Secretary, NSW Dept of Communities & Justice Continues Trolling and Stalking Behaviours to
Avoid Accountability for Using the Public’s Personal Information with Collateral Intent, 05.11.2024
It was a simple enough matter. In June 2023 the Department’s Director / Business Unit Manager Open Government Information & Privacy Unit (OGIPU) Jodie Cobbin filed a Sworn Affidavit with the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal as part of administrative review proceedings under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, GIPA. The Affidavit was accompanied by Submissions from Departmental in-house solicitor Jonathan Ian Franklin.
The Applicant was Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information.The Respondent was OGIPU / Justice NSW.
Ms Webb had earlier requested departmental information concerning a recorded public presentation by Ms Cobbin, an ex-NSW Police Superintendent, which Ms Cobbin had compiled intended to depict department strategies for the managing of ‘fixated applicants.’ Ms Cobbin was referring to applicants in the context of the GIPA Act 2009, specifically those individuals applying for access to NSW government information.
Not satisfied with the NSW Ombudsman’s policy Managing Unreasonable Conduct of Complainants, Ms Cobbin felt the department and indeed the remainder of the state needed to extend that policy past the making of complaints, developing something she considered more substantial and focus-driven encompassing GIPA Applicants specifically.
The title of the public presentation was ‘Tale of a Fixated Applicant’. We now know of course Ms Cobbin used departmental time, resources and equipment inclusive of a departmental powerpoint template, during business hours, downloading the presentation onto a department-provided USB device, taking it to a public place with attending public, making it available unredacted.
The public presentation was made at a NSW Parliament House public function room.
What is more concerning about providing her presentation unredacted at that time and in that forum, and with such a denigrating title, is that Jodie Cobbin used various members of the public’s personal information without first having sought their consent to do so. Perhaps Ms Cobbin, a former NSW Police Superintendent, has forgotten she no longer has access to NSW Police systems, does not have unbridled access to the public’s personal information, and most certainly does not have any legal or moral right to use the public’s personal information without their consent and for a collateral purpose.
The powerpoint presentation effectively names and shames members of the public, highlighting them as persons of concern in a public forum.
It is an example of the collective response strategies implemented by the organisation NSW Right to Information & Privacy Practitioners Network, better known as NIPPN, of which the Department and several of Ms Cobbin’s colleagues are active members.
The Minutes of a NIPPN Meeting record the singling out of Sydney Morning Herald Investigative Reporter Nigel Gladstone to the whole of the population of NIPPN, suggesting a collective response strategy be formulated against him, justifying such action by noting agency GIPA outcomes might be published on his website www.righttoknow.org.au
Fast forward to 13th June 2023 where Ms Cobbin filed a Sworn Affidavit with the Tribunal disclosing her personal knowledge of Webb’s Access Applications with a separate agency. Clearly Ms Cobbin was annoyed that secondary information had been provided unredacted to Ms Webb. That secondary information was a copy of the Meeting Minutes of NIPPN dated 27th March 2019. Notably, Ms Cobbin has not at any time stated she became aware of Webb’s secondary access application the result of any publicly available information. Instead, Ms Cobbin is very clear she was informed about the secondary access application via a conversation. And she claims she has no knowledge of how that knowledge, held in her head, got in there…….. Coincidently she also claims she did not make any record of the conversation either, despite the state’s record keeping legislation requiring her to do so and the fact her role encompasses the highest level of corporate governance (supposedly). It is reasonable to expect this undocumented conversation disclosing Ms Webb’s access application took place within the confines of a NIPPN meeting, where the Terms of Reference state Chatham House Rules apply; this means that agency personnel collectively support acting in a way that not only defies the legislation confining their conduct, but also means that members watch each other’s backs in order to protect those breaching the legislation, Codes of Ethics, and Codes of Conduct.
Jodie Cobbin is now confirmed to make regular presentations to the NIPPN, and a membership list recently released in part shows a number of Justice NSW staff are active members.
It seems the game of Chinese Whispers breaching the public’s privacy and sharing confidential government information in a public forum is all in a day’s work for this ‘club’ confirmed to be operating in plain sight for over (2) two decades, an organisation documented to include privileged private enterprise individuals.
