Rate the IPC - * The NSW Information Commissioner & The NSW Privacy Commissioner - ** Two entities under the one umbrella
Following from an Agency Determination, some applicants turn to the Office of the NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner, IPC, for a review of decision. Questions or concerns may arise the result of such a review about how the IPC managed and responsed to this secondary process.
This section of the site offers the public the opportunity to raise any concerns, in particular to openly discuss individual IPC experiences in relation to the GIPA processes secondarily applied.
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. To Rate the NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner, please complete the form immediately below.
--------------------------------------------------
03.11.2021 Response received from NSW Privacy Commissioner (re letter of 25th October), concerning NSW government agencies sharing the public's personal information between them, without first obtaining consent to do so. In her letter the Privacy Commissioner stated that the Privacy & Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (PPIP Act) permits exemptions in the manner in which agencies treat the public's personal information, particularly when issues pertaining to law enforcement or related matters (whatever that means) are involved, or when non-compliance with the PPIP Act is lawfully authorised or required (whatever that means). The Commissioner's comments are extremely concerning in the context of the GIPA Act, which is what this Site is concerned with and focused on, and from where the enquiry on this subject has originated from. The Commissioner's comments indicate that she has interpreted the legislation to mean that exemptions on maintianing the privacy of members of the public are permitted in the context of law enforcement, that is that agencies are legally permitted to share the public's personal information if there is a question or issue related to unlawful activity. It is noted that an agency's exercise of the GIPA Act, that is when it is responding to requests for information, are not concerned with unlawful activity of any kind, and as such the Commissioner has failed to validate the sharing of the public's personal information under these circumstances. Further, it is noted that an agency's exercise of the GIPA Act, specifically in relation to Section 110 of the GIPA Act 2009, does not concern unlawful activity of any kind, however there are numerous cases that make clear NSW agencies view Section 110 of the GIPA Act 2009 as concerning unlawful activity, which is completley false and misleading. The result is numerous NSW agencies have unlawfully breached the Privacy & Personal Information Protection Act 1998 on numerous occasions by sharing the public's personal information on a false premise, in particular in the exercise of Section 110 of the GIPA Act 2009, and that false premise is that agencies have acted as though unlawful activity has occured. Ironically, it is those numerous NSW agencies that have disclosed, by their own unlawful action in the breaching of the Privacy & Personal Information Protection Act 1998, that has disclosed the truth of what has occured. And yet, we see that agencies are repeatedly on the record acting outside of the PPIP Act in the exercise of the GIPA Act, sharing the public's personal information between agencies without having first sought the public's consent, on the false premise that such actions are undertaken legitimately in relation to unlawful activity. Clearly the NSW Privacy Commissioner is not concerned about these continued and repeated breaches by her agencies, breaches occurring out in the open under a false pretense, which is extremely concerning and completely unacceptable to the public she serves. It is my personal opion that the NSW Privacy Commissioner has completley failed the general public in her administration and facilitation of the Privacy & Personal Information Protection Act 1998.
--------------------------------------------------
01.11.2021 Email from NSW Freedom of Information to NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner Concerning IPC Charter for Public Participating - to assist agencies and promote citizen engagement, June 2018: Requested Commissioner advise: 1. The date this document was provided to NSW agencies2. The mechanism by which the document was delivered, ie, mail, email3. Whether the Charter required any feedback to the IPC on the part of agencies4. Whether the Charter required any implementation confirmation be provided to the IPC on the part of agencies5. Where a copy of any report subsequent to agency receipt and implentation of the Charter can be located
--------------------------------------------------
28.10.2021 Webb, T to NSW Privacy Commissioner & NSW Information Commissioner A formal report and complaint has been lodged with both Commissioners concerning the deliberate breach of personal privacy and public vilification of members of the public by Port Stephens Council's Senior Right to Information Officer, as part of a GIPA & NCAT Training Session made to (unknown number of) NSW Local Government Professionals members in July 2018.
--------------------------------------------------
25.10.2021 Letter from NSW Freedom of Information to NSW Privacy Commissioner Petitioned Privacy Commissioner regarding agencies sharing public's personal information without public's prior knowledge or consent.
--------------------------------------------------
22.10.2021 Response received from IPC (letter of 07.10.2021) - Re Request for Reasons Why IPC Chooses Not to Appear in Some Section 110 Application for Restraining Order Matters A representative of the Commissioner stated that the Commissioner does not appear in any matter unless considered to "comprise of complex, novel or significant issues of law, where the Tribunal (NCAT) would benefit from submissions by the Commissioner. Additionally, other factors such as the issues raised in parties submissions may further inform consideration of the exercise of discretion by the Commissioner." This response does absolutely noting to explain why the allocation of an Ad Litem in one Section 110 case, and the fact a separate Section 110 case had been successfully appealed and scheduled for remittal, were not matters that could be classified as "complex, novel or significant issues of law." It may be the case that an un-represented respondent to an Application for a Section 110 Order just does not write submissions of the required compelling content to woo the Commissioner's participation. In such an instance any reasonable person would agree the Commissioner should appear and make submissions in each and every Section 110 Application before the NCAT. This section of the GIPA Act 2009, above all, demands the Commissioner's participation. Like other victims of a Section 110 Order I can confidently state my matters were most definitely complex, novel and involving significant issues of law. Particularly as I was facing an Applicant that had filed a Sworn Affidavit containing numerous false statements. I would say such a situation qualifies as "comples, novel or concerning significant issues of law". I personally feel completley let down by the Commissioner. In particular, I have been provided documentation from both the NCAT and IPC, showing that NCAT procedures to notify the IPC as part of the administrative process have repeatedly and completely failed, and where the IPC actually notified the NCAT to "not include the IPC in further documentation / correspondence" as it had chosen to completely remove itself from established administrative review processes, but which of course it did not advise the respondent victim. This kind of action, which is mostly kept concealed behind agency doors, reassures the public their continued disappointment in agency attitudes, inclusive of the IPC which is in place to set a standard of example, is completely valid.
