Office of the NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner Procrastinates External Reviews of GIPA Determinations and Refuses to Exercise Discretion to Refer on to NCAT, Effectively Holding Valid Access Applications Hostage Long Enough to Deny Legislated Review Rights, 12.05.2026
What started out as an exercise in patience has turned out to be yet another loophole in the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, or GIPA, exposed by the long suffering trusting public endeavouring to access beneficial legislation; legislation claiming to be legally enforceable but which is anything but.
Usually it’s NSW government agencies obstructing access to information, blatantly procrastinating legislated processes, frustrating the public’s legal rights, even fabricating public interest considerations against disclosure, but today it was a whole new level which saw the Office of the NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner, IPC, doing just that.
The Access Applicant on this occasion is Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information.
She lodged (3) three Access Applications in August 2025 with the Department of Communities & Justice, DCJ.
Application 1 sought access to documents associated with the NCAT Statutory Review 2021; particularly submissions towards that Review identified as Submissions 1, 21, 24, and 56. Those submissions were classified as confidential. On 27th August 2025 DCJ Information Officer Jordan Creyson, a pseudonym, requested an advance deposit claiming processing costs of $150.00.
Application 2 sought access to documents associated to NCAT Annual Reports of 2022-2023 and 2023-2024. The information sought the provision of the membership list of the NCAT Liaison Group and Divisional Consultative Forum Members Administrative & Equal Opportunity Division. The request for information included minutes of meetings of the Forum, and the founding document setting out the Forum’s framework, objectives, structure, purpose and intention. On 27th August 2025 DCJ Information Officer Jordan Creyson, a pseudonym, requested an advance deposit claiming processing costs of $180.00.
Application 3 sought access to documents associated with DCJ’s Submission to the NSW Law Reform Commission dated 22nd May 2019, including the release of the legal advice sought by DCJ Director Open Government Information & Privacy Unit Jodie Cobbin, and the release of the legal advice provided in return. DCJ has claimed legal professional privilege despite publishing its course of action, effectively disclosing what has occurred.
It is understood Jordan Creyson is Jodie Cobbin. The GIPA Act 2009 makes no provision for the use of pseudonyms. Oh well.
Jodie Cobbin is an ex-NSW Police Superintendent and currently sits in the position of Director / Business Unit Manager, Open Government Information & Privacy Unit (yes it’s certainly a mouthful). She is on the record breaching the public’s privacy, acting to undermine the legislation including petitioning for legislative change for that purpose, and most famously for her public presentation in March 2019 for her creation "Tale of a Fixated Applicant." That presentation in a public place where private enterprise was present, saw Cobbin propagate her personal recommendations to treat publicly denigrated Access Applicants disproportionate to the legislation, suggesting strategies including involving NSW Police, seeking Section 110 Orders, and seeking costs which are not based in law as QUOTE The light at the end of the tunnel UNQUOTE.
Cobbin is also on the record bypassing DCJ’s legislated obligations under GIPA when she petitioned the whole of the State’s right to information and privacy officer population on a false premise DCJ was conducting some kind of convoluted study, but she just wanted the public’s information forward to her in true police dossier fashion.
Clearly Cobbin still sees herself in blue with unquestionable powers. The IPC is fully aware of the presentation and the fabricated study, with no evidence it has taken any action to reign in this abuse of the legislation, including the seeking of costs not based in law.
Disagreeing with the costs claimed and documents withheld by DCJ in her Access Applications, Webb exercised her review rights with the IPC. So no actual decision by DCJ, this was just about DCJ saying “you need to pay us more money or your Access Application will be stalled” and simply "nope, you can't have it because we said so." These ultimatums are close relatives of extortion, designed to dissuade the public from exercising their legal rights. By late April 2026, some (8) eight months after lodging the legislated requests for external review with the IPC, and having seen no progress whatsoever, Webb understandably wrote to the IPC asking about the progress of her access applications.
The IPC had provided commentary to that date saying it had still not allocated the Access Applications to an officer due to insufficient staffing resources, and it had also made mention of the agency DCJ not having yet provided all the necessary documentation to enable it to commence the review process.
What?! DCJ still had not provided the necessary documentation to facilitate the review after (8) eight months!? Surely not…………. And what is the Commissioner doing about it?
