Justice NSW Throws the Baby Out with the Bathwater Due to Clear Lack of
Fundamental Reading Comprehension Skills, 05.12.2024
The legislated Access to Information processes in NSW are propagated rather liberally now (16) sixteen years after the Act’s inception in 2009.
There are many resources available to ascertain most steps of the legislation making it mostly navigable by the general public and layperson.
Most particularly the legislation itself mandates the provision of information concerning avenues of process and review of agency decisions in response to valid access applications.
In fact, most NSW government agencies include what are known as Fact Sheets originating from the authoritative body the Office of the NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner (IPC), with their decisions.
These Fact Sheets disclose in relatively simple language the optional rights for review, including contact numbers and websites which provide further information.
Additional to that, NSW Right to Information Officers performing statutory functions in accordance with the legislation which is casually termed the GIPA Act 2009, have an abundance of training available to ensure they know what they’re doing and what is required of them. Training is mostly provided by the Office of the NSW Crown Solicitor, but there are also others in private enterprise peddling this training. It is noted no trainers are accredited. Training is paid for by public monies. Surprisingly, all GIPA training is withheld from the general public. Nevertheless, under these circumstances being abundance of training and ready access to copious amounts of information, any reasonable person would rightfully expect good quality legally credible decisions from those trusted to do so in relation to the GIPA Act 2009 and the public’s legal rights to access NSW government information.Unfortunately expectations and reality are often very different indeed. Take for example the NSW department sitting immediately under the umbrella of the NSW Attorney General; Secretary, Dept of Communities & Justice (Justice NSW). Any reasonable person would agree well-paid employees within this department representing the interests of the community and justice would have highly developed skills and knowledge of the proper operation of the GIPA Act 2009.
Not so. In October 2024 Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information sought access to a copy of the TRIM File concerning the statutory GIPA Review of 2014. This review was undertaken by Justice NSW, later publishing the detailed submissions received from the public and interested parties concerning that Review. What was not published were the internal documents in the background to that Review; the consideration process of what changes would be recommended to parliament, and of course who was conducting those considerations. Making clear she did not seek the already published submissions, and only seeking those internal records, Ms Webb sought an unredacted copy of that TRIM File which would show a list of all relevant documents. Let’s be clear; this was not a request for documents. It was a request for the TRIM File, a printout of a search return for information which lists documents recorded. Webb’s intention in seeking the information in that particular format was to limit the amount of information requested ensuring it remained a valid access application, not able to be refused on the basis of being an unreasonable use of agency resources. Fast forward to 08th November 2024 however when Justice NSW issued a letter to Ms Webb seeking she amend the scope of her access application. The Determining Officer, the pseudonymed “Jordan”, had obviously and completely misunderstood and misinterpreted the scope of the request for information, asserting that the access application in its present form would take up an estimated minimum of (190) one-hundred-and-ninety hours to process. Ms Webb had expected perhaps a couple of hours at most, given search returns usually only take seconds or minutes to perform. “Jordan” stated the request necessitated searching through (30) thirty folders, with approximately 3,279 pages of information to be reviewed. At $30.00 per hour the estimated cost for this access application, on the basis of “Jordan’s” comprehension of the scope, would be in the vicinity of $5,700.00………..! Ordinarily anyone would agree this was indeed qualified as an unreasonable use of resources, particularly with Justice NSW on the record claiming it already had a backlog of over (100) one hundred access applications to process at that time. No advance deposit was requested. “Jordan” simply requested the scope of the access application be amended.Albeit shocked by the content of “Jordan’s” letter Ms Webb forwarded it to the Office of the Information Commissioner (IPC) for due process and consideration. However on 05th December 2024, not willing to wait the perspective of the IPC “Jordan” issued the department’s Notice of Decision, refusing the access application in its entirety on the basis it would take up an unreasonable amount of agency resources. “There was no waiting for the IPC to formulate any decision, make any recommendation to the agency, or complete an external review. This was a decision that was inevitable, with Justice NSW determined to classify it as unmeritorious under the legislation,” stated Webb. “Jordan was clearly in a rush.”
