colluding with Port Stephens Council (PSC) and Goulburn-Mulwaree Council (GMC) for the purpose of securing a Section 110 Order under the GIPA Act 2009; such an order is designed to formally restrain a member of the public from exercising legal rights to access NSW government information.
The Section 110 Application was filed (9) nine days after the publication of a media release titled “Toxic State Government Behaviours Exposed! - Public’s Ongoing Investigation into NSW Right to Information and Privacy Officer Behaviours and Activities Reveals Cartel Posse Mentality, Denigrating Legislated Rights and Undermining Beneficial Legislation, 23.09.2024."
By now we are all informed the GIPA Act 2009 is the Parliament’s free gift of beneficial legislation to the NSW public.
The Parliament’s intention was to ensure the public had access to government information at the lowest cost, and promptly.
In the same section, Section 3, the Parliament told the public the object or purpose of the GIPA Act 2009 was to “maintain and advance a system of responsible and representative democratic Government that is open, accountable, fair and effective, the object of this Act is to open government information to the public.”
Apparently the public has a legally enforceable right to access NSW government information, set out in the same Section 3.
Really?!
But what the Parliament did not anticipate when drafting this legislation were agenda-driven public servants more intent on acting out their own will than serving the public as employed, tasked, and mandated to do.
A Section 110 Order under the GIPA Act 2009 effectively stifles access to NSW government information. It procrastinates the process, and costs those asking for information much more than the initial $30.00 statutory Access Application Fee.
It’s designed to dissuade those who choose to make government open, transparent and accountable.
And it’s used as a mechanism of punishment against those who seek access to NSW government records no doubt the result of a foul-smelling rat or thriving rodent nest.
Today, documents received by NSW Freedom of Information’s Telina Webb, her husband, and her husband’s company, confirm these three colluding agencies mean business against respondents who are not legally represented, not legally qualified, and not legally trained.
The Application was lodged with the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) on 04th October 2024.
Documentation served on the three Respondents today encompassed several boxes of files, mostly the result of trolling and stalking the Respondents to dig up as much dirt as possible to support the Section 110 Application; not model litigant conduct from any perspective.
Webb and McEwan, Respondents in this case, were approached by a delivery agent at their private residence for the purpose of delivering boxes of Statements, Submissions and Evidence relied upon to support a Multi-Agency Section 110 Application for a Restraint Order under the GIPA Act 2009.
This NSW government department under the umbrella of the Attorney-General is titled the Secretary, Dept of Communities & Justice (DCJ), but there’s clearly no thought whatsoever for the community it serves or the justice that same community expects.
It concerns DCJ collaborating / colluding with Port Stephens Council (PSC) and Goulburn-Mulwaree Council (GMC) for the purpose of securing a Section 110 Order under the GIPA Act 2009; such an order is designed to formally restrain a member of the public from exercising legal rights to access NSW government information.
The Section 110 Application was filed (9) nine days after the publication of a media release titled “Toxic State Government Behaviours Exposed! - Public’s Ongoing Investigation into NSW Right to Information and Privacy Officer Behaviours and Activities Reveals Cartel Posse Mentality, Denigrating Legislated Rights and Undermining Beneficial Legislation, 23.09.2024."
By now we are all informed the GIPA Act 2009 is the Parliament’s free gift of beneficial legislation to the NSW public.
The Parliament’s intention was to ensure the public had access to government information at the lowest cost, and promptly.
In the same section, Section 3, the Parliament told the public the object or purpose of the GIPA Act 2009 was to “maintain and advance a system of responsible and representative democratic Government that is open, accountable, fair and effective, the object of this Act is to open government information to the public.”
Apparently the public has a legally enforceable right to access NSW government information, set out in the same Section 3.
Really?!
But what the Parliament did not anticipate when drafting this legislation were agenda-driven public servants more intent on acting out their own will than serving the public as employed, tasked, and mandated to do.
A Section 110 Order under the GIPA Act 2009 effectively stifles access to NSW government information. It procrastinates the process, and costs those asking for information much more than the initial $30.00 statutory Access Application Fee.
It’s designed to dissuade those who choose to make government open, transparent and accountable.
And it’s used as a mechanism of punishment against those who seek access to NSW government records no doubt the result of a foul-smelling rat or thriving rodent nest.
Today, documents received by NSW Freedom of Information’s Telina Webb, her husband, and her husband’s company, confirm these three colluding agencies mean business against respondents who are not legally represented, not legally qualified, and not legally trained.
The Application was lodged with the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) on 04th October 2024.
Documentation served on the three Respondents today encompassed several boxes of files, mostly the result of trolling and stalking the Respondents to dig up as much dirt as possible to support the Section 110 Application; not model litigant conduct from any perspective.
DCJ searched ASIC, the NSW Electoral Commission, and the website www.nswfreedomofinformation.net to secure as much documentary evidence the Section 110 Order was necessary.
