Numerous NSW Government Senior Executives, including NSW Premier, Ignore Legitimate Report of Corruption by NSW Crown Solicitor Senior Executive In Contravention of Legislation, Published Policy, Corruption Reporting and Response Protocols, 14.02.2026
The report of corrupt conduct (August 2025) set out a senior government employee repeatedly acting in breach of the public’s beneficial legislation.
It was scathing about the abuse of the NCAT’s jurisdiction within its Administrative Review forum which resulted in members of the public being financially, emotionally, and mentally traumatised. Not once, but repeatedly for over a decade.
The report went further, naming one individual responsible, and the extraordinary revelation this course of corruption of the legislation was being recommended as a management strategy against the public by one of her colleagues in parallel.
The report systematically set out for the Premier, Ministers and Agency Heads, what has been happening right under their noses with no indication of it ceasing, or any person with the courage to intervene to ensure it ceased. In fact, all indications are the individual is still in her job with business as usual and no accountability whatsoever, not even a formal reprimand. It actually appears she has been promoted................
The report concerns the case of the Office of the NSW Crown Solicitor (CSO) and one of its Principal Solicitors Kiri Sue Mattes. Mattes has operated primarily in the access to information and privacy space, in the area of administrative law. This means she interacts with the public’s beneficial legislation the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act) and the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (PPIP Act) on likely a daily basis.
Mattes is the official trainer to the NSW government in all things GIPA. She is the NSW government's face of GIPA.
So it must be said she understands the legislation. Again, she’s lecturing and training on it. She’s argued the CSO’s GIPA Training has commercial value and that the training documentation should be protected from public view because of that value. She has expressed concern if the CSO’s training material was made public, agencies might not pay for the training, instead obtaining it free of charge or at a cheaper rate out on the open market. She has also given evidence no government employee makes an undertaking to keep the CSO’s GIPA training material confidential, an important fact when considering the potential dissemination of that material should an employee move on and out of government. After all, this has happened before.
Mattes does not make her GIPA Training available to the general public albeit there does not appear to be any legislation prohibiting such training. Perhaps the only way to ensure ongoing advantage over the public in its efforts to access NSW government information, is to hide the process. That seems fair; government has unlimited access to the legal resources, all the public monies to buy extra solicitors and barristers; all the tech including AI assistance; top level electronic equipment designed to make administrative tasks easier; legal reference services; in-house solicitors; the General Counsel: it makes sense to continue that imbalance of power and resources to extend to the obstruction of access to the government’s GIPA process. And of course we’re talking about the ACTUAL process, not the legislated process which is evidenced to shackle the public’s endeavours to exercise legislated rights.
Strange though there has not been any mention in any CSO Annual Reports about any revenue raised by the CSO for its GIPA Training. Perhaps it all goes to the Christmas Fund………. But in all seriousness that leaves those Annual Reports as a misrepresentation of the CSO's activities to the NSW Parliament concerning revenue and expenditure.
But back to the story.
So Kiri Mattes is fully fluent, shall we say, in all things GIPA.
How is it then she has managed to act for agency clients in seeking costs against the public, generally self-represented under-resourced poor schmucks, when the GIPA Act 2009 the enabling legislation in a case of access to information, does not make provision for costs?
Let’s just say that again. There are no costs in GIPA, not for either side, not for agencies and not for the public. No costs. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Diddly-squat. Zero! This is supported by NCAT documentation, the NCAT’s Policy Guideline on Costs, which states its jurisdiction to consider an application for costs is limited by a particular law giving NCAT discretionary powers to do so or not. This discretionary law translates to the enabling legislation. Unless the enabling legislation states costs can be awarded, there is no jurisdiction to even consider such an application. Neither GIPA or PPIP provides any discretion on the issue of costs. It is irrelevant who the parties are; not even the Pope or King of England can be awarded costs in the context of the GIPA Act 2009 or PPIP Act 1998 by the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal. It was never the Parliament’s Intention the public’s beneficial legislation, which is enacted by the reasonable sum of $30.00, would be positioned to punish the public for exercising supposed legally enforceable rights.
Mattes knows it’s unlawful but she does it anyway.
So on 18th August 2025, Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information sent a report on this corruption of the legislation by a person professed to be the State’s GIPA Guru (according to the Department of Communities & Justice Director / Business Unit Manager Open Government Information & Privacy Unit Ms Jodie Cobbin – yes that is a mouthful……).