Tired of waiting for what seemed to be an indefinite period with no end in sight, Webb formally requested the IPC exercise the GIPA Act 2009 Section 99, which provides the IPC the ability to transfer the Application(s) to the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal, NCAT. Regardless of the protracted review process with NCAT, at least this would see some movement towards completion. However, the IPC has today advised Webb it will not be exercising that discretion. No reasons, just a flat NO.
The letters state the obvious: We're not exercising our discretion. And if you withdraw your requests for external review by the IPC at this point in time you will be unable to seek a review with NCAT because the legislation brings the filing date well and truly out of time. Effectively you snoozed, you lose.
This action or lack of action on the part of the IPC where the legislation provides a viable mechanism for Access Applicants to continue their external review journey, is another example of the IPC’s lack of interest in the public’s legislated rights.
It would be no consequence to the IPC to transfer an Application for External Review to NCAT under Section 99, or alternatively advise the Access Applicant it is unable to process the Request for External Review within the statutory timeframe and enable an NCAT Application to be made inside the legislated time frame.
The Information Commissioner advertises she is a Champion of Access to Information Rights. It’s not true. It’s just propaganda. She has no binding powers. She cannot compel any agency to do any thing. She does not make herself available to the public she claims to champion; any member of the public seeking a meeting will attest to that. She is biased towards her subordinate agencies. She provides ready access to Agency personnel; documents show agency personnel referring to her by her surname and confirming meetings are facilitated pretty much on demand. She fails to report misconduct. She takes no action on breaches of the legislation by agencies. And she picks and chooses which GIPA Act 2009 Section 110 proceedings she will grace with her illustrious appearance. Well not illustrious appearance, but she does send her staff along to reiterate the meaningless IPC rhetoric. “I’m currently appealing the latest Section 110 decision against me. This is the fourth time NSW government agencies have tried to secure this order of restraint which effectively takes away my so-called legislated rights to access NSW government information. The first I won, the second I lost but won on appeal, the third I won at remittal,” stated Webb.
“Not once has the IPC appeared at any of my hearings. Not once. But she does jump in when agency interests are involved.”
“Her Annual Report 2024-2025, page 39 states: ‘The Information Commissioner has the right to appear and be heard in NCAT proceedings. This right has generally been exercised for the purpose of assisting the Tribunal with interpretation of the relevant legislation and issues of law.’ Not sure what she’s referring to there but that’s definitely a public statement which is not truthful,” stated Webb. The IPC Annual Report 2024-2025 also provides some interesting Feedback Survey Statistics, although who's being asked for feedback is very unclear: Client Satisfaction SurveyIn 2024–25, the IPC continued to gain valuable feedback from its Client Satisfaction Survey (who participated???) across the complaint and review case types. Data from the survey shows that there was a decrease in several areas compared with the previous reporting period.
In 2024–25:• 58% of respondents indicated that the outcome of their case was clearly communicated by the IPC, a significant decrease of 17% from 2023–24
• 46% of respondents indicated that they were satisfied with the outcome, a decrease of 2% from 2023–24
• 49% of respondents indicated that they felt the process as fair, a decrease of 8% from 2023–24
• 49% of respondents were satisfied with the service provided by the IPC, a decrease of 8% from 2023–24
• 61% of respondents agreed that information such as fact sheets and guidelines were easy to understand, a decrease of 2% from 2023–24. In summary, a decrease in outcome satisfaction, a decrease in evaluation of fairness, a decrease in satisfaction of service, and a decrease in satisfaction of information. Not a good look at all............! Perhaps if there was more effort invested in enforcing the actual legislation and disciplining atrocious public servant activities things might be looking up. "Survey me once that happens and I'll give a raving review!" stated Webb.
“NCAT has confirmed any Administrative Review in the context of the GIPA Act 2009 is made known to the IPC. So the IPC was fully informed about the nature of these recent Section 110 proceedings but stood aside, leaving an unrepresented party standing against the might and resources of DCJ, yes it’s a very vindictive department, Port Stephens Council the loser in all my Section 110 cases to this point, and Goulburn Mulwaree Council an opportunistic freeloader. The IPC was fully informed the Section 110 Application was not based in law, but it totally abandoned the general public by not providing commentary on the application of the legislation by this colluding gang, and it once again abandoned me.”
“The combination of repeatedly being missing in action and the documented response to these latest (3) access applications leaves no other interpretation other than the IPC is acting in a retaliatory manner because I personally continue to easily expose corruption of the legislation and the Commissioner’s failure to do anything of substance to intervene in that. This systemic attitude towards the public’s rights is the legacy left by the previous Commissioner Elizabeth Tydd who now sits as the federal Information Commissioner, heaven help us!”