It is ironic Justice NSW issued a formal statement in August 2023 rightfully debunking any legitimacy or rights of protection or anonymity under Chatham House Rules.
So returning now to Ms Cobbin’s Sworn Affidavit and her testimony, which was further interrogated in the Tribunal in 2024 due to the fact Ms Cobbin seemed somehow unable to find any record of the subject conversation, Webb filed a Request for Review of Agency Conduct under the Personal Information & Privacy Protection Act 1998, PIPP, making specific reference to Jodie Cobbin.
And what a long-winded and convoluted process this turned out to be, exemplifying what the public must endure from a NSW agency which falls under the umbrella of the NSW Attorney-General……………. Somehow it took (41) forty-one days for the internal mail process to deliver Webb’s request for review to the right desk. With the date of the request for review of 17th July 2024, the final report was dated 05th November 2024, and was not finalised until numerous legitimate petitions were made. The reason for such a delay? Trolling through Webb’s community service website in an attempt to avoid agency accountability. Let’s be clear again here; a request for review of conduct under the PIPP Act 1998 Section 53 does not bring any agency employee to account. Nope! It’s a review of agency conduct. So either way, regardless of whether the agency disqualifies such a request, or justifies the actions of the officer, there is no accountability of the offending agency employee. They basically get off Scot-free. Any recompense or orders to address failures in departmental processes are not directed to the offender.It is a total rort, a joke, with the joke on the trusting public as standard practice.
The outcome of this valid request for review of agency conduct was to be expected however. When the public looks at the manner in which the same agency trolled the internet, effectively and repeatedly stalking Ms Webb, for information it could use to ensure she was denied access to Tribunal products and services, this recent outcome report solidifies the accepted behaviours and attitudes practiced by senior executives and solicitors within the NSW Department of Communities and Justice.
The resultant report claims there was no breach of privacy as the information referred to by Ms Cobbin was already in the public domain at the time of her Affidavit being 13th June 2023. The only problem with that is not all articles published on the website www.nswfreedomofinformation.net are published on the date of reference; meaning numerous media articles are published at a later date and at the convenience of Webb. “It is true I often reserve the publication for a later point in time, making a note of when the information actually becomes available and what documentation is relevant. An incident or action may have occurred at a particular past time or date, but is often not reported and published until well-after the fact completely at my discretion, leaving egg on their faces when they rely on it as some kind of damning chronology,” stated Webb. “Jodie Cobbin had no right to use my personal information for a collateral purpose, this clearly is a breach of the legislation. But when she is also on the record claiming reliance on Chatham House Rules to do so, a prep-school protocol which has been officially debunked, it’s easy to see the public’s rights and her statutory obligations are of no consequence to Ms Cobbin.” “They have completely disregarded the fact I, as a GIPA Applicant, am a member of the community, and I seek access to justice within that process. Clearly neither aspect has any value for those working very hard to undermine the legislated processes and ensure the government is open, transparent and accountable. They also completely disregard the fact they are public servants, there to do a job at the public’s expense and expectation, for the benefit and assistance of the public. Instead they operate to self-serve,” stated Ms Webb.
“I’m expecting the routine backlash from my commentary on this current matter, simply because I don’t choose to hide in the shadows as NIPPN does. I should not have any apprehensions of retaliation but unfortunately this is standard practice for these over-sensitive individuals who resent being held to account; people who enforce a “zero tolerance for aggression” policy usually plastered on front counters and notice boards, and verbalised on telephone call-wait systems, but who have no hesitation inflicting serious trauma including financial and reputational damage towards members of the public who dare to exercise their legal rights. I will publish those details as a matter of public interest whenever I become aware of it.” “In fact I should expect much more of the same now that those patterns of behaviours are confirmed entrenched practices by numerous staff within the Open Government Information & Privacy Unit. That department demands renaming as there is nothing open about it; if not a full clean out of stale and agenda-driven personnel for a fresh start for the benefit of the public it serves.”