A Section 110 Order is based on a couple of key factors however; unmeritorious applications and individuals acting in concert. And claimed unmeritorious applications in the context of Section 110 refers to applications which are so frequent they require relief.
But what does this mean exactly?
Section 110 (1) states the premise of a Section 110 Application, enlivening the NCAT’s jurisdictional powers under the enabling GIPA Act 2009, consist of (2) two factors. Those factors are joined by the word “and”, so the whole of Section 110 (1) must be satisfied, in fact the section states the Tribunal is to be satisfied. Section 110 (1) states there must firstly be access applications which qualify as unmeritorious, which must number at least (3) three in the past (2) two years prior to the Section 110 Application,
A Section 110 Order is based on a couple of key factors however; unmeritorious applications and individuals acting in concert. And claimed unmeritorious applications in the context of Section 110 refers to applications which are so frequent they require relief.
But what does this mean exactly?
Section 110 (1) states the premise of a Section 110 Application, enlivening the NCAT’s jurisdictional powers under the enabling GIPA Act 2009, consist of (2) two factors. Those factors are joined by the word “and”, so the whole of Section 110 (1) must be satisfied, in fact the section states the Tribunal is to be satisfied. Section 110 (1) states there must firstly be access applications which qualify as unmeritorious, which must number at least (3) three in the past (2) two years prior to the Section 110 Application,
There is an obscure reference to the ability of agencies to collaborate as multiple and / or joined Applicants on the basis of those (3) three qualified unmeritorious access applications.
Unmeritorious access applications are qualified as being those where the agency determines the requested government information is not held by the agency or where processing the request for information would take up too much government time and resources.
Pretty simple.
But the catch is, as currently constructed the GIPA Act 2009 does not require proof the access applications are legitimately unmeritorious; no proof of searches, no printouts of search returns of digital records, no proof of estimates of agency time, no evidence of agency time and resources, nothing.
So let’s be clear; the GIPA Act 2009 does not require proof. But there is nothing preventing an agency, as a matter of open, transparency government overflowing with integrity, to provide such proof. I mean if you’re serious, let’s get serious!
Compounding this the NCAT has no rules of evidence, so when it comes to proceedings for Section 110 Applications agencies make no effort to provide any proof and the NCAT simply accepts that.
Yet an Access Applicant, the person facing and responding to a Section 110 Application, is expected to provide some kind of proof to show why the Section 110 should not be granted.
This current Section 110 Application relies upon the (3) collaborating agencies’ documenting their individual list of claimed unmeritorious access applications; DCJ – 4, PSC – 2, and GMC – 2.
These three agencies have collectively gone to extraordinary lengths to provide documents in support of their Application; but no proof the claimed unmeritorious access applications, the legislated prequalifier, are such.
In submissions provided to the Respondents today 17th December 2024, Affidavits and attachments comprised of (3) three boxes of documents; documents trawled from the internet, public websites, social media platforms, government business registers, and of course agency files.
Make no mistake, these particular agencies had been compiling dossiers for some time, ready to spring their Section 110 Application trap against those endeavouring to exercise their legally enforceable rights to access NSW government information.
The Affidavit of DCJ in-house solicitor Jonathan Ian Franklin would disclose the Section 110 Applicants had used a staggering total of (852) eight hundred and fifty-two hours of government time collating the documents, affidavits and submissions.
Reference to a separate document previously provided to one of the Respondents in September 2024 shows DCJ disclosing its hourly charge-out rate for all staff including solicitors and clerks to be $346. 94.
Between the date of filing and the issuing of the Applicants’ documentation, some (52) fifty-two business days, the cost for the compilation of documents, affidavits and submissions would reach a staggering initial $295,592.88!
The public is reminded this amount of public monies does not include reading and responding to the Respondents’ ensuing documentation. Nor does this amount include submissions in reply, or preparation for and representation at, the hearing set for 10th and 11th March 2025.
Nor does this amount include the travel, meals, and accommodation of the (3) three agency witnesses, all of whom are expected to travel to NCAT’s Sydney premises.
It is an extraordinary disclosure to the public when DCJ is repeatedly on the record claiming a lack of resources to deal with valid Access Applications, and where the Director / Business Unit Manager of the Open Government Information & Privacy Unit ex-NSW Police Superintendent Jodie Cobbin (yes that IS a mouthful) has given sworn testimony the current electronic records management system has no capacity to search on document content for the purposes of identifying and providing documents requested by the public.
Translated Ms Cobbin is actually saying “we can’t verify whether an access application is unmeritorious or not, because we don’t have the capability to do so.” Hmmmm, but isn’t DCJ, Ms Cobbin’s Department, an Applicant in these proceedings?
Those funds totalling $295,592.88 could have been easily redirected to improving current customer service processes and securing quality record keeping software.
