MINISTERIAL ENQUIRIES & PARLIAMENTARY SUBMISSIONS
Do you have a particular issue for the attention of a Minister or your Parliament? Fill out the form below so we can help.
During the course of requesting access to NSW government information, members of the public often find that policy, procedure, and indeed legislation, does not always align with experiences and outcomes of those requests.
For example, a member of the public may find the applicable legislation, in this case at first instance the GIPA Act 2009, has varying outcomes between government departments. That is to say, NSW government departments may be making contradictory decisions about government information of the same classification.
It may also be the case that decision makers, such as Agency Right to Information Officers, and Judicial Decision Makers within the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), do not apply the same measure of the legislation to the Agency they act for, as they do to the public who's request they are deciding over. A good example is when agencies freely share the public's personal information between them, but withhold the same personal information from a member of the public. When sharing the public's personal information between agencies it is often the case that consent from the individual concerned is not sought, with the opposite action occurring when it is a member of the public seeking the same information.
It is circumstances such as these, highlighted merely as possible examples, that sometimes requires the perspective, interpretation and clarification of the relevant Minister.
At present the relevant pieces of legislation that can be party to the consideration process of a request for information include, depending on the content of the document(s):
* The Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, (GIPA)
* The Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002, (HRIPA)
* The Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, (PPIP)
These legislation apply to the agency at first instance, and to the NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner (IPC) in the case of a review of agency decision.
These pieces of legislation are administered by The NSW Attorney General, and the NSW Minister for Customer Services.
If a member of the public decides they are not satisfied with the outcome of a request for information, either from the agency at first instance or from the IPC secondarily, they may choose to seek a further review with the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT).
In this case additional pieces of legislation come into play including:
* The NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (CAT Act)
* The Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (ADR Act).
Both the CAT Act 2013 and ADR Act 1997 also fall under the oversight of the NSW Attorney General.
This section of the site offers the public the opportunity to raise any concerns about these pieces of legislation, in particular to openly discuss experiences had whilst being enacted, and importantly whether their own understanding and perspectives were taken into consideration during the request for information processes and resultant administrative reviews, seeing them as an active and relevant participant to the process on the same level as an agency's legal representative (or legal team).
This is the first time the public will have access to a platform that gives them a voice.
All feedback is welcome, whether positive or negative.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26.06.2025
An amended version of the earlier GIPA Submission to Parliament of 10.10.2024 was reissued to the relevant Ministers, interested third parties and the media.
The document was also provided to the Law & Justice Standing Committee of the NSW Parliament and its Secretariat.
The document is available here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28.10.2024
Further to a formal request from this Site Administrator for a meeting with the NCAT's President Judge Lea Armstrong concerning the Request for Urgent Parliamentary into NCAT, a representative advised Ms Armstrong had refused to facilitate a meeting, citing it would be inappropriate.
The NCAT's letter is available here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.10.2024
Submission to NSW Attorney General Michael Daley and Minister Jihad Dib; both Ministers accountable for the administration of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, GIPA.
Ministers and other interested parties and various media provided full access to a submission requesting Urgent Parliamentary Inquiry into the maladministration, system abuse and failures of the GIPA Act.
The Submission included a request Parliament consider drafting new legislation to support the GIPA Act, namely:
* Regulation of GIPA Training - Government Employees
* Regulation of GIPA Training - Public Access
* Regulation of GIPA Officers
The document has been used against the Administrator of this Site by NSW government agencies apparently horrified members of the public would seek access to their Parliament and bring legislative issues to the Parliament's attention.
The document is available here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
08.08.2024As publicised on both this Site and on www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au, the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) has been granting Costs Wishes to NSW government agencies in the context of the GIPA & PPIP Acts over the past decade.
Costs Wishes are designed to punish the public for daring to exercise their legally enforceable rights under these Acts.
However, as those presiding NCAT members are fully aware, neither the GIPA or PPIP Acts as the enabling legislation, provides NCAT with the jurisidiction to do so.
Put simply, NCAT has no powers under these two pieces of the public's beneficial legislation to grant any Costs Wish. NCAT's published Costs Guideline, Point 5 concedes this.
NCAT knows this.
Agencies know this.
Solicitors representing agencies know this. To this point in time it's all been a game of bluff against mostly unrepresented NCAT Applicants.
As such, and after being subject to (4) four Costs Wish Applications, with NCAT granting (3) three of those, the Administrator of this Site Telina Webb and her husband Paul McEwan have lodged an Urgent Request for Parliamentary Inquiry into the maladministration, systemic abuse and failures of the NCAT & NCAT Act 2013.
