Rate Your Agency
A great deal of access applicants walk away from their GIPA experience with numerous questions about how the Agency managed and processed their requests for information.
This section of the site offers the public the opportunity to raise any concerns, in particular to openly discuss individual Agency experiences in relation to the GIPA processes applied, as well as the outcome or Determination of the request.
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 Your Agency, please complete the form immediately below.
Name Withheld for Privacy Reasons, 11.02.2025
"Dear Telina,As you have been fully aware we are laypersons, we have no legal experience whatsoever and no access to solicitors; we found the GIPA Act and the Court’s processes complicated, confusing and time consuming, with the decisions they made overly technical and full of unnecessary legal jargon.
We wanted to walk away and give up so many times. Well today we finally did. We still don’t understand why they wouldn’t work with us; they’re so out of touch with regular people. As you know we still don’t have any answers, we're still a very long way from the truth.
This was about the pain of losing of our beautiful son under suspicious circumstances, and also about his legacy; OUR son, nobody else's. This was about OUR family! We weren’t invading anyone’s privacy! This fiasco and atrocious example of our government services gone mad has left us angry and caused us more trauma and suffering if that were possible. If it wasn’t for your assistance and support along the way we would have been totally alone.
We had nowhere else to go, as far as we can tell this is the only service helping the public understand how freedom of information works in NSW. We couldn’t believe all your time and assistance was totally free! So a huge thank you Telina from our whole family and for all the work you do ,” wrote a representative of the family. (Excerpt)
We wanted to walk away and give up so many times. Well today we finally did. We still don’t understand why they wouldn’t work with us; they’re so out of touch with regular people. As you know we still don’t have any answers, we're still a very long way from the truth.
This was about the pain of losing of our beautiful son under suspicious circumstances, and also about his legacy; OUR son, nobody else's. This was about OUR family! We weren’t invading anyone’s privacy! This fiasco and atrocious example of our government services gone mad has left us angry and caused us more trauma and suffering if that were possible. If it wasn’t for your assistance and support along the way we would have been totally alone.
We had nowhere else to go, as far as we can tell this is the only service helping the public understand how freedom of information works in NSW. We couldn’t believe all your time and assistance was totally free! So a huge thank you Telina from our whole family and for all the work you do ,” wrote a representative of the family. (Excerpt)
--------------------------------------------------
Upcoming NCAT Hearing - Monday 31st October 2022
Webb v Port Stephens Council - NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal
Webb applied for access to Council's GIPA Training information including registers of attendance, training service provider information, and copies of training manuals / information.
Council determined documentation relating to the Office of the NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner were 'view only', claiming copyright.
Council also determined to provide heavily redacted training attendance registers.
Council also withheld GIPA Training Manuals and Workbooks originating from the NSW Crown Solicitor, claiming the release of such documents would breach Section 14(a), (c), and (d) of the GIPA Act 2009.
The Crown Solicitor and Council have since provided Submissions and one Affidavit from the Crown Solicitor Kirri Mattes.
Among Ms Mattes concerns are the possibility Ms Webb will share the GIPA Training Manuals and Workbooks with the public via this website.
Ms Mattes also claims that releasing the documents, which are only made available exclusively to NSW Agency Personnel, would dimish the commercial value of the the Crown Solicitor's Training.
The Crown Solicitors Submissions will be available here shortly.
Ms Kirri Mattes' Affidavit will be available here shortly.
Port Stephens Council's Submissions will be available here shortly.
Port Stephens council's Notice of Decision for the original request for information will be available here shortly.
The outcome of the proceedings will be made available shortly.
For more information please contact Telina Webb at info@nswfreedomofinformation.net.
----------------------------------------------------
26.10.2021
Webb, T - Port Stephens Council
Attended Council premises today to view redacted images from a Council presentation made to the NSW Local Government Professionals group. The presentation was released under freedom of information request.
The initially redacted document showed the Council’s Corporate Policeman had disclosed the personal details of my husband and I, and the details of several of our freedom of information files, making the information available to the attending audience for Council’s presentation “GIPA in the NSW Civil & Administration Tribunal” held at Council premises in July 2018. (For the benefit of Council's Corporate Policeman, it's not the NSW Civil & Administration Tribunal)
There were no other individuals listed on the presentation, just my husband and I.