--------------------------------------------------
18.10.2021 Letter from NSW Freedom of Information to IPC Requested the Commissioner compose educational material in the form of a Fact Sheet or Guideline informing agencies of their obligations to release documents the subject of a Formal GIPA Request, at first instance of payment being made by the Applicant. Changing the legislation would be better as it is not mandatory for agencies to comply with or adopt Fact Sheets and Guidelines, as I have been reminded on several occasions. At present there are numerous examples of agencies causing undue delays and frustrating the GIPA processes, leaving Applicants waiting unnecessarily for their documents, but having taken full payment from them. A suggestion was put to the Commissioner that agencies who do not provide paid-for documents at first instance should forfeit the payment due to breach of the freedom of information contract that exists between the parties.
--------------------------------------------------
10.10.2021 Webb, T - IPC I have found the IPC staff generally very efficient and helpful, in the context of dealing with requests for review of agency decisions on GIPA Applications. Secondary decisions are accurately documented and the processes are time-driven showing efficiency. The waiving of request for review fees at the Commissioner's discretion is also acknowledged and appreciated. However, it is clear to me, based on my personal and direct knowledge of the agency Port Stephens Council in the freedom of information arena, that staff of the IPC lack the initiative and skills to accurately identify when this agency has been untruthful and not forthcoming with information relevant to a request for information. I am also concerned IPC staff do not have the necessary support mechanisms in place in order to inititate action and / or investigations when obviously necessary. I am yet to hear of a single occasion where the Commissioner has exercised her rights under the GIIC Act 2009 to enter agency premises and take physical action. Specifically, the IPC has been misled by Port Stephens Council on several occasions, most particularly when it became aware Council had provided a false and misleading letter to one of its Investigating Officers (I used the term loosely), written in response to a complaint concerning a request for information. The false and misleading letter was not discovered for a number of years by my husband and I, the victims, because of the Exempt Clause of the GIPA Act 2009, which left the IPC legally obligated to prevent its release. This evidence an agency is able to take advantage of the Exempt Clause of the Act to protect and conceal a false document for the purposes of influencing an Investigating Officer of the IPC and deliberately cause damage to innocent and unknowing members of the public has not recieved any solid response from the IPC, a response that includes accountability of the Council officer concerned. Based on my personal experience, until the IPC is given the necessary powers, or stands up and exercises powers she currently has, to take action with NSW agencies acting unconscionably in their exercise of the GIPA Act 2009, the public can only expect more of the same. And with this particular agency, that has proven to be the case, that is my husband and I have received more of the same.
--------------------------------------------------
07.10.2021 Letter from NSW Freedom of Information to IPC Requested the Commissioner disclose why Section 104(1) of the GIPA Act 2009 was exercised by her office with a select number of Section 110 Applications for Restraining Order by NSW Government Agencies, but was not exercised for all. At present there have been eight Section 110 Application matters heard in the NCAT in total since the inception of the Act in 2009, with the Commissioner making an appearance and filing submissions in only three of those. This left five matters absent of the Commissioner, four of which pertained to Telina Webb and Port Stephens Council. The Commissioner is expected to disclose the criteria for choosing and / or not choosing to make an appearance or file submissions in any given matter, but specifically for Section 110 Applications.
DraftCom Pty Ltd t/as NSW Freedom of Information ABN: 87 076 511 941 PO Box 8030 Marks Point NSW 2280 P: 1300 679 364 or 1300 NSW FOI F: (02) 8246 3484 Hrs: Monday to Friday - 9.30am to 4.30pm
Copyright (c) 2021. All rights reserved. Created in Sitebeat.
Acknowledgement of First Nations Australia We acknowledge the Awabakal people as the Traditional Custodians of this area. We recognise their continuing connection and protection of the land, the waterways, and ecosystems since time immemorial. We extend our respect to all First Nations people and we respect the Elders past and present.
DISCLAIMER: The Information on this Site does not constitute legal advice, and is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. The information on this Site is general in nature, comprises publically available information, as well as the personal experiences and opinions of members of the community. NSW Freedom of Information asks every member of the community to respect the content of this Site, some of which has been provided by trusting third parties, and asks that permission is sought first before using the information herein, sharing the information herein, or copying or republishing the information herein.