“As was reported in an earlier media release on this Site dated 24th May 2024, I raised concerns Justice NSW was acting to put steps in place to support an Application under Section 110 of the GIPA Act for a Restraint Order against me. Presently agencies can take such a course of action without having to provide any evidentiary proof the prerequisite criteria has been met; inclusive of proof of searches within response reports. It’s so easy to claim an access application will take up too much agency time and resources, when there is no need for evidence in support. In this case, it is clear the agency has ticked another ‘unmeritorious application box’, storing up that outcome to add to others in the future to be used against the public, in this case me. Someone needs to remind these publicly-paid individuals they are in their roles to serve the public, not work against it.”
“I have every reason to expect this latest valid access application, now deemed unmeritorious through lack of fundamental reading comprehension skills, will be stored ready for use at a time when Justice makes a Section 110 Application for Restraint Order against me,” stated Ms Webb. “My access applications and media commentary have effectively placed a target on my back, Justice NSW is very angry, and Ms Cobbin the Director / Business Unit Manager, Open Government Information & Privacy Unit (Yes it’s a hell of a title but stay with me…….) has shown she views such an order as part of an effective management strategy for dealing with what she has classified as fixated applicants. There can be no doubt I will see my name so classified in the very near future, if not actioned already, as agencies such as Justice NSW work together towards obstructing my legal rights to access NSW government information, punishing me for having the courage to speak up and expose corruption and maladministration.”
It would be difficult for Ms Cobbin or indeed Justice NSW to credibly deny Webb’s interpretation of a long-term departmental strategy to control access applicants and punish those Cobbin sees as deserving. Jodie Cobbin has been slowly tightening the access to information vice on the public since taking on her role in 2016. In March 2019 Cobbin made a public presentation to the organisation NSW Right to Information & Privacy Practitioners Network, NIPPN, titled “Tale of a Fixated Applicant,” depicting her management strategy for dealing with individuals she classed as problematic members of the public. She used the personal information of several members of the public within her presentation, ignoring her legislated obligations to first seek their consent to do so. Her intention in doing so was to single them out and create a very effective moral panic. That strategy promoted the restriction of access to services, colluding with secondary agencies against the public, incorporating NSW Police, and of course obtaining a Section 110 Order. In June 2019 Cobbin went a step further with her plans for GIPA Domination when she personally and directly solicited the whole of the state’s population of right to information and privacy officers through NIPPN, for information she claimed was pertinent to a departmental study concerning, yes, fixated / vexatious persons (and no, not that kind of solicitation……). According to documents originating from Justice NSW, the claimed study was fictitious but referenced as a valid reason for seeking the information. Then in July 2019 Ms Cobbin’s department ‘contributed’ a recommendation towards the statutory review of the NCAT Act 2013, blatantly suggesting all members of the public seeking review of GIPA determinations in the NCAT forum should be treated in accordance with Section 110 parameters; treating those exercising their legal rights as offenders.Cobbin is an ex-NSW Police Superintendent accustomed to having unchecked access to the public’s personal information and seeing those on the other side of the Station Counter as offenders. Such privileges have not transferred to her current clerical role. With this backstory of evidenced actions by a senior executive of Justice NSW, it is little wonder Webb and the general public expects the worst outcomes. Should the prospect of a Section 110 Order against Webb eventuate as she expects, the case will be reported on this Site as a matter of public interest. "It is a good thing and to the benefit of the whole community we identify and publicise corrupt manipulative conduct by our public servants. We deserve far better," stated Ms Webb. "Their benefits, facilities, employment conditions, and financial remuneration are not accessible to the bulk of the community, with small businesses struggling to stay afloat and the costs of living a modest life often out of reach for too many of us burdened with paying for these coveted roles. These individuals are not the government, they are employees. They do not hold ultimate rights over government information, they have a duty of care as custodians of it and are expected to substantially qualify all decisions pertaining to access to information. They have no right of entitlement to their roles, they are privileges."
The Minutes of the NIPPN Meeting concerning “A Tale of a Fixated Applicant” are available here. The Minutes of the NIPPN Meeting concerning Jodie Cobbin’s solicitation of the NIPPN group is available here. The Justice NSW OGIPU’s recommendation for greater NCAT powers is available here, 'Proposal'. The Justice NSW notification of 08th November 2024 is available here. The Justice NSW Notice of Decision of 05th December 2024 is available here.