Of most concern were the images on Page 2 depicting Council’s view that obtaining information was likened to getting blood out of a stone under a heading stating “US”, as well as a cartoon of a couple in a government office asking for information under a heading stating “THEM”. (Council has confirmed it obtained the images via the internet and decided to share them).
The initially redacted document showed the Council’s Corporate Policeman had disclosed the personal details of my husband and I, and the details of several of our freedom of information files, making the information available to the attending audience for Council’s presentation “GIPA in the NSW Civil & Administration Tribunal” held at Council premises in July 2018. (For the benefit of Council's Corporate Policeman, it's not the NSW Civil & Administration Tribunal)
There were no other individuals listed on the presentation, just my husband and I.
Of most concern were the images on Page 2 depicting Council’s view that obtaining information was likened to getting blood out of a stone under a heading stating “US”, as well as a cartoon of a couple in a government office asking for information under a heading stating “THEM”. (Council has confirmed it obtained the images via the internet and decided to share them).
I agree with Council’s Corporate Policeman, seeking government information from this agency is most definitely like getting blood out of a stone, however it is the presentation which makes clear that it is an acceptable attitude to embrace.
I have interpreted the secondary image as deliberately denigrating, designed to publicly humiliate my husband and I before a sizeable crowd, and trivialise the exercising of our rights to access NSW government information. I would even go so far as to say this individual willingly and knowingly vilified us, assuming we would never find out. But I would aslo agree with the chosen image, that agency staff do treat the freedom of information process as a huge joke, with that joke being on the ever-so-trusting (at least in the beginning) public.
The presentation concluded with an image of the three wise monkeys, in other words, agencies should plead ignorance in relation to any requests for information they hold.
I have interpreted the secondary image as deliberately denigrating, designed to publicly humiliate my husband and I before a sizeable crowd, and trivialise the exercising of our rights to access NSW government information. I would even go so far as to say this individual willingly and knowingly vilified us, assuming we would never find out. But I would aslo agree with the chosen image, that agency staff do treat the freedom of information process as a huge joke, with that joke being on the ever-so-trusting (at least in the beginning) public.
The presentation concluded with an image of the three wise monkeys, in other words, agencies should plead ignorance in relation to any requests for information they hold.
.jpg)
Importantly, this kind of personal information held by a government agency, disseminated to a group of individuals who are able to remain anonymous, provides some understanding as to how agencies are able to collude and lodge joint applications under Section 110 of the GIPA Act 2009, where agencies share private information, without the public's knowledge or consent, and compile damaging dossiers against the very same public so they can be easily targeted and ambushed to suit agency purposes.
How is the public to know these things occur unless it has access to government information? Why should such occurrences ordinarily enjoy protection?
Nothing about these most recently discovered actions align in any way whatsoever with the Port Stephens Council Code of Conduct (under "C"). The subject document presented to the NSW Local Government Professionals is a shameful example of the mistreatment and disrespect agencies exert on the public they are in place to serve, and does anything but represent the Code of Conduct Part 3 - General Conduct Obligations or Council's published Values, particularly respect and integrity.
How is the public to know these things occur unless it has access to government information? Why should such occurrences ordinarily enjoy protection?
Nothing about these most recently discovered actions align in any way whatsoever with the Port Stephens Council Code of Conduct (under "C"). The subject document presented to the NSW Local Government Professionals is a shameful example of the mistreatment and disrespect agencies exert on the public they are in place to serve, and does anything but represent the Code of Conduct Part 3 - General Conduct Obligations or Council's published Values, particularly respect and integrity.
.jpg)
Reporting these actions to Port Stephens Council would be pointless as the perpetrator is also the Code of Conduct Coordinator. I have already witnessed how valid Code of Conduct Reports are promptly dealt with and vanish into thin air.
Placed at the top of the Council Executive Tree, this agency Corporate Policeman is confirmed to have no guardian, there is no person watching over his actions, and no person checking on his activities.
Explains a great deal about his GIPA educational methodology. But what I am reminded of, every time I request information from Port Stephens Council, is the email trail between its Corporate Policeman and a member of the public concerning the exercise of freedom of information requests, where he makes clear "Staff have been instructed nothing's to get past me." In my opinion the organisation NSW Local Government Professionals should expel this person. I am unable to see how he can legitimately claim to represent what constitutes good governance. I cannot possibly rate this agency low enough.