The report was copied to a number of relevant senior government executives including NSW Premier Chris Minns and the NSW Attorney-General Michael Daley, individuals who should have been so shocked by the content of the report, they each demanded action. However, there is no evidence any person demanded action of any kind. No evidence any person made any inquiry. No evidence any person forwarded their copy of the document to the Crown Solicitor Karen Smith for a ‘please explain’, as seems to be standard NSW government agency protocol, generally known as departmental buck passing as each person remains too weak to do anything of substance.
And not one of those senior executives has responded to Webb, including neglecting to provide any acknowledgement of receipt.
On 26th August 2025, Webb received an email from the CSO; no author name, no file reference number, saying no wrongdoing had occurred.
On 01st October 2025, Webb reached out again to the CSO, asking for a Reference Number and other information pertaining to her report.
On 10th November 2025, Webb received a secondary email from CSO, no author name, no file reference number, saying the matter was closed.
And there you have it. A concise report of corruption of the legislation by a prominent NSW Government Solicitor, the impacts of which are causing the NSW public financial, emotional, and psychological harm, and no person seems to give a flying hoot. Webb’s report is available here with the list of recipients. CSO’s first response is available here. CSO’s second response is available here. NCAT’s Guideline on Costs is available here, noting Point 5 on discretion. Kiri Sue Mattes remains with the Office of the NSW Crown Solicitor, and appears to be currently enjoying a cushy promotion. Karen Smith has effectively turned a blind eye on corruption of the legislation by effectively endorsing the corrupt conduct of one of her prominent solicitors and likely the one with the most public face of the organisation. Ironically, the CSO gave legal advice to Service NSW in 2016 on the issue of agencies imposing fees and charges without the legislative mechanism to do so. Surely it is the case the imposition of fees and charges includes the awarding of costs? That advice was clear unless the issue is clearly set out in the legislation, ‘arising out of the statute’, then fees and charges cannot be imposed. The advising CSO Officer at the time was Lea Armstrong, now President of the NCAT, Her Honour Lea Armstrong. So we have the NCAT’s Commander in Chief stating a decade earlier words to the effect “if it’s not in the legislation we can’t do it,” a fundamental principle of law, and yet her organisation is randomly handing out costs orders in the context of GIPA and PPIP in contravention of the legislation. That Service NSW media release and CSO legal advice are available here and here. Shame Karen Smith, Shame! Shame Kiri Mattes, Shame! Shame Premier Minns and Minister Daley, Shame! It is due to the fact nothing has been done about the corrupt conduct of the legislation by the CSO and its Kiri Sue Mattes after the official reporting (6) six months prior, that this matter has now been made public, as a significant matter of public interest. Of course, Mattes is not the only solicitor being paid by public monies who acts in this manner. But she is the example of acceptable behaviours by those sitting in positions as community role models. “What’s needed is a complete cultural shift where agency personnel understand, appreciate and accept the public has the right to access NSW government information, as opposed to the current norm which criminalises the public and punishes the public’s endeavours to exercise their legal rights through the pursuit of costs,” stated Webb. "It’s also very concerning this valid report of corruption has clearly been totally ignored, with no paper trail to follow, despite the policies and procedures setting departmental standards and professing a ‘zero tolerance’ to corruption. It’s just lip service”. “Much the same as the State’s reinvention of its service delivery mechanisms which saw the successful implementation of Service NSW, the public seeks an individual willing to do the very hard task of changing the dynamics and attitudes and practices of NSW Right to Information Officers (and Privacy Officers) and properly re-educating them to do their jobs as a service to the community. Currently these officers treat government information as if it is their own, to be guarded. They go through the Public Interest Considerations Against Disclosure like a shopping list, looking for all the reasons to prevent access to information. They know it’s difficult to seek a review or get any just decisions. These public servants have effectively managed to turn exercising legal rights into offensive conduct. This is not the intention of the NSW Parliament made clear at the GIPA Act 2009 Section 3 Object of the Act,” stated Webb. “They need to start by re-reading, or reading for the first time, the speech of Nathan Rees when he introduced the GIPA Act. Transparency and accountability come through openness, not cover ups; not to mention the fundamental democratic fact the public has the right to know what its government is doing. We have the legislated right to ask for government records. We have the right to question the government’s actions. Those rights should not be responded to with punishment of any kind of retaliation including covert denigration. These actions are now documented. And a huge part of this state-wide management strategy is seeking costs. Until we all speak up and get the state’s government employees to stop thinking about themselves and start thinking about the public they serve, we really cannot expect much to change.” If you have had costs against you by the Office of the NSW Crown Solicitor directly or by any of her solicitors most particularly Kiri Mattes, in the context of the GIPA Act 2009 or PPIP Act 1998 , we ask that you contact us at info@nswfreedomofinformation.net.