The document will be published here on 30th August 2024 to afford the ministerial list of recipients time to consider the content and formulate a plan of action.
This is a far more professional approach than either NCAT or the Costs Wish Recipient Port Stephens Council have exhibited towards Webb and McEwan. The solicitors responsible and involved in these Costs Wish Applications are / were all employed by Lindsay Taylor Lawyers. The Council in-house solicitors with carriage of the Costs Wish Applications are: * Lisa Helene Marshall & Stephanie Eileen Posniak. Lindsay Taylor Lawyers allocated the following solicitors, in one case all at once, ensuring the resultant Costs Application Wish totalled as high as possible: * Megan Hawley is still currently employed by Lindsay Taylor Lawyers. * Nathan Sloan is still currently employed by Lindsay Taylor Lawyers. * Jennifer Chenhall is now employed by Woollahra Council. * James Nash is now employed by Maddocks Solicitors. * Lachlan Penninkilampi is now employed by Dept of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. The outcome of the report and any ministerial responses will be published upon receipt.
Costs Wishes are designed to punish the public for daring to exercise their legally enforceable rights under these Acts.
However, as those presiding NCAT members are fully aware, neither the GIPA or PPIP Acts as the enabling legislation, provides NCAT with the jurisidiction to do so.
Put simply, NCAT has no powers under these two pieces of the public's beneficial legislation to grant any Costs Wish. NCAT's published Costs Guideline, Point 5 concedes this.
NCAT knows this.
Agencies know this.
Solicitors representing agencies know this. To this point in time it's all been a game of bluff against mostly unrepresented NCAT Applicants.
As such, and after being subject to (4) four Costs Wish Applications, with NCAT granting (3) three of those, the Administrator of this Site Telina Webb and her husband Paul McEwan have lodged an Urgent Request for Parliamentary Inquiry into the maladministration, systemic abuse and failures of the NCAT & NCAT Act 2013.
The document will be published here on 30th August 2024 to afford the ministerial list of recipients time to consider the content and formulate a plan of action.
This is a far more professional approach than either NCAT or the Costs Wish Recipient Port Stephens Council have exhibited towards Webb and McEwan. The solicitors responsible and involved in these Costs Wish Applications are / were all employed by Lindsay Taylor Lawyers. The Council in-house solicitors with carriage of the Costs Wish Applications are: * Lisa Helene Marshall & Stephanie Eileen Posniak. Lindsay Taylor Lawyers allocated the following solicitors, in one case all at once, ensuring the resultant Costs Application Wish totalled as high as possible: * Megan Hawley is still currently employed by Lindsay Taylor Lawyers. * Nathan Sloan is still currently employed by Lindsay Taylor Lawyers. * Jennifer Chenhall is now employed by Woollahra Council. * James Nash is now employed by Maddocks Solicitors. * Lachlan Penninkilampi is now employed by Dept of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. The outcome of the report and any ministerial responses will be published upon receipt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03.03.2023
On 01st and 02nd March 2023 several Port Stephens Shire residents contacted Telina Webb asking for a submission to add to those already lodged with iPART, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. The submissions concerned Port Stephens Council's application to iPART for a Rate Rise increase >33%. Understandably residents were outraged, distressed, and anxious about the financial impact such a rise would have on each of them. Residents expressed the lack of information provided by Council at first instance, and rejected the format and wording of Council's online survey for the purpose. The Council is aware a great deal of its residents are already under financial pressure, with a sizeable portion of the community already struggling financially, currently unemployed and / or aged pensioners.
iPART has confirmed the submission filed by Telina Webb was provided to the Tribunal in its entirety, however iPART chose to heavily redact it before publishing on its website.
On 12th May 2023 iPART's Mr Peter Chung, Graduate Analyst, commented "A full, unredacted copy of all submissions is provided to the Tribunal. The Tribunal takes into account and carefully considers the contents of each and every submission. Redactions are applied for the purposes of publication only."
NSW Freedom of Information practices full transparency, and makes the submission available to interested parties.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.10.2021
Letter from NSW Freedom of Information to NSW Attorney General & NSW Minister for Customer Services
Requested clarification on Exempt Information clause of the GIPA Act 2009, and the breadth of judicial obligation to it.
Raised concerns member(s) of the NCAT may be acting outside of the legislation when conducting administrative reviews of decisions concerning requests for government information.
As at February 2023 no reply received from either Minister.
Use this form to contact us about your issues for a Minister or your Parliament.