Placed at the top of the Council Executive Tree, this agency Corporate Policeman is confirmed to have no guardian, there is no person watching over his actions, and no person checking on his activities.
Explains a great deal about his GIPA educational methodology. But what I am reminded of, every time I request information from Port Stephens Council, is the email trail between its Corporate Policeman and a member of the public concerning the exercise of freedom of information requests, where he makes clear "Staff have been instructed nothing's to get past me." In my opinion the organisation NSW Local Government Professionals should expel this person. I am unable to see how he can legitimately claim to represent what constitutes good governance. I cannot possibly rate this agency low enough.
.jpg)
------------------------------------------------
24.10.2021
Authorised by Zonnevylle, P - Numerous NSW Agencies* Crown Solicitor's Office* Independent Commission Against Corruption, ICAC* NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal, NCAT* NSW Minister for Education* NSW Dept of Communities & Justice, DoJ* NSW Dept of Education & Communities, DEC* NSW Dept of Finance, DoF* NSW Ombudsman, Ombo* NSW Police Service
Australia's Global Transparency ranking (11th - 77 / 100?) is beyond belief in my opinion (just how bad are those other countries??)
I have been endeavouring to exercise my rights to access NSW government information for a very long time, a quick search on NSW Caselaw will attest to that.
I am the victim of an injurious falsehood perpetrated by former and current senior officers of DEC and as such I have sought evidence through freedom of information requests to call out this misconduct.
During that time I've experienced every possible deplorable action a government representative could possibly undertake in the context of accessing NSW government information, including blatant disregard of my legal rights, false accusations (including defamation), false reports to police, decision makers and agency officers who have conflicts of interest refusing accessing to government documents, and blatant obstruction and procrastination of the legislated freedom of information processes.
The public monies spent and resources used by those agencies defies the “unreasonable and substantial diversion of agency resources (GIPA Act 2009 Section 60 (1)(a)) claim that is commonly used to obstruct access to government documents.
As for the oversight agencies entrusted with the protection of our legal rights, there is little or no difference between the conduct of NCAT, ICAC, OMBO or the IPC and those agencies complained against.
Criticism of their performance jeopardizes the integrity of their cooperation (recalcitrant seems to sum it up).
At the end of the day,these are just other “government agencies” often staffed by officers from those very agencies complained against.
These agencies clearly see themselves as above the law.
ICAC seems to be a “populist” decision maker, if misconduct appears in the media, they are “on it”(4 corners, investigative journalists and whistleblowers need much better protections).
NCAT, ICAC, OMBO and the IPC effectively institutionalise and normalise misconduct perpetrated by agencies related to freedom of information requests by their calculated inaction.
Neither NCAT, OMBO or the IPC will state what standards of conduct are used to review conduct complaints against agency officers involved in freedom of information requests.
The Information Commissioner refuses to clarify and confirm the public's freedom of information rights despite more than my 30 requests on this issue alone.
Refering to Page 65 of the IPC Annual Report ironically titled "Operational Excellence", satisfaction with the outcomes of complaints made to the IPC are abysmal (58% & 46% approval for 2020 / 2019 respectively. I personally suspect the real numbers to be much lower as there is no independent assessment of these figures).
I would find it difficult to list everything, especially my criticism of NCAT, ICAC, OMBO and IPC. (I am currently appealing against an alleged dishonest senior tribunal member of the NCAT).
But what is evident is an established system for accessing NSW government information that is completely broken, is totally stacked against the public and lacks any effective accountability or transparency. Those agencies supposedly set up for the reporting of misconduct and abuse / misuse of delegated power and public resources, are either absolutely incompetent or ineffectual or dishonest (I suspect the latter).
It is a system designed to make a great deal of money for solicitors and protect agency officers.
It is a system designed to break and destroy the good reputations of legitimate applicants requesting access to NSW government information.
I always had my suspicions about agencies breaching the public's privacy, but I have since had those suspicions confirmed as reality through my Section 110 matter.
I currently have a lifetime Section 110 restraining order imposed on me which significantly affects my freedom of information rights.
I sought to appeal this order on grounds of misconduct by the presiding tribunal member and errors of law but the insidious NCAT tactic of denying me reasonable time for submissions (as a self-represented non-legal professional with very limited time and resources ) resulted in my reluctant withdrawal of the due process and right of appeal.