The disqualified Request for Review of Conduct Report under the PPIP Act 1998 Section 53 is available here.
Contact:
Michael McIntosh, Jodie Cobbin, and Jonathan Franklin can be contacted on (02) 9716 2662 or infoandprivacy@justice.nsw.gov.au. Commentary on this article is invited via the form below.
The Applicant was Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information.The Respondent was OGIPU / Justice NSW.
Ms Webb had earlier requested departmental information concerning a recorded public presentation by Ms Cobbin, an ex-NSW Police Superintendent, which Ms Cobbin had compiled intended to depict department strategies for the managing of ‘fixated applicants.’ Ms Cobbin was referring to applicants in the context of the GIPA Act 2009, specifically those individuals applying for access to NSW government information.
Not satisfied with the NSW Ombudsman’s policy Managing Unreasonable Conduct of Complainants, Ms Cobbin felt the department and indeed the remainder of the state needed to extend that policy past the making of complaints, developing something she considered more substantial and focus-driven encompassing GIPA Applicants specifically.
The title of the public presentation was ‘Tale of a Fixated Applicant’. We now know of course Ms Cobbin used departmental time, resources and equipment inclusive of a departmental powerpoint template, during business hours, downloading the presentation onto a department-provided USB device, taking it to a public place with attending public, making it available unredacted.
The public presentation was made at a NSW Parliament House public function room.
What is more concerning about providing her presentation unredacted at that time and in that forum, and with such a denigrating title, is that Jodie Cobbin used various members of the public’s personal information without first having sought their consent to do so. Perhaps Ms Cobbin, a former NSW Police Superintendent, has forgotten she no longer has access to NSW Police systems, does not have unbridled access to the public’s personal information, and most certainly does not have any legal or moral right to use the public’s personal information without their consent and for a collateral purpose.
The powerpoint presentation effectively names and shames members of the public, highlighting them as persons of concern in a public forum.
It is an example of the collective response strategies implemented by the organisation NSW Right to Information & Privacy Practitioners Network, better known as NIPPN, of which the Department and several of Ms Cobbin’s colleagues are active members.
The Minutes of a NIPPN Meeting record the singling out of Sydney Morning Herald Investigative Reporter Nigel Gladstone to the whole of the population of NIPPN, suggesting a collective response strategy be formulated against him, justifying such action by noting agency GIPA outcomes might be published on his website www.righttoknow.org.au
Fast forward to 13th June 2023 where Ms Cobbin filed a Sworn Affidavit with the Tribunal disclosing her personal knowledge of Webb’s Access Applications with a separate agency. Clearly Ms Cobbin was annoyed that secondary information had been provided unredacted to Ms Webb. That secondary information was a copy of the Meeting Minutes of NIPPN dated 27th March 2019. Notably, Ms Cobbin has not at any time stated she became aware of Webb’s secondary access application the result of any publicly available information. Instead, Ms Cobbin is very clear she was informed about the secondary access application via a conversation. And she claims she has no knowledge of how that knowledge, held in her head, got in there…….. Coincidently she also claims she did not make any record of the conversation either, despite the state’s record keeping legislation requiring her to do so and the fact her role encompasses the highest level of corporate governance (supposedly). It is reasonable to expect this undocumented conversation disclosing Ms Webb’s access application took place within the confines of a NIPPN meeting, where the Terms of Reference state Chatham House Rules apply; this means that agency personnel collectively support acting in a way that not only defies the legislation confining their conduct, but also means that members watch each other’s backs in order to protect those breaching the legislation, Codes of Ethics, and Codes of Conduct.
Jodie Cobbin is now confirmed to make regular presentations to the NIPPN, and a membership list recently released in part shows a number of Justice NSW staff are active members.
It seems the game of Chinese Whispers breaching the public’s privacy and sharing confidential government information in a public forum is all in a day’s work for this ‘club’ confirmed to be operating in plain sight for over (2) two decades, an organisation documented to include privileged private enterprise individuals.
It is ironic Justice NSW issued a formal statement in August 2023 rightfully debunking any legitimacy or rights of protection or anonymity under Chatham House Rules.