Contact:Karen Smith, NSW Crown Solicitor, crownsol@cso.nsw.gov.auChris Minns, NSW Premier, office@premier.nsw.gov.auMichael Daley, NSW Attorney General, office@daley.minister.nsw.gov.auKathrina Lo, NSW Public Service Commissioner, info@nsw.ipaa.org.au(Ms Lo has hidden her Public Service Commissioner contact information from the public)
The report systematically set out for the Premier, Ministers and Agency Heads, what has been happening right under their noses with no indication of it ceasing, or any person with the courage to intervene to ensure it ceased. In fact, all indications are the individual is still in her job with business as usual and no accountability whatsoever, not even a formal reprimand. It actually appears she has been promoted................
The report concerns the case of the Office of the NSW Crown Solicitor (CSO) and one of its Principal Solicitors Kiri Sue Mattes. Mattes has operated primarily in the access to information and privacy space, in the area of administrative law. This means she interacts with the public’s beneficial legislation the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act) and the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (PPIP Act) on likely a daily basis.
Mattes is the official trainer to the NSW government in all things GIPA. She is the NSW government's face of GIPA.
So it must be said she understands the legislation. Again, she’s lecturing and training on it. She’s argued the CSO’s GIPA Training has commercial value and that the training documentation should be protected from public view because of that value. She has expressed concern if the CSO’s training material was made public, agencies might not pay for the training, instead obtaining it free of charge or at a cheaper rate out on the open market. She has also given evidence no government employee makes an undertaking to keep the CSO’s GIPA training material confidential, an important fact when considering the potential dissemination of that material should an employee move on and out of government. After all, this has happened before.
Mattes does not make her GIPA Training available to the general public albeit there does not appear to be any legislation prohibiting such training. Perhaps the only way to ensure ongoing advantage over the public in its efforts to access NSW government information, is to hide the process. That seems fair; government has unlimited access to the legal resources, all the public monies to buy extra solicitors and barristers; all the tech including AI assistance; top level electronic equipment designed to make administrative tasks easier; legal reference services; in-house solicitors; the General Counsel: it makes sense to continue that imbalance of power and resources to extend to the obstruction of access to the government’s GIPA process. And of course we’re talking about the ACTUAL process, not the legislated process which is evidenced to shackle the public’s endeavours to exercise legislated rights.
Strange though there has not been any mention in any CSO Annual Reports about any revenue raised by the CSO for its GIPA Training. Perhaps it all goes to the Christmas Fund………. But in all seriousness that leaves those Annual Reports as a misrepresentation of the CSO's activities to the NSW Parliament concerning revenue and expenditure.
But back to the story.
So Kiri Mattes is fully fluent, shall we say, in all things GIPA.
How is it then she has managed to act for agency clients in seeking costs against the public, generally self-represented under-resourced poor schmucks, when the GIPA Act 2009 the enabling legislation in a case of access to information, does not make provision for costs?
Let’s just say that again. There are no costs in GIPA, not for either side, not for agencies and not for the public. No costs. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Diddly-squat. Zero! This is supported by NCAT documentation, the NCAT’s Policy Guideline on Costs, which states its jurisdiction to consider an application for costs is limited by a particular law giving NCAT discretionary powers to do so or not. This discretionary law translates to the enabling legislation. Unless the enabling legislation states costs can be awarded, there is no jurisdiction to even consider such an application. Neither GIPA or PPIP provides any discretion on the issue of costs. It is irrelevant who the parties are; not even the Pope or King of England can be awarded costs in the context of the GIPA Act 2009 or PPIP Act 1998 by the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal. It was never the Parliament’s Intention the public’s beneficial legislation, which is enacted by the reasonable sum of $30.00, would be positioned to punish the public for exercising supposed legally enforceable rights.
Mattes knows it’s unlawful but she does it anyway.
So on 18th August 2025, Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information sent a report on this corruption of the legislation by a person professed to be the State’s GIPA Guru (according to the Department of Communities & Justice Director / Business Unit Manager Open Government Information & Privacy Unit Ms Jodie Cobbin – yes that is a mouthful……).
The report was copied to a number of relevant senior government executives including NSW Premier Chris Minns and the NSW Attorney-General Michael Daley, individuals who should have been so shocked by the content of the report, they each demanded action. However, there is no evidence any person demanded action of any kind. No evidence any person made any inquiry. No evidence any person forwarded their copy of the document to the Crown Solicitor Karen Smith for a ‘please explain’, as seems to be standard NSW government agency protocol, generally known as departmental buck passing as each person remains too weak to do anything of substance.
And not one of those senior executives has responded to Webb, including neglecting to provide any acknowledgement of receipt.