I also have a lifetime “repeat writer” injurious falsehood label against me courtesy of current and former senior DEC officers despite the blatant conflicts of interest by the instigators of these injustices.
When I compare the story of "rehabilitaiton and absolution" of Justice Department Secretary Michael Coutts-Trotter, a convicted heroin smuggler, now sitting at the height of our justice system, against my life-time sentence and false labeling for asking for government information?!?! No person can rationalise that for any victim of a Section 110 Order.
There appears to be no avenue of appeal or justice unless OMBO and ICAC do their legislative jobs. Both refuse to act on any of my legitimate and repeatedly substantiated complaints.
I have lodged personal freedom of information requests with both ICAC and OMBO as I fear that enduring grudges (resulting from previous criticism of their inaction and conduct) by both agencies disregards substantiating evidence for my legitimate complaints.
ICAC and OMBO refuse to release that personal information breaching my legal rights.
I have also experienced government Right to Information Officers using pseudonyms to sign off on formal agency documentation and make false statements to the tribunal (CAT Act Section 71). If I were to do the same I could expect criminal charges, but there seems to be one set of rules for those with the documents and another completely different set for those requesting those documents. There needs to be change and there most certainly needs to be accountability.
Regarding a rating for any one of these agencies, the numbers just don't go low enough.
------------------------------------------------
22.10.2021
Lonsdale, T - NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal, NCAT
Noting other contributors' responses, no-one seems happy with the GIPA/NCAT experience. It seems there's a wide gulf between expectations and reality. Maybe now's the time to canvass for folks to come forward with their positive experiences -- if any -- and thus determine if anything useful can be salvaged.
Public interest disclosures
Over the years done plenty FOI applications in Australia and UK with knowledge of similar in the USA..
Mostly, in truth, FOI/GIPA actions ineffectual in making anyone sit up and take notice, even though some of the information disclosed is scandalous/shocking.
Unless it's FOI research carried out by media intent on using the info, then the info doesn't get aired. It's a pressure release safety valve (for the Govt.) that exhausts the time, energy and resources of the applicant.
The FOI/GIPA system stacked heavily in favour of the Govt agency. Then if pursue it to NCAT further stacking against the applicant.
When speaking with lawyers, they don't have a high regard for NCAT. Basically low level adjudicators making things up as they go along.
Private interest disclosures
These days as I understand it, if you want neutral, non-controversial info on your local council files or state govt you need to file a GIPA action. Straight away you're bundled in with those seeking incriminatory evidence and straightaway the agency is on the defensive.
The system becomes cumbersome, time consuming and expensive. To my mind, the system fails to serve either routine request for information, or for more forensic discovery.
Lots and lots needs to be done to better understand the scope and limitations before attempting to dismantle the system and replace it with better.
Just my thoughts from past experiences.
Public interest disclosures
Over the years done plenty FOI applications in Australia and UK with knowledge of similar in the USA..
Mostly, in truth, FOI/GIPA actions ineffectual in making anyone sit up and take notice, even though some of the information disclosed is scandalous/shocking.
Unless it's FOI research carried out by media intent on using the info, then the info doesn't get aired. It's a pressure release safety valve (for the Govt.) that exhausts the time, energy and resources of the applicant.
The FOI/GIPA system stacked heavily in favour of the Govt agency. Then if pursue it to NCAT further stacking against the applicant.
When speaking with lawyers, they don't have a high regard for NCAT. Basically low level adjudicators making things up as they go along.
Private interest disclosures
These days as I understand it, if you want neutral, non-controversial info on your local council files or state govt you need to file a GIPA action. Straight away you're bundled in with those seeking incriminatory evidence and straightaway the agency is on the defensive.
The system becomes cumbersome, time consuming and expensive. To my mind, the system fails to serve either routine request for information, or for more forensic discovery.
Lots and lots needs to be done to better understand the scope and limitations before attempting to dismantle the system and replace it with better.
Just my thoughts from past experiences.
-------------------------------------------------
21.10.2021Webb, T - Queanbeyan - Palerang Regional Council
I’m not sure quite how to categorise or describe the manner in which this agency responded to my recent valid request for information, other than appalling.
I’d requested the disclosure of the costs Council paid for a Section 110 Application under the GIPA Act 2009 against one of its residents Mr Alan Powell. I also requested the approvals for the expenditure.