So returning now to Ms Cobbin’s Sworn Affidavit and her testimony, which was further interrogated in the Tribunal in 2024 due to the fact Ms Cobbin seemed somehow unable to find any record of the subject conversation, Webb filed a Request for Review of Agency Conduct under the Personal Information & Privacy Protection Act 1998, PIPP, making specific reference to Jodie Cobbin.
And what a long-winded and convoluted process this turned out to be, exemplifying what the public must endure from a NSW agency which falls under the umbrella of the NSW Attorney-General……………. Somehow it took (41) forty-one days for the internal mail process to deliver Webb’s request for review to the right desk. With the date of the request for review of 17th July 2024, the final report was dated 05th November 2024, and was not finalised until numerous legitimate petitions were made. The reason for such a delay? Trolling through Webb’s community service website in an attempt to avoid agency accountability. Let’s be clear again here; a request for review of conduct under the PIPP Act 1998 Section 53 does not bring any agency employee to account. Nope! It’s a review of agency conduct. So either way, regardless of whether the agency disqualifies such a request, or justifies the actions of the officer, there is no accountability of the offending agency employee. They basically get off Scot-free. Any recompense or orders to address failures in departmental processes are not directed to the offender.It is a total rort, a joke, with the joke on the trusting public as standard practice.
The outcome of this valid request for review of agency conduct was to be expected however. When the public looks at the manner in which the same agency trolled the internet, effectively and repeatedly stalking Ms Webb, for information it could use to ensure she was denied access to Tribunal products and services, this recent outcome report solidifies the accepted behaviours and attitudes practiced by senior executives and solicitors within the NSW Department of Communities and Justice.
The resultant report claims there was no breach of privacy as the information referred to by Ms Cobbin was already in the public domain at the time of her Affidavit being 13th June 2023. The only problem with that is not all articles published on the website www.nswfreedomofinformation.net are published on the date of reference; meaning numerous media articles are published at a later date and at the convenience of Webb. “It is true I often reserve the publication for a later point in time, making a note of when the information actually becomes available and what documentation is relevant. An incident or action may have occurred at a particular past time or date, but is often not reported and published until well-after the fact completely at my discretion, leaving egg on their faces when they rely on it as some kind of damning chronology,” stated Webb. “Jodie Cobbin had no right to use my personal information for a collateral purpose, this clearly is a breach of the legislation. But when she is also on the record claiming reliance on Chatham House Rules to do so, a prep-school protocol which has been officially debunked, it’s easy to see the public’s rights and her statutory obligations are of no consequence to Ms Cobbin.” “They have completely disregarded the fact I, as a GIPA Applicant, am a member of the community, and I seek access to justice within that process. Clearly neither aspect has any value for those working very hard to undermine the legislated processes and ensure the government is open, transparent and accountable. They also completely disregard the fact they are public servants, there to do a job at the public’s expense and expectation, for the benefit and assistance of the public. Instead they operate to self-serve,” stated Ms Webb.
“I’m expecting the routine backlash from my commentary on this current matter, simply because I don’t choose to hide in the shadows as NIPPN does. I should not have any apprehensions of retaliation but unfortunately this is standard practice for these over-sensitive individuals who resent being held to account; people who enforce a “zero tolerance for aggression” policy usually plastered on front counters and notice boards, and verbalised on telephone call-wait systems, but who have no hesitation inflicting serious trauma including financial and reputational damage towards members of the public who dare to exercise their legal rights. I will publish those details as a matter of public interest whenever I become aware of it.” “In fact I should expect much more of the same now that those patterns of behaviours are confirmed entrenched practices by numerous staff within the Open Government Information & Privacy Unit. That department demands renaming as there is nothing open about it; if not a full clean out of stale and agenda-driven personnel for a fresh start for the benefit of the public it serves.”
The disqualified Request for Review of Conduct Report under the PPIP Act 1998 Section 53 is available here.
Contact:
Michael McIntosh, Jodie Cobbin, and Jonathan Franklin can be contacted on (02) 9716 2662 or infoandprivacy@justice.nsw.gov.au. Commentary on this article is invited via the form below.