FREE Community Service Website Reveals its 2025 Plans, 01.01.2025
Following on from the continued successes since launching in September 2021, NSW Freedom of Information talks about expansion plans and supplementary features for the Site for the coming year.
The free community service provided by one person as a full-time volunteer, Telina Webb a qualified criminologist with a focus on white collar crime in the NSW government, continues to help the vast number of public enquiries on a daily basis, enquiries which document a frustrated and damaged public trying at times in vain to access the Parliament’s free gift of beneficial legislation, the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 or GIPA.
“This year I intend to continue highlighting the harrowing stories of NSW agency misconduct and unlawful conduct actioned against a once-trusting public. Previous highlights have resulted in my being repeatedly threatened, bullied, dealing with numerous restraint order applications under the GIPA Act 2009 Section 110, being pursued for unlawful legal costs in the NCAT’s no-cost forum, and being falsely accused of causing fear and anxiety in public servants, and the list goes on. Despite this kind of conduct being exposed and called out for what it is, that is blatant abuse of power and position at huge cost to the public purse, it’s as though the heat has actually been turned up on the public with no relief in sight,” stated Webb.
“Of serious concern is the fact NSW government agencies continue to threaten and pursue the public for costs which are not legislated under GIPA; they’ve been exposed and the game is up but they still act in this manner. Of course, with the close relationship with the NCAT it’s usually just a matter of ask-and-you-shall-receive. Yes, NCAT can award costs in some cases, but ONLY if the enabling legislation makes provision for such. And GIPA does not. However, NCAT is on the record awarding costs without having the jurisdictional powers to do so. There are so many aspects to the corruption of the freedom of information process; not only in the sense of agency personnel committing offences, but by corruption of the legislation itself, giving agencies what they want despite knowing it’s completely wrong.”
NCAT Tribunal Members have a proper understanding of the legislation. Most are solicitors, some are Kings Counsel, some are barristers. One or two are judges. So they know what they’re doing. But the unlawful awarding of costs in the context of GIPA leaves the vulnerable member of the public to seek appeals in an attempt to clean up the collateral damage they wade neck deep in the result of poor quality and / or unlawful decisions. Most applicants in the Tribunal are not legally represented compounding the situation; they’re standing completely defenceless.
“Those stories which are supported by documentary evidence not only originate from me personally, but from a public that continues to be financially and psychologically damaged by power-wielding public servants, with reputations irreparably and publicly trashed, and with no apparent accountability for the perpetrators who have unlimited access to legal and financial resources.”
“But one thing we can do, is talk about it, write about it, share experiences, seek out support and information, and keep banging on those Ministers’ doors for absolutely necessary change. The public has stopped asking, the public is now demanding,” said Webb.
In a document dated August 2024, where Webb petitioned Minister Michael Daley, NSW Attorney General and Administrator of the NCAT Act 2013 for an urgent parliamentary inquiry into that Act and the documented maladministration occurring on a regular basis, evidence such as unlawfully awarding costs were presented to Minister Daley to support the petition.
However, Minister Daley’s office redirected the petition to his subordinate agency Dept of Communities and Justice (DCJ), which saw a letter issued stating basically “nothing to see here; the NCAT Act is operating in accordance with the object and scope of the legislation,” which could not be further from the truth.
Of course the letter originates from those colluding to undermine the legislation, so this should be of no real surprise. Ironically it was the DCJ’s own Director / Business Unit Manager of the Open Government Information & Privacy Unit (gotta love that title!) Jodie Cobbin who made a public presentation in March 2019 actually recommending agencies seek costs as a method of controlling and dissuading members of the public she had classified as fixated, but all the while with the full knowledge her recommendation to do so was not based in law.
Ms Cobbin is an ex-NSW Police Superintendent accustomed to exercising coercive control over the public, but evidently she didn’t get the memo she’s now just a clerk.
Obviously Minister Daley’s care factor for what the public is enduring under the NCAT Act 2013, in the context of GIPA and at the hands of his DCJ department, is at about zero.
The media releases and editorials on the Site stand on agency documentation including GIPA decisions, agency correspondence, agency statements, affidavits, and submissions in judicial proceedings, etc. But there is so much more to share. In this regard, the Site will shortly commence its Time Machine feature, where historical events and documents predating the September 2021 Site launch will also be published. This is essential to showing the extent of the systemic problems which continue to enjoy no change or intervention, let alone accountability. These documents show how far back the entrenched behaviours and conduct reach. "So to those comfortable government employees who think none of this concerns me at this point in time, think again,” stated Webb. The Time Machine feature will include historical Access Application records including correspondence, as well as statements and submissions concerning NCAT administrative review. It is the broad category of records which will show the full picture of what has been and continues to be occurring, and those doing it.