For reasons unknown to me, my request was passed on to the agency’s in-house solicitor. Initially I viewed this to be positive but what transpired thereafter are clear examples of what not to do when processing a request for government information, and even better examples of how agency staff are legislatively ignorant and completely ill-equipped to perform the most fundamental of agency statutory functions.
The in-house solicitor commenced by unlawfully demanding I provide the following:* Certified copies of my documents of ID* Certified copies of Mr Powell’s documents of ID* Signed authority to act on behalf of Mr Powell
At no time had I stated I was acting for Mr Powell.
The in-house solicitor also demanded that if I did not provide such documents within 14 days my application would be refused. Within days however, the in-house solicitor then informed me that I was required to reduce the scope of my request or it would be refused.
Shortly after making clear he was acting outside of the legislation, my application was transferred to another member of staff, who promptly informed me my request for information had been refused.
I wanted to post this account of what occurred with Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council because I am extremely concerned this agency has acted outside of the legislation, which any reasonable person would agree to be unlawful, and I view this kind of conduct as deliberately obstructing access to NSW government information. I believe the GIPA Act 2009 Sections 116, 117, & 118 have been breached by this agency, constituting a number of offences.
Completely appalled by the conduct of several staff but most particularly the agency’s in-house solicitor, an individual I rightfully expected to be fluent in the exercise of the GIPA Act 2009 but evidently was anything but.
I can only conclude the agency does not want the public to know what the Section 110 Order cost and whether or not the expenditure was formally approved.
I ask any other person who has had issues accessing this agency’s information to speak out and share their story. I also ask the public to seriously consider the wording of Section 116, Section 117, & Section 118 and ascertain whether these clauses have been similarly breached in the midst of other agency processes. I have requested a review of Council's "decision" be undertaken by the NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner. The IPC also has a Fact Sheet on Offences Under the GIPA Act.
I’m not sure quite how to categorise or describe the manner in which this agency responded to my recent valid request for information, other than appalling.
I’d requested the disclosure of the costs Council paid for a Section 110 Application under the GIPA Act 2009 against one of its residents Mr Alan Powell. I also requested the approvals for the expenditure.
For reasons unknown to me, my request was passed on to the agency’s in-house solicitor. Initially I viewed this to be positive but what transpired thereafter are clear examples of what not to do when processing a request for government information, and even better examples of how agency staff are legislatively ignorant and completely ill-equipped to perform the most fundamental of agency statutory functions.
The in-house solicitor commenced by unlawfully demanding I provide the following:* Certified copies of my documents of ID* Certified copies of Mr Powell’s documents of ID* Signed authority to act on behalf of Mr Powell
At no time had I stated I was acting for Mr Powell.
The in-house solicitor also demanded that if I did not provide such documents within 14 days my application would be refused. Within days however, the in-house solicitor then informed me that I was required to reduce the scope of my request or it would be refused.
Shortly after making clear he was acting outside of the legislation, my application was transferred to another member of staff, who promptly informed me my request for information had been refused.
I wanted to post this account of what occurred with Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council because I am extremely concerned this agency has acted outside of the legislation, which any reasonable person would agree to be unlawful, and I view this kind of conduct as deliberately obstructing access to NSW government information. I believe the GIPA Act 2009 Sections 116, 117, & 118 have been breached by this agency, constituting a number of offences.
Completely appalled by the conduct of several staff but most particularly the agency’s in-house solicitor, an individual I rightfully expected to be fluent in the exercise of the GIPA Act 2009 but evidently was anything but.
I can only conclude the agency does not want the public to know what the Section 110 Order cost and whether or not the expenditure was formally approved.
I ask any other person who has had issues accessing this agency’s information to speak out and share their story. I also ask the public to seriously consider the wording of Section 116, Section 117, & Section 118 and ascertain whether these clauses have been similarly breached in the midst of other agency processes. I have requested a review of Council's "decision" be undertaken by the NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner. The IPC also has a Fact Sheet on Offences Under the GIPA Act.
------------------------------------------------
20.10.2021
Authorised by Walker, P
* NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal, NCAT
* NSW Transport
* NSW Health
* NSW Environmental Protection Authority
* NSW Safework
* Northern Beaches Council (formerly Pittwater Council)
I am the first victim of a Restraining Order under Section 110 of the GIPA Act 2009. I understand the NCAT's Tribunal Member McAteer was the NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner at the time the GIPA Act was drafted, and as such he contributed to the content.