This matter is evidence of the unchecked powers of government managers hell-bent on retaliation against the public for endeavouring to exercise legally enforceable rights, but most importantly against the public for investigating and reporting on agency misconduct, maladministration, and abuse of power and position of the most gross kind.
It’s all corruption and there’s no glossing that over.
The thrust of the Applicants’ arguments is founded on the letterhead used by Webb for her FREE community service NSW Freedom of Information. The letterhead refers to the service as DraftCom Pty Ltd t/as NSW Freedom of Information.
Well, it’s a free website and community service. It doesn’t raise funds. Webb is a full-time volunteer.
The Applicants rely on the Corporations Act, claiming McEwan is the mind and will of DraftCom Pty Ltd and as such he is the individual who directs NSW Freedom of Information.
Absurd!
One can only imagine the types of personal relationships these individuals are involved in, where strict archaic dictatorships control partner thoughts and actions. Might explain why they work so very hard to control the public; heaven forbid there are members of the community out there that actually think for themselves!
This case will continue to be reported as a matter of public interest and for the general information of the public. “The volume of documents collated by the Applicants is disgraceful; it’s clearly designed to intimidate and overwhelm my husband and I. As was the action to ascertain our residential address and have the documents delivered to our home, as opposed to the Post Office Box address we provided. The arrogance and pettiness of these kinds of actions is not surprising. These are people angry their conduct has been exposed. I wouldn’t be surprised to have NSW Police drop in for a visit, given Jodie Cobbin’s personal recommendation to the whole of the state in March 2019, as part of her access applicant management strategy. Disgraceful, shameful behaviours, which disclose a culture of abusing power and position; this is corruption 101, and from an ex-NSW Police Superintendent as the tip of the spear. This is the Stamford Prison Experiment on steroids, where individuals are actually geared up and provided with unchecked powers to use at will against those outside of the circle of trust,” stated Webb." The Affidavit of Jonathan Ian Franklin DCJ in-house solicitor dated 12th December 2024, paragraph 53 reads: 53 In addition to the Respondents' applications, I estimate that the OGIP Unit has spent approximately 852 hours to date (inclusive of all the officers involved) preparing for Applicants current application. The Submission of Micheal McIntosh DCJ in-house principal solicitor dated 04th September 2024, paragraph 39 reads: 39 The Respondent is entitled to charge out a solicitor a t the rate of $346.94 per hour with a daily maximum of $3,469.4 including GST pursuant to the Attorney General's rate for Legal Representation (as at 1 August 2022): see https://dcj.nsw.gov.au/legal-and-justice/strategies-and-plans/information-for-government-lawyers/attorney-generals-rates-legal-representation.html. The rates include all overheads, secretarial, legal and administrative assistance but not out of pocket disbursements. So it's indisputable the amount of public money utilised just to get to the submissions phase by these collaborators is, by they own estimations, a staggering $295,592.88................ Now that's respect for public money!! The full Affidavit of DCJ’s Jonathan Franklin is available here.
The full Affidavit of PSC’s Tony Wickham is available here.
The full Affidavit of GMC’s Maria Timothy is available here.
The combined submissions authored by DCJ’s Justin Cahill are available here.
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
Unmeritorious access applications are qualified as being those where the agency determines the requested government information is not held by the agency or where processing the request for information would take up too much government time and resources.
Pretty simple.
But the catch is, as currently constructed the GIPA Act 2009 does not require proof the access applications are legitimately unmeritorious; no proof of searches, no printouts of search returns of digital records, no proof of estimates of agency time, no evidence of agency time and resources, nothing.
So let’s be clear; the GIPA Act 2009 does not require proof. But there is nothing preventing an agency, as a matter of open, transparency government overflowing with integrity, to provide such proof. I mean if you’re serious, let’s get serious!
Compounding this the NCAT has no rules of evidence, so when it comes to proceedings for Section 110 Applications agencies make no effort to provide any proof and the NCAT simply accepts that.
Yet an Access Applicant, the person facing and responding to a Section 110 Application, is expected to provide some kind of proof to show why the Section 110 should not be granted.
This current Section 110 Application relies upon the (3) collaborating agencies’ documenting their individual list of claimed unmeritorious access applications; DCJ – 4, PSC – 2, and GMC – 2.
These three agencies have collectively gone to extraordinary lengths to provide documents in support of their Application; but no proof the claimed unmeritorious access applications, the legislated prequalifier, are such.
In submissions provided to the Respondents today 17th December 2024, Affidavits and attachments comprised of (3) three boxes of documents; documents trawled from the internet, public websites, social media platforms, government business registers, and of course agency files.
Make no mistake, these particular agencies had been compiling dossiers for some time, ready to spring their Section 110 Application trap against those endeavouring to exercise their legally enforceable rights to access NSW government information.