Contact:
Jodie Cobbin, Jodie.cobbin@justice.nsw.gov.au Commentary on this article is invited via the form below.
These Fact Sheets disclose in relatively simple language the optional rights for review, including contact numbers and websites which provide further information.
Additional to that, NSW Right to Information Officers performing statutory functions in accordance with the legislation which is casually termed the GIPA Act 2009, have an abundance of training available to ensure they know what they’re doing and what is required of them. Training is mostly provided by the Office of the NSW Crown Solicitor, but there are also others in private enterprise peddling this training. It is noted no trainers are accredited. Training is paid for by public monies. Surprisingly, all GIPA training is withheld from the general public. Nevertheless, under these circumstances being abundance of training and ready access to copious amounts of information, any reasonable person would rightfully expect good quality legally credible decisions from those trusted to do so in relation to the GIPA Act 2009 and the public’s legal rights to access NSW government information.Unfortunately expectations and reality are often very different indeed. Take for example the NSW department sitting immediately under the umbrella of the NSW Attorney General; Secretary, Dept of Communities & Justice (Justice NSW). Any reasonable person would agree well-paid employees within this department representing the interests of the community and justice would have highly developed skills and knowledge of the proper operation of the GIPA Act 2009.
Not so. In October 2024 Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information sought access to a copy of the TRIM File concerning the statutory GIPA Review of 2014. This review was undertaken by Justice NSW, later publishing the detailed submissions received from the public and interested parties concerning that Review. What was not published were the internal documents in the background to that Review; the consideration process of what changes would be recommended to parliament, and of course who was conducting those considerations. Making clear she did not seek the already published submissions, and only seeking those internal records, Ms Webb sought an unredacted copy of that TRIM File which would show a list of all relevant documents. Let’s be clear; this was not a request for documents. It was a request for the TRIM File, a printout of a search return for information which lists documents recorded. Webb’s intention in seeking the information in that particular format was to limit the amount of information requested ensuring it remained a valid access application, not able to be refused on the basis of being an unreasonable use of agency resources. Fast forward to 08th November 2024 however when Justice NSW issued a letter to Ms Webb seeking she amend the scope of her access application. The Determining Officer, the pseudonymed “Jordan”, had obviously and completely misunderstood and misinterpreted the scope of the request for information, asserting that the access application in its present form would take up an estimated minimum of (190) one-hundred-and-ninety hours to process. Ms Webb had expected perhaps a couple of hours at most, given search returns usually only take seconds or minutes to perform. “Jordan” stated the request necessitated searching through (30) thirty folders, with approximately 3,279 pages of information to be reviewed. At $30.00 per hour the estimated cost for this access application, on the basis of “Jordan’s” comprehension of the scope, would be in the vicinity of $5,700.00………..! Ordinarily anyone would agree this was indeed qualified as an unreasonable use of resources, particularly with Justice NSW on the record claiming it already had a backlog of over (100) one hundred access applications to process at that time. No advance deposit was requested. “Jordan” simply requested the scope of the access application be amended.Albeit shocked by the content of “Jordan’s” letter Ms Webb forwarded it to the Office of the Information Commissioner (IPC) for due process and consideration. However on 05th December 2024, not willing to wait the perspective of the IPC “Jordan” issued the department’s Notice of Decision, refusing the access application in its entirety on the basis it would take up an unreasonable amount of agency resources. “There was no waiting for the IPC to formulate any decision, make any recommendation to the agency, or complete an external review. This was a decision that was inevitable, with Justice NSW determined to classify it as unmeritorious under the legislation,” stated Webb. “Jordan was clearly in a rush.”
“As was reported in an earlier media release on this Site dated 24th May 2024, I raised concerns Justice NSW was acting to put steps in place to support an Application under Section 110 of the GIPA Act for a Restraint Order against me. Presently agencies can take such a course of action without having to provide any evidentiary proof the prerequisite criteria has been met; inclusive of proof of searches within response reports. It’s so easy to claim an access application will take up too much agency time and resources, when there is no need for evidence in support. In this case, it is clear the agency has ticked another ‘unmeritorious application box’, storing up that outcome to add to others in the future to be used against the public, in this case me. Someone needs to remind these publicly-paid individuals they are in their roles to serve the public, not work against it.”