Tribunal Member McAteer was the person who placed the Order against me in 2015, with a life-time imposition.
I have experience with the GIPA Act's predecessor, the Freedom of Information Act. It seemed easier to access information under the former legislation. These days it's very, very difficult. I am finding it harder to exercise my rights. I find myself up against heavy handed solicitors, I'm always self-represented. The information I seek is always a matter of public interest, in particular the development approvals issued by Northern Beaches Council, and also the expenditure of its public monies.
The GIPA Act was hailed as a revolution to make accessing information easier. I beleive it's more complicated than ever.
I also find on occasions that documents expected to exist do not.
This is where the Section 110 Order comes in. If a member of the public asks for information they expect to exist and the agency decides it doesn't (and does not provide proof), then that GIPA Applicant has a mark placed against them, and it adds weight for a Section 110 Order. So the public are blamed and have the responsibility of poor record keeping by the agency, and end up with an Order against them!
I especially want to highlight that at the time Pittwater Council merged to form Northern Beaches Council, that digital information from Pittwater was simply deleted. This is a deliberate offence, yet I'm not seeing any investigation into agency misconduct for breaching the GIPA Act 2009.
There is a great deal of public documents originating from Pittwater Council that are completly gone!
All in all I would give the new freedom of information a thumbs down in the strongest terms.
As far as NCAT goes, with the Section 110 Order against me, which has a life-time imposition, every time I want information from Northern Beaches Council I have to go through NCAT. It is absolutely frustrating and time consuming, which is precisley the intention. And how much is this costing the public?
Northern Beaches Council should be ashamed, it does not show any respect for the GIPA Act or the public or the money entrusted to it.
Every agency I've dealt with should be ashamed, they all act in the same manner, it's as though some sub-standard has been legitimised and they all follow it.
--------------------------------------------------
19.10.2021
Authorised by McEwan, P - Port Stephens Council
Continued bad service from this agency. Today I paid a significant amount of money for GIPA fees relating to documents being released to me. No sign of the documents despite making full payment. This is not the first time of this with this agency. I paid my Formal Application Fee, if I hadn't my Application would be invalid. I paid for my documents and it appears there's nothing to stop the obstruction of access to the documents. From my professional perspective this constitutes a breach of contract. I'm interested to hear if other people experience this kind of behaviour from agencies they deal with. The public should ascertain how problematic this is, we might be waiting a long time for government to address this.
--------------------------------------------------
19.10.2021
Authorised by Paulina Wojciechowska -
* NSW Dept of Communities & Justice, DoJ
* NSW Police Service
* Blue Mountains City Council
* NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner, IPC
* NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal, NCAT
"In the past I made access applications to the NSW Police Force, NSW Department of Communities and Justice and Blue Mountains City Council. I also applied for reviews by the NSW Information and Privacy Commission and the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. All of these agencies get from me the lowest possible rating. To be fair, however, I have to say that one member of the staff from the "Open Government, Information and Privacy" unit of the NSW Department of Communities and Justice has particularly distinguished herself in the most negative sense.
As far as the NSW Information and Privacy Commission and the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal go, I suggest their abolition. I think that the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal is a serious public health hazard that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. I urge all victims of the NCAT to make themselves known and to speak up."
As far as the NSW Information and Privacy Commission and the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal go, I suggest their abolition. I think that the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal is a serious public health hazard that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. I urge all victims of the NCAT to make themselves known and to speak up."
--------------------------------------------------
18.10.2021
Webb, T - Port Stephens Council
Very disappointing to see time and again with this agency that documents are not released at first instance of making payment in full accordance with its GIPA Notice of Decision. Made the payment immediately this morning, received a message from the current Right to Information Officer after close of business stating she will get the documents to me sometime this week "case load permitting".
This is something that will be raised with the IPC as agencies should be required, as they are expected, to release the documents at first instance on receipt of full payment.
I invite people to comment on whether or not they have experienced agencies effectively holding documents to ransom until full payment has been made, or are documents ordinarily released with an invoice or payment to follow?
Unfortunately Port Stephens Council continues to provide example after example of how it mistreats and disrespects GIPA Applicants, causes undue delays, and frustrates the whole GIPA process at the public's expense, literally at the public's expense.
I can only continue to rate this agency extremely poorly.
--------------------------------------------------