Another feature will publish a great deal more information about the NSW Right to Information & Privacy Practitioners Network, or more affectionally acronymmed NIPPN, on the Site's dedicated All about NIPPN page. NIPPN is a collective of over (500) right to information and privacy officers across the state, all working together for the benefit of government, undermining the public’s beneficial legislation. They’ve been doing this in plain sight for over (2) decades. NIPPN claims it’s non-governmental, does not represent the views of employer agencies, and that members must be employed by government; all of which is false and misleading.
The IPC itself considers it to be governmental, and indeed the caselaw of Webb v iCARE NSW (2023) NSWCATAD 196 confirms NIPPN records qualify as government information. And indeed members do represent the views of their employer agencies; if not then what are staff such as Ms Kiri Sue Mattes from the NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office doing giving legal commentary and advice on published cases? Of course, the claim members must have an agency email address is also a farce as numerous individuals from private enterprise, peddling their professional services directly to government without obstruction, also enjoy privileged membership. Information to be published about NIPPN include Minutes of Meetings and Membership Lists and analogy of its covert activities which include breaching legislated mandates.
Another feature will be a focus on various aspects of legislation and the implications to the jurisdictional powers of the NCAT. In particular is the enabling legislation applicable to the NCAT which will be individually noted as to whether or not it provides the NCAT with jurisdiction to award costs. This is a time consuming exercise which will fundamentally comprise of a “yes” or “no” list of where NCAT has jurisdiction to award costs, which will greatly assist those fighting such an application. The enabling legislatoin prevails over NCAT's jurisdiction; in other words it is superior and not subordinate.
“The Site will also feature a Court of Public Opinion supported by documentation, where the public can make convictions regardless of the lack of judicial process they’ve suffered which sees no accountability of public servants. The Court will go much further than simply rating an agency, digging deep into the circumstances of particular cases. NCAT is on the record regularly getting things horribly wrong and lacking the courage to make legitimate decisions to resolve the public’s disputes. The least the public can do is call out misconduct and unlawful conduct, referring to the proceedings and decisions that have let them down by NCAT’s continued setting public servants free to continue unacceptable behaviours.” Additionally, Webb will be drawing attention to those agencies actively involved in the collation of dossiers documenting the public’s interactions with NSW government agencies as though this was important government business; agency actions including stalking and trolling behaviours involving search missions for information to be used against the public, designed to influence key decision makers, obstruct procedural fairness and access to justice, for the purposes of undermining the public’s legislated rights. To behave in this manner relies on agency personnel breaching the public’s privacy and unlawfully sharing the public’s personal information. “It’s such a disgraceful double standard, where the rule of law is definitely not upheld or within reach of each and every person, but which is carefully guarded for NSW government agencies to use as suits. Agency protocols can include telephone call-systems with recorded warnings about the rules of verbal etiquette, with posters and noticeboards in foyers and reception areas displaying communication rules of engagement and making clear how agency personnel expect and demand to be treated by the public ‘they serve’; and yet when we look across the inquiry counter and into clerical partitions, the actions and behaviours perpetrated by those same agency personnel against the public ‘they serve’ qualify as atrocious and anti-social at best but more often as criminal offences,” stated Webb. “And it gets far worse when the public endeavours to exercise legislated review rights; facing off against large highly experienced legal teams which have access to unlimited resources when the NCAT openly advertises “you can be your own best advocate” is nothing less than entrapment for defenceless non-legal parties to proceedings.” "I will also be shining a light on the continued huge waste of public monies and abuse of process documented within a particular precedent GIPA case initiated in October 2024 (decision pending) by a group of agencies including the Dept of Communities & Justice. The evidence of these actions removes any doubt about the breaching of privacy and blatant collusion between agencies to the detriment of the public of NSW. The public will be horrified at the financial costs for these actions!" stated Webb. There will also be more about the reality of legislative reviews and accessing the NSW Parliament; how in particular the DCJ filters submissions and designs Parliamentary Reports to support its poorly hidden agenda; this is particularly true with DCJ and its Open Government Information & Privacy Unit. “Things need to change, but while we wait, I will endeavour to locate positive stories and experiences from the public concerning engagement with NSW government agencies including the NCAT particularly in the context of GIPA, which is currently like trying to find a needle in a haystack; I certainly don’t expect to be inundated.”