The Affidavit of DCJ in-house solicitor Jonathan Ian Franklin would disclose the Section 110 Applicants had used a staggering total of (852) eight hundred and fifty-two hours of government time collating the documents, affidavits and submissions.
Reference to a separate document previously provided to one of the Respondents in September 2024 shows DCJ disclosing its hourly charge-out rate for all staff including solicitors and clerks to be $346. 94.
Between the date of filing and the issuing of the Applicants’ documentation, some (52) fifty-two business days, the cost for the compilation of documents, affidavits and submissions would reach a staggering initial $295,592.88!
The public is reminded this amount of public monies does not include reading and responding to the Respondents’ ensuing documentation. Nor does this amount include submissions in reply, or preparation for and representation at, the hearing set for 10th and 11th March 2025.
Nor does this amount include the travel, meals, and accommodation of the (3) three agency witnesses, all of whom are expected to travel to NCAT’s Sydney premises.
It is an extraordinary disclosure to the public when DCJ is repeatedly on the record claiming a lack of resources to deal with valid Access Applications, and where the Director / Business Unit Manager of the Open Government Information & Privacy Unit ex-NSW Police Superintendent Jodie Cobbin (yes that IS a mouthful) has given sworn testimony the current electronic records management system has no capacity to search on document content for the purposes of identifying and providing documents requested by the public.
Translated Ms Cobbin is actually saying “we can’t verify whether an access application is unmeritorious or not, because we don’t have the capability to do so.” Hmmmm, but isn’t DCJ, Ms Cobbin’s Department, an Applicant in these proceedings?
Those funds totalling $295,592.88 could have been easily redirected to improving current customer service processes and securing quality record keeping software.
This matter is evidence of the unchecked powers of government managers hell-bent on retaliation against the public for endeavouring to exercise legally enforceable rights, but most importantly against the public for investigating and reporting on agency misconduct, maladministration, and abuse of power and position of the most gross kind.
It’s all corruption and there’s no glossing that over.
The thrust of the Applicants’ arguments is founded on the letterhead used by Webb for her FREE community service NSW Freedom of Information. The letterhead refers to the service as DraftCom Pty Ltd t/as NSW Freedom of Information.
Well, it’s a free website and community service. It doesn’t raise funds. Webb is a full-time volunteer.
The Applicants rely on the Corporations Act, claiming McEwan is the mind and will of DraftCom Pty Ltd and as such he is the individual who directs NSW Freedom of Information.
Absurd!
One can only imagine the types of personal relationships these individuals are involved in, where strict archaic dictatorships control partner thoughts and actions. Might explain why they work so very hard to control the public; heaven forbid there are members of the community out there that actually think for themselves!
This case will continue to be reported as a matter of public interest and for the general information of the public. “The volume of documents collated by the Applicants is disgraceful; it’s clearly designed to intimidate and overwhelm my husband and I. As was the action to ascertain our residential address and have the documents delivered to our home, as opposed to the Post Office Box address we provided. The arrogance and pettiness of these kinds of actions is not surprising. These are people angry their conduct has been exposed. I wouldn’t be surprised to have NSW Police drop in for a visit, given Jodie Cobbin’s personal recommendation to the whole of the state in March 2019, as part of her access applicant management strategy. Disgraceful, shameful behaviours, which disclose a culture of abusing power and position; this is corruption 101, and from an ex-NSW Police Superintendent as the tip of the spear. This is the Stamford Prison Experiment on steroids, where individuals are actually geared up and provided with unchecked powers to use at will against those outside of the circle of trust,” stated Webb." The Affidavit of Jonathan Ian Franklin DCJ in-house solicitor dated 12th December 2024, paragraph 53 reads: 53 In addition to the Respondents' applications, I estimate that the OGIP Unit has spent approximately 852 hours to date (inclusive of all the officers involved) preparing for Applicants current application. The Submission of Micheal McIntosh DCJ in-house principal solicitor dated 04th September 2024, paragraph 39 reads: 39 The Respondent is entitled to charge out a solicitor a t the rate of $346.94 per hour with a daily maximum of $3,469.4 including GST pursuant to the Attorney General's rate for Legal Representation (as at 1 August 2022): see https://dcj.nsw.gov.au/legal-and-justice/strategies-and-plans/information-for-government-lawyers/attorney-generals-rates-legal-representation.html. The rates include all overheads, secretarial, legal and administrative assistance but not out of pocket disbursements. So it's indisputable the amount of public money utilised just to get to the submissions phase by these collaborators is, by they own estimations, a staggering $295,592.88................ Now that's respect for public money!! The full Affidavit of DCJ’s Jonathan Franklin is available here.
The full Affidavit of PSC’s Tony Wickham is available here.
The full Affidavit of GMC’s Maria Timothy is available here.
The combined submissions authored by DCJ’s Justin Cahill are available here.
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.