“I’ve also spoken publicly about questionable conduct of IPC staff. Response commentary on the IPC’s Social Media pages now sees me blocked indefinitely. So public debate is clearly not something it wants to encourage. There are other failures of course including my request for investigation into Port Stephens Council which is now infamous for its abuse of the GIPA Act 2009 for over a decade including making false and misleading statements to the IPC itself but which saw no action whatsoever, and fabricating evidence in NCAT proceedings again ‘nothing to see here’. I also reported Council to the IPC seeking legislated publication of the list of open access information Council refuses to release in breach of its mandate to do so.”
“This continued lack of action and unwillingness to do any kind of heavy legislative lifting actually endorses corrupt behaviour. Today's written confirmation the Commissioner will not exercise her discretion has come as no surprise. Her position is nothing but a token at huge public expense. I’m not able to see it any differently based on experience and evidence.”
If ever there is a determination on these (3) three long-standing Access Applications now sitting in the IPC external review abyss, this Site will report on that. Webb has also asked the IPC to confirm whether or not DCJ has actually provided the documents necessary for the External Review, with the IPC relying on the GIPA Act 2009 Schedule 2 which protects inter-agency communications.
“How can any person believe the IPC is a champion of Access to Information Rights when she avoids any degree of transparency?!”
Looking back at afew of the IPC's Right to Information Week campaigns such as "Mainstreaming Access to Information and Participation in the Public Sector in NSW (2024)", "The importance of the online space for access to information (2023)," and lets not forget "Open by Design: integrity through greater transparency and accountability in government (2021)," the public does have the right to expect the IPC is a Commissioner of her word and practices what she preaches. And of course, any recommendation the IPC makes towards DCJ on these latest External Reviews is likely to see the same outcome as those earlier, that is knowing the decisions are not binding Jodie Cobbin’s team will do absolutely nothing saying basically “take it to the NCAT" with a thumb at the end of their nose.
“It’s all about control, plain and simple; control and punishment,” stated Webb.
The IPC’s letter of today’s date is available here.
If you have a well-documented IPC case concerning access to government information and you want to share it, please contact Telina at info@nswfreedomofinformation.net.
Contact: Information Commissioner, ipcinfo@ipc.nsw.gov.au Jodie Cobbin, Jodie.cobbin@dcj.nsw.gov.au
Usually it’s NSW government agencies obstructing access to information, blatantly procrastinating legislated processes, frustrating the public’s legal rights, even fabricating public interest considerations against disclosure, but today it was a whole new level which saw the Office of the NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner, IPC, doing just that.
The Access Applicant on this occasion is Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information.
She lodged (3) three Access Applications in August 2025 with the Department of Communities & Justice, DCJ.
Application 1 sought access to documents associated with the NCAT Statutory Review 2021; particularly submissions towards that Review identified as Submissions 1, 21, 24, and 56. Those submissions were classified as confidential. On 27th August 2025 DCJ Information Officer Jordan Creyson, a pseudonym, requested an advance deposit claiming processing costs of $150.00.
Application 2 sought access to documents associated to NCAT Annual Reports of 2022-2023 and 2023-2024. The information sought the provision of the membership list of the NCAT Liaison Group and Divisional Consultative Forum Members Administrative & Equal Opportunity Division. The request for information included minutes of meetings of the Forum, and the founding document setting out the Forum’s framework, objectives, structure, purpose and intention. On 27th August 2025 DCJ Information Officer Jordan Creyson, a pseudonym, requested an advance deposit claiming processing costs of $180.00.
Application 3 sought access to documents associated with DCJ’s Submission to the NSW Law Reform Commission dated 22nd May 2019, including the release of the legal advice sought by DCJ Director Open Government Information & Privacy Unit Jodie Cobbin, and the release of the legal advice provided in return. DCJ has claimed legal professional privilege despite publishing its course of action, effectively disclosing what has occurred.
It is understood Jordan Creyson is Jodie Cobbin. The GIPA Act 2009 makes no provision for the use of pseudonyms. Oh well.