On 26th August 2025, Webb received an email from the CSO; no author name, no file reference number, saying no wrongdoing had occurred.
On 01st October 2025, Webb reached out again to the CSO, asking for a Reference Number and other information pertaining to her report.
On 10th November 2025, Webb received a secondary email from CSO, no author name, no file reference number, saying the matter was closed.
And there you have it. A concise report of corruption of the legislation by a prominent NSW Government Solicitor, the impacts of which are causing the NSW public financial, emotional, and psychological harm, and no person seems to give a flying hoot. Webb’s report is available here with the list of recipients. CSO’s first response is available here. CSO’s second response is available here. NCAT’s Guideline on Costs is available here, noting Point 5 on discretion. Kiri Sue Mattes remains with the Office of the NSW Crown Solicitor, and appears to be currently enjoying a cushy promotion. Karen Smith has effectively turned a blind eye on corruption of the legislation by effectively endorsing the corrupt conduct of one of her prominent solicitors and likely the one with the most public face of the organisation. Ironically, the CSO gave legal advice to Service NSW in 2016 on the issue of agencies imposing fees and charges without the legislative mechanism to do so. Surely it is the case the imposition of fees and charges includes the awarding of costs? That advice was clear unless the issue is clearly set out in the legislation, ‘arising out of the statute’, then fees and charges cannot be imposed. The advising CSO Officer at the time was Lea Armstrong, now President of the NCAT, Her Honour Lea Armstrong. So we have the NCAT’s Commander in Chief stating a decade earlier words to the effect “if it’s not in the legislation we can’t do it,” a fundamental principle of law, and yet her organisation is randomly handing out costs orders in the context of GIPA and PPIP in contravention of the legislation. That Service NSW media release and CSO legal advice are available here and here. Shame Karen Smith, Shame! Shame Kiri Mattes, Shame! Shame Premier Minns and Minister Daley, Shame! It is due to the fact nothing has been done about the corrupt conduct of the legislation by the CSO and its Kiri Sue Mattes after the official reporting (6) six months prior, that this matter has now been made public, as a significant matter of public interest. Of course, Mattes is not the only solicitor being paid by public monies who acts in this manner. But she is the example of acceptable behaviours by those sitting in positions as community role models. “What’s needed is a complete cultural shift where agency personnel understand, appreciate and accept the public has the right to access NSW government information, as opposed to the current norm which criminalises the public and punishes the public’s endeavours to exercise their legal rights through the pursuit of costs,” stated Webb. "It’s also very concerning this valid report of corruption has clearly been totally ignored, with no paper trail to follow, despite the policies and procedures setting departmental standards and professing a ‘zero tolerance’ to corruption. It’s just lip service”. “Much the same as the State’s reinvention of its service delivery mechanisms which saw the successful implementation of Service NSW, the public seeks an individual willing to do the very hard task of changing the dynamics and attitudes and practices of NSW Right to Information Officers (and Privacy Officers) and properly re-educating them to do their jobs as a service to the community. Currently these officers treat government information as if it is their own, to be guarded. They go through the Public Interest Considerations Against Disclosure like a shopping list, looking for all the reasons to prevent access to information. They know it’s difficult to seek a review or get any just decisions. These public servants have effectively managed to turn exercising legal rights into offensive conduct. This is not the intention of the NSW Parliament made clear at the GIPA Act 2009 Section 3 Object of the Act,” stated Webb. “They need to start by re-reading, or reading for the first time, the speech of Nathan Rees when he introduced the GIPA Act. Transparency and accountability come through openness, not cover ups; not to mention the fundamental democratic fact the public has the right to know what its government is doing. We have the legislated right to ask for government records. We have the right to question the government’s actions. Those rights should not be responded to with punishment of any kind of retaliation including covert denigration. These actions are now documented. And a huge part of this state-wide management strategy is seeking costs. Until we all speak up and get the state’s government employees to stop thinking about themselves and start thinking about the public they serve, we really cannot expect much to change.” If you have had costs against you by the Office of the NSW Crown Solicitor directly or by any of her solicitors most particularly Kiri Mattes, in the context of the GIPA Act 2009 or PPIP Act 1998 , we ask that you contact us at info@nswfreedomofinformation.net.
Contact:Karen Smith, NSW Crown Solicitor, crownsol@cso.nsw.gov.auChris Minns, NSW Premier, office@premier.nsw.gov.auMichael Daley, NSW Attorney General, office@daley.minister.nsw.gov.auKathrina Lo, NSW Public Service Commissioner, info@nsw.ipaa.org.au(Ms Lo has hidden her Public Service Commissioner contact information from the public)
Contact us using this form to comment on this article.