GIPA Act 2009 Section 110 - Application to Restrain / Obstruct Requests for Information
* What is it? * What are the implications? * Why is it part of the Act?
It is an Order to Restrain a member of the public from lodging an access application classified as lacking in merit, or unmeritorious.
An Access Application is a freedom of information request.
This section of the GIPA Act has far reaching implications for a member of the public who falls victim to an agency and becomes subject to it.
An Access Application is a freedom of information request.
This section of the GIPA Act has far reaching implications for a member of the public who falls victim to an agency and becomes subject to it.
Only obtainable on Application to the NCAT by a NSW government agency, its purpose is to restrain a member of the public from lodging freedom of information requests with one or more agency, and if an agency can convince a member of the NCAT, it can be issued on a perpetual time frame.
That is it can remain in place for life.
.png)
Only obtainable on Application to the NCAT by a NSW government agency, its purpose is to restrain a member of the public from lodging freedom of information requests with one or more agency, and if an agency can convince a member of the NCAT, it can be issued on a perpetual time frame. That is it can remain in place for life.
There are many, many questions that need to be asked about this Section of the GIPA Act 2009, and this Site will provide opportunities to do that. Topics and questions will include:
* Why are agencies permitted to include my information from other agencies for a Section 110 Application?
* Why are agencies sharing my freedom of information requests without my knowledge or consent, particularly as they contain my personal information?
* How have agencies been allowed to make joint applications, or contribute information for the benefit of another Agency Applicant?
* Why are claimed Unmeritorious Applications not assessed by the NCAT to qualify Section 110 Application documentation?
* Why is the NSW Information Commissioner not able to be summonsed by a respondent to give evidence, given she is the subject matter expert? * AND A CRITICAL QUESTION: How does the Commissioner decide which Section 110 matters she will become involved in? ** Of the (8) eight total Section 110 Hearings brought to the NCAT since the inception of the GIPA Act in 2009, (3) three saw male respondents to the Agency Application. The Commissioner chose to become involved in each of those proceedings. ** The (5) five remaining Section 110 Hearings saw female respondents to Agency Applications, with Telina Webb the respondent for (4) four of those. The Commissioner chose NOT to become involved in each of those proceedings.
On consideration of Section 3 – Object of Act, which highlights the legally enforceable rights of the public to access government information, Section 110 completely contradicts and denigrates those rights.
It is a section that makes clear that the legally enforceable right to access government information can be removed, and in its current form the criteria is fairly narrow.
It is a section that uses the word ‘consort’ in the context of describing members of the public consorting or conspiring to obtain government information, as though discussing requests for information were somehow a criminal offence.
There are several caselaw examples to be discussed where an agency has blatantly accused members of the public of consorting or conspiring to obtain government information, and in all cases the allegations were directed at individuals who were in some kind of relationship, either business or personal.
Serious questions need to be asked of legislators that feel government has the right to dictate what conversations will take place between its citizens, and most particularly between those in a relationship. The issue and allegation of consorting is one that will definitely open up for discussion. NSW Freedom of Information has received documentation from Port Stephens Council evidencing the reference of "consorting" between those in a relationship to justify the withholding of information, which is not a factor for consideration under the legislation.
There are many, many questions that need to be asked about this Section of the GIPA Act 2009, and this Site will provide opportunities to do that. Topics and questions will include:
* Why are agencies permitted to include my information from other agencies for a Section 110 Application?
* Why are agencies sharing my freedom of information requests without my knowledge or consent, particularly as they contain my personal information?
* How have agencies been allowed to make joint applications, or contribute information for the benefit of another Agency Applicant?
* Why are claimed Unmeritorious Applications not assessed by the NCAT to qualify Section 110 Application documentation?
* Why is the NSW Information Commissioner not able to be summonsed by a respondent to give evidence, given she is the subject matter expert? * AND A CRITICAL QUESTION: How does the Commissioner decide which Section 110 matters she will become involved in? ** Of the (8) eight total Section 110 Hearings brought to the NCAT since the inception of the GIPA Act in 2009, (3) three saw male respondents to the Agency Application. The Commissioner chose to become involved in each of those proceedings. ** The (5) five remaining Section 110 Hearings saw female respondents to Agency Applications, with Telina Webb the respondent for (4) four of those. The Commissioner chose NOT to become involved in each of those proceedings.
On consideration of Section 3 – Object of Act, which highlights the legally enforceable rights of the public to access government information, Section 110 completely contradicts and denigrates those rights.
It is a section that makes clear that the legally enforceable right to access government information can be removed, and in its current form the criteria is fairly narrow.
It is a section that uses the word ‘consort’ in the context of describing members of the public consorting or conspiring to obtain government information, as though discussing requests for information were somehow a criminal offence.
There are several caselaw examples to be discussed where an agency has blatantly accused members of the public of consorting or conspiring to obtain government information, and in all cases the allegations were directed at individuals who were in some kind of relationship, either business or personal.
Serious questions need to be asked of legislators that feel government has the right to dictate what conversations will take place between its citizens, and most particularly between those in a relationship. The issue and allegation of consorting is one that will definitely open up for discussion. NSW Freedom of Information has received documentation from Port Stephens Council evidencing the reference of "consorting" between those in a relationship to justify the withholding of information, which is not a factor for consideration under the legislation.