“I have every reason to expect this latest valid access application, now deemed unmeritorious through lack of fundamental reading comprehension skills, will be stored ready for use at a time when Justice makes a Section 110 Application for Restraint Order against me,” stated Ms Webb. “My access applications and media commentary have effectively placed a target on my back, Justice NSW is very angry, and Ms Cobbin the Director / Business Unit Manager, Open Government Information & Privacy Unit (Yes it’s a hell of a title but stay with me…….) has shown she views such an order as part of an effective management strategy for dealing with what she has classified as fixated applicants. There can be no doubt I will see my name so classified in the very near future, if not actioned already, as agencies such as Justice NSW work together towards obstructing my legal rights to access NSW government information, punishing me for having the courage to speak up and expose corruption and maladministration.”
It would be difficult for Ms Cobbin or indeed Justice NSW to credibly deny Webb’s interpretation of a long-term departmental strategy to control access applicants and punish those Cobbin sees as deserving. Jodie Cobbin has been slowly tightening the access to information vice on the public since taking on her role in 2016. In March 2019 Cobbin made a public presentation to the organisation NSW Right to Information & Privacy Practitioners Network, NIPPN, titled “Tale of a Fixated Applicant,” depicting her management strategy for dealing with individuals she classed as problematic members of the public. She used the personal information of several members of the public within her presentation, ignoring her legislated obligations to first seek their consent to do so. Her intention in doing so was to single them out and create a very effective moral panic. That strategy promoted the restriction of access to services, colluding with secondary agencies against the public, incorporating NSW Police, and of course obtaining a Section 110 Order. In June 2019 Cobbin went a step further with her plans for GIPA Domination when she personally and directly solicited the whole of the state’s population of right to information and privacy officers through NIPPN, for information she claimed was pertinent to a departmental study concerning, yes, fixated / vexatious persons (and no, not that kind of solicitation……). According to documents originating from Justice NSW, the claimed study was fictitious but referenced as a valid reason for seeking the information. Then in July 2019 Ms Cobbin’s department ‘contributed’ a recommendation towards the statutory review of the NCAT Act 2013, blatantly suggesting all members of the public seeking review of GIPA determinations in the NCAT forum should be treated in accordance with Section 110 parameters; treating those exercising their legal rights as offenders.Cobbin is an ex-NSW Police Superintendent accustomed to having unchecked access to the public’s personal information and seeing those on the other side of the Station Counter as offenders. Such privileges have not transferred to her current clerical role. With this backstory of evidenced actions by a senior executive of Justice NSW, it is little wonder Webb and the general public expects the worst outcomes. Should the prospect of a Section 110 Order against Webb eventuate as she expects, the case will be reported on this Site as a matter of public interest. "It is a good thing and to the benefit of the whole community we identify and publicise corrupt manipulative conduct by our public servants. We deserve far better," stated Ms Webb. "Their benefits, facilities, employment conditions, and financial remuneration are not accessible to the bulk of the community, with small businesses struggling to stay afloat and the costs of living a modest life often out of reach for too many of us burdened with paying for these coveted roles. These individuals are not the government, they are employees. They do not hold ultimate rights over government information, they have a duty of care as custodians of it and are expected to substantially qualify all decisions pertaining to access to information. They have no right of entitlement to their roles, they are privileges."
The Minutes of the NIPPN Meeting concerning “A Tale of a Fixated Applicant” are available here. The Minutes of the NIPPN Meeting concerning Jodie Cobbin’s solicitation of the NIPPN group is available here. The Justice NSW OGIPU’s recommendation for greater NCAT powers is available here, 'Proposal'. The Justice NSW notification of 08th November 2024 is available here. The Justice NSW Notice of Decision of 05th December 2024 is available here.
Contact:
Jodie Cobbin, Jodie.cobbin@justice.nsw.gov.au Commentary on this article is invited via the form below.