Jodie Cobbin is an ex-NSW Police Superintendent and currently sits in the position of Director / Business Unit Manager, Open Government Information & Privacy Unit (yes it’s certainly a mouthful). She is on the record breaching the public’s privacy, acting to undermine the legislation including petitioning for legislative change for that purpose, and most famously for her public presentation in March 2019 for her creation "Tale of a Fixated Applicant." That presentation in a public place where private enterprise was present, saw Cobbin propagate her personal recommendations to treat publicly denigrated Access Applicants disproportionate to the legislation, suggesting strategies including involving NSW Police, seeking Section 110 Orders, and seeking costs which are not based in law as QUOTE The light at the end of the tunnel UNQUOTE.
Cobbin is also on the record bypassing DCJ’s legislated obligations under GIPA when she petitioned the whole of the State’s right to information and privacy officer population on a false premise DCJ was conducting some kind of convoluted study, but she just wanted the public’s information forward to her in true police dossier fashion.
Clearly Cobbin still sees herself in blue with unquestionable powers. The IPC is fully aware of the presentation and the fabricated study, with no evidence it has taken any action to reign in this abuse of the legislation, including the seeking of costs not based in law.
Disagreeing with the costs claimed and documents withheld by DCJ in her Access Applications, Webb exercised her review rights with the IPC. So no actual decision by DCJ, this was just about DCJ saying “you need to pay us more money or your Access Application will be stalled” and simply "nope, you can't have it because we said so." These ultimatums are close relatives of extortion, designed to dissuade the public from exercising their legal rights. By late April 2026, some (8) eight months after lodging the legislated requests for external review with the IPC, and having seen no progress whatsoever, Webb understandably wrote to the IPC asking about the progress of her access applications.
The IPC had provided commentary to that date saying it had still not allocated the Access Applications to an officer due to insufficient staffing resources, and it had also made mention of the agency DCJ not having yet provided all the necessary documentation to enable it to commence the review process.
What?! DCJ still had not provided the necessary documentation to facilitate the review after (8) eight months!? Surely not…………. And what is the Commissioner doing about it?
Tired of waiting for what seemed to be an indefinite period with no end in sight, Webb formally requested the IPC exercise the GIPA Act 2009 Section 99, which provides the IPC the ability to transfer the Application(s) to the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal, NCAT. Regardless of the protracted review process with NCAT, at least this would see some movement towards completion. However, the IPC has today advised Webb it will not be exercising that discretion. No reasons, just a flat NO.
The letters state the obvious: We're not exercising our discretion. And if you withdraw your requests for external review by the IPC at this point in time you will be unable to seek a review with NCAT because the legislation brings the filing date well and truly out of time. Effectively you snoozed, you lose.
This action or lack of action on the part of the IPC where the legislation provides a viable mechanism for Access Applicants to continue their external review journey, is another example of the IPC’s lack of interest in the public’s legislated rights.
It would be no consequence to the IPC to transfer an Application for External Review to NCAT under Section 99, or alternatively advise the Access Applicant it is unable to process the Request for External Review within the statutory timeframe and enable an NCAT Application to be made inside the legislated time frame.
The Information Commissioner advertises she is a Champion of Access to Information Rights. It’s not true. It’s just propaganda. She has no binding powers. She cannot compel any agency to do any thing. She does not make herself available to the public she claims to champion; any member of the public seeking a meeting will attest to that. She is biased towards her subordinate agencies. She provides ready access to Agency personnel; documents show agency personnel referring to her by her surname and confirming meetings are facilitated pretty much on demand. She fails to report misconduct. She takes no action on breaches of the legislation by agencies. And she picks and chooses which GIPA Act 2009 Section 110 proceedings she will grace with her illustrious appearance. Well not illustrious appearance, but she does send her staff along to reiterate the meaningless IPC rhetoric. “I’m currently appealing the latest Section 110 decision against me. This is the fourth time NSW government agencies have tried to secure this order of restraint which effectively takes away my so-called legislated rights to access NSW government information. The first I won, the second I lost but won on appeal, the third I won at remittal,” stated Webb.
“Not once has the IPC appeared at any of my hearings. Not once. But she does jump in when agency interests are involved.”
“Her Annual Report 2024-2025, page 39 states: ‘The Information Commissioner has the right to appear and be heard in NCAT proceedings. This right has generally been exercised for the purpose of assisting the Tribunal with interpretation of the relevant legislation and issues of law.’ Not sure what she’s referring to there but that’s definitely a public statement which is not truthful,” stated Webb. The IPC Annual Report 2024-2025 also provides some interesting Feedback Survey Statistics, although who's being asked for feedback is very unclear: Client Satisfaction SurveyIn 2024–25, the IPC continued to gain valuable feedback from its Client Satisfaction Survey (who participated???) across the complaint and review case types. Data from the survey shows that there was a decrease in several areas compared with the previous reporting period.