If you have a story to share in the arena of freedom of information and the current administrative review processes in NSW, whether negative or positive, please utilise the form below or email Telina direct at info@nswfreedomofinformation.net to start your conversation.Commentary on this article including suggestions for new features is invited via the form below.
“This year I intend to continue highlighting the harrowing stories of NSW agency misconduct and unlawful conduct actioned against a once-trusting public. Previous highlights have resulted in my being repeatedly threatened, bullied, dealing with numerous restraint order applications under the GIPA Act 2009 Section 110, being pursued for unlawful legal costs in the NCAT’s no-cost forum, and being falsely accused of causing fear and anxiety in public servants, and the list goes on. Despite this kind of conduct being exposed and called out for what it is, that is blatant abuse of power and position at huge cost to the public purse, it’s as though the heat has actually been turned up on the public with no relief in sight,” stated Webb.
“Of serious concern is the fact NSW government agencies continue to threaten and pursue the public for costs which are not legislated under GIPA; they’ve been exposed and the game is up but they still act in this manner. Of course, with the close relationship with the NCAT it’s usually just a matter of ask-and-you-shall-receive. Yes, NCAT can award costs in some cases, but ONLY if the enabling legislation makes provision for such. And GIPA does not. However, NCAT is on the record awarding costs without having the jurisdictional powers to do so. There are so many aspects to the corruption of the freedom of information process; not only in the sense of agency personnel committing offences, but by corruption of the legislation itself, giving agencies what they want despite knowing it’s completely wrong.”
NCAT Tribunal Members have a proper understanding of the legislation. Most are solicitors, some are Kings Counsel, some are barristers. One or two are judges. So they know what they’re doing. But the unlawful awarding of costs in the context of GIPA leaves the vulnerable member of the public to seek appeals in an attempt to clean up the collateral damage they wade neck deep in the result of poor quality and / or unlawful decisions. Most applicants in the Tribunal are not legally represented compounding the situation; they’re standing completely defenceless.
“Those stories which are supported by documentary evidence not only originate from me personally, but from a public that continues to be financially and psychologically damaged by power-wielding public servants, with reputations irreparably and publicly trashed, and with no apparent accountability for the perpetrators who have unlimited access to legal and financial resources.”
“But one thing we can do, is talk about it, write about it, share experiences, seek out support and information, and keep banging on those Ministers’ doors for absolutely necessary change. The public has stopped asking, the public is now demanding,” said Webb.
In a document dated August 2024, where Webb petitioned Minister Michael Daley, NSW Attorney General and Administrator of the NCAT Act 2013 for an urgent parliamentary inquiry into that Act and the documented maladministration occurring on a regular basis, evidence such as unlawfully awarding costs were presented to Minister Daley to support the petition.
However, Minister Daley’s office redirected the petition to his subordinate agency Dept of Communities and Justice (DCJ), which saw a letter issued stating basically “nothing to see here; the NCAT Act is operating in accordance with the object and scope of the legislation,” which could not be further from the truth.
Of course the letter originates from those colluding to undermine the legislation, so this should be of no real surprise. Ironically it was the DCJ’s own Director / Business Unit Manager of the Open Government Information & Privacy Unit (gotta love that title!) Jodie Cobbin who made a public presentation in March 2019 actually recommending agencies seek costs as a method of controlling and dissuading members of the public she had classified as fixated, but all the while with the full knowledge her recommendation to do so was not based in law.
Ms Cobbin is an ex-NSW Police Superintendent accustomed to exercising coercive control over the public, but evidently she didn’t get the memo she’s now just a clerk.
Obviously Minister Daley’s care factor for what the public is enduring under the NCAT Act 2013, in the context of GIPA and at the hands of his DCJ department, is at about zero.
The media releases and editorials on the Site stand on agency documentation including GIPA decisions, agency correspondence, agency statements, affidavits, and submissions in judicial proceedings, etc. But there is so much more to share. In this regard, the Site will shortly commence its Time Machine feature, where historical events and documents predating the September 2021 Site launch will also be published. This is essential to showing the extent of the systemic problems which continue to enjoy no change or intervention, let alone accountability. These documents show how far back the entrenched behaviours and conduct reach. "So to those comfortable government employees who think none of this concerns me at this point in time, think again,” stated Webb. The Time Machine feature will include historical Access Application records including correspondence, as well as statements and submissions concerning NCAT administrative review. It is the broad category of records which will show the full picture of what has been and continues to be occurring, and those doing it.
Another feature will publish a great deal more information about the NSW Right to Information & Privacy Practitioners Network, or more affectionally acronymmed NIPPN, on the Site's dedicated All about NIPPN page. NIPPN is a collective of over (500) right to information and privacy officers across the state, all working together for the benefit of government, undermining the public’s beneficial legislation. They’ve been doing this in plain sight for over (2) decades. NIPPN claims it’s non-governmental, does not represent the views of employer agencies, and that members must be employed by government; all of which is false and misleading.
The IPC itself considers it to be governmental, and indeed the caselaw of Webb v iCARE NSW (2023) NSWCATAD 196 confirms NIPPN records qualify as government information. And indeed members do represent the views of their employer agencies; if not then what are staff such as Ms Kiri Sue Mattes from the NSW Crown Solicitor’s Office doing giving legal commentary and advice on published cases? Of course, the claim members must have an agency email address is also a farce as numerous individuals from private enterprise, peddling their professional services directly to government without obstruction, also enjoy privileged membership. Information to be published about NIPPN include Minutes of Meetings and Membership Lists and analogy of its covert activities which include breaching legislated mandates.
Another feature will be a focus on various aspects of legislation and the implications to the jurisdictional powers of the NCAT. In particular is the enabling legislation applicable to the NCAT which will be individually noted as to whether or not it provides the NCAT with jurisdiction to award costs. This is a time consuming exercise which will fundamentally comprise of a “yes” or “no” list of where NCAT has jurisdiction to award costs, which will greatly assist those fighting such an application. The enabling legislatoin prevails over NCAT's jurisdiction; in other words it is superior and not subordinate.
“The Site will also feature a Court of Public Opinion supported by documentation, where the public can make convictions regardless of the lack of judicial process they’ve suffered which sees no accountability of public servants. The Court will go much further than simply rating an agency, digging deep into the circumstances of particular cases. NCAT is on the record regularly getting things horribly wrong and lacking the courage to make legitimate decisions to resolve the public’s disputes. The least the public can do is call out misconduct and unlawful conduct, referring to the proceedings and decisions that have let them down by NCAT’s continued setting public servants free to continue unacceptable behaviours.” Additionally, Webb will be drawing attention to those agencies actively involved in the collation of dossiers documenting the public’s interactions with NSW government agencies as though this was important government business; agency actions including stalking and trolling behaviours involving search missions for information to be used against the public, designed to influence key decision makers, obstruct procedural fairness and access to justice, for the purposes of undermining the public’s legislated rights. To behave in this manner relies on agency personnel breaching the public’s privacy and unlawfully sharing the public’s personal information. “It’s such a disgraceful double standard, where the rule of law is definitely not upheld or within reach of each and every person, but which is carefully guarded for NSW government agencies to use as suits. Agency protocols can include telephone call-systems with recorded warnings about the rules of verbal etiquette, with posters and noticeboards in foyers and reception areas displaying communication rules of engagement and making clear how agency personnel expect and demand to be treated by the public ‘they serve’; and yet when we look across the inquiry counter and into clerical partitions, the actions and behaviours perpetrated by those same agency personnel against the public ‘they serve’ qualify as atrocious and anti-social at best but more often as criminal offences,” stated Webb. “And it gets far worse when the public endeavours to exercise legislated review rights; facing off against large highly experienced legal teams which have access to unlimited resources when the NCAT openly advertises “you can be your own best advocate” is nothing less than entrapment for defenceless non-legal parties to proceedings.” "I will also be shining a light on the continued huge waste of public monies and abuse of process documented within a particular precedent GIPA case initiated in October 2024 (decision pending) by a group of agencies including the Dept of Communities & Justice. The evidence of these actions removes any doubt about the breaching of privacy and blatant collusion between agencies to the detriment of the public of NSW. The public will be horrified at the financial costs for these actions!" stated Webb. There will also be more about the reality of legislative reviews and accessing the NSW Parliament; how in particular the DCJ filters submissions and designs Parliamentary Reports to support its poorly hidden agenda; this is particularly true with DCJ and its Open Government Information & Privacy Unit. “Things need to change, but while we wait, I will endeavour to locate positive stories and experiences from the public concerning engagement with NSW government agencies including the NCAT particularly in the context of GIPA, which is currently like trying to find a needle in a haystack; I certainly don’t expect to be inundated.”
If you have a story to share in the arena of freedom of information and the current administrative review processes in NSW, whether negative or positive, please utilise the form below or email Telina direct at info@nswfreedomofinformation.net to start your conversation.Commentary on this article including suggestions for new features is invited via the form below.