In 2024–25:• 58% of respondents indicated that the outcome of their case was clearly communicated by the IPC, a significant decrease of 17% from 2023–24
• 46% of respondents indicated that they were satisfied with the outcome, a decrease of 2% from 2023–24
• 49% of respondents indicated that they felt the process as fair, a decrease of 8% from 2023–24
• 49% of respondents were satisfied with the service provided by the IPC, a decrease of 8% from 2023–24
• 61% of respondents agreed that information such as fact sheets and guidelines were easy to understand, a decrease of 2% from 2023–24. In summary, a decrease in outcome satisfaction, a decrease in evaluation of fairness, a decrease in satisfaction of service, and a decrease in satisfaction of information. Not a good look at all............! Perhaps if there was more effort invested in enforcing the actual legislation and disciplining atrocious public servant activities things might be looking up. "Survey me once that happens and I'll give a raving review!" stated Webb.
“NCAT has confirmed any Administrative Review in the context of the GIPA Act 2009 is made known to the IPC. So the IPC was fully informed about the nature of these recent Section 110 proceedings but stood aside, leaving an unrepresented party standing against the might and resources of DCJ, yes it’s a very vindictive department, Port Stephens Council the loser in all my Section 110 cases to this point, and Goulburn Mulwaree Council an opportunistic freeloader. The IPC was fully informed the Section 110 Application was not based in law, but it totally abandoned the general public by not providing commentary on the application of the legislation by this colluding gang, and it once again abandoned me.”
“The combination of repeatedly being missing in action and the documented response to these latest (3) access applications leaves no other interpretation other than the IPC is acting in a retaliatory manner because I personally continue to easily expose corruption of the legislation and the Commissioner’s failure to do anything of substance to intervene in that. This systemic attitude towards the public’s rights is the legacy left by the previous Commissioner Elizabeth Tydd who now sits as the federal Information Commissioner, heaven help us!”
“I’ve also spoken publicly about questionable conduct of IPC staff. Response commentary on the IPC’s Social Media pages now sees me blocked indefinitely. So public debate is clearly not something it wants to encourage. There are other failures of course including my request for investigation into Port Stephens Council which is now infamous for its abuse of the GIPA Act 2009 for over a decade including making false and misleading statements to the IPC itself but which saw no action whatsoever, and fabricating evidence in NCAT proceedings again ‘nothing to see here’. I also reported Council to the IPC seeking legislated publication of the list of open access information Council refuses to release in breach of its mandate to do so.”
“This continued lack of action and unwillingness to do any kind of heavy legislative lifting actually endorses corrupt behaviour. Today's written confirmation the Commissioner will not exercise her discretion has come as no surprise. Her position is nothing but a token at huge public expense. I’m not able to see it any differently based on experience and evidence.”
If ever there is a determination on these (3) three long-standing Access Applications now sitting in the IPC external review abyss, this Site will report on that. Webb has also asked the IPC to confirm whether or not DCJ has actually provided the documents necessary for the External Review, with the IPC relying on the GIPA Act 2009 Schedule 2 which protects inter-agency communications.
“How can any person believe the IPC is a champion of Access to Information Rights when she avoids any degree of transparency?!”
Looking back at afew of the IPC's Right to Information Week campaigns such as "Mainstreaming Access to Information and Participation in the Public Sector in NSW (2024)", "The importance of the online space for access to information (2023)," and lets not forget "Open by Design: integrity through greater transparency and accountability in government (2021)," the public does have the right to expect the IPC is a Commissioner of her word and practices what she preaches. And of course, any recommendation the IPC makes towards DCJ on these latest External Reviews is likely to see the same outcome as those earlier, that is knowing the decisions are not binding Jodie Cobbin’s team will do absolutely nothing saying basically “take it to the NCAT" with a thumb at the end of their nose.
“It’s all about control, plain and simple; control and punishment,” stated Webb.
The IPC’s letter of today’s date is available here.
If you have a well-documented IPC case concerning access to government information and you want to share it, please contact Telina at info@nswfreedomofinformation.net.
Contact: Information Commissioner, ipcinfo@ipc.nsw.gov.au Jodie Cobbin, Jodie.cobbin@dcj.nsw.gov.au
Contact us using this form to comment on this article.