Numerous NSW Government Senior Executives, including NSW Premier, Ignore Legitimate Report of Corruption by Dept of Communities & Justice Principal Solicitor In Contravention of Legislation, Published Policy, Corruption Reporting and Response Protocols, 16.02.2026
The report of corrupt conduct (August 2025) set out the department’s Open Government Information & Privacy Unit (OGIPU) Principal Solicitor acting in breach of the public’s beneficial legislation.
The primary legislation concerning the OGIPU, as indicated by the departmental title, is the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, GIPA, and the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, PPIP.
GIPA concerns the public’s legislated rights to request access to NSW government information. PPIP concerns the public’s legislated rights of protection of personal information. These two pieces of legislation are the public’s beneficial legislation. Neither piece provides any benefit to the government, they are public service law. They are not penal; they do not punish or provide any mechanism for punishment. They are not fiscal; they do not make provision for mandatory financial reporting obligations.
They were each free gifts from the NSW Parliament to the people of NSW. As such, every NSW government agency is bound by them. This includes of course the staff employed within those agencies. This means they cannot bypass the legislation.
The report was a scathing account of a serious offence under the PPIP Act. In particular the report set out how the OGIPU Principal Solicitor abused his position within the department in NCAT proceedings against a self-represented Applicant, to act out that breach of the legislation. The report went further, naming one individual, and the extraordinary revelation this course of corruption of the legislation was being acted out in plain sight of the (500) five hundred NIPPN members, an organisation where he is confirmed to sit as part of the Consultative Committee.
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 his job with business as usual and no accountability whatsoever, not even a formal reprimand.
The report concerns the case of the Department of Communities & Justice, Open Government Information & Privacy Unit Principal Solicitor Michael McIntosh. McIntosh operates primarily in the access to information and privacy space, in the area of administrative law. This means he interacts with the public’s beneficial legislation the GIPA and PPIP Acts on likely a daily basis.
It is reasonable to expect McIntosh, as a practicing solicitor since December 2016 and one whom represents the interests of the NSW government, understands the legislation.
He understands the legislation applies to him. He is also bound by Solicitor Rules, a Code of Ethical Standards, and the Government Sector Employee Act 2013. All these align on the expectation of honesty and integrity.
Oh well. So it came as a surprise to see Michael McIntosh’s name at the bottom of documentation emanating from the OGIPU, which made threats of a costs application should the PPIP Application lodged with NCAT not be withdrawn.
So just to reiterate that: Michael McIntosh in his capacity as Principal Solicitor of the OGIPU, and with certain extensive knowledge of the PPIP Act 1998, made threats of legal costs if a PPIP Applicant did not withdraw her PPIP Application from NCAT.
The Applicant was not aware at that time the PPIP Act did not provide any mechanism for a claim of costs. At first, she believed him and as such she took the threat seriously.
Of course that was McIntosh’s intention, that is to coerce the Applicant to withdraw her application under threat of costs.
Turns out there is no mechanism within the PPIP Act 1998 for costs. Let’s just say that again. There is no provision in the PPIP Act 1998, nor GIPA Act 2009 for that matter, the public’s legislation, for costs. 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.
McIntosh knew it was at all times unlawful, but when his superior is on the public record recommending agencies seek costs anyway, well why not go for broke, especially when he's had it straight from the Director's mouth and circulated at a public hearing! What a pair of champions! So on 18th August 2025, Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information sent a report on this corruption of the legislation to McIntosh’s superior Michael Tidball. 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 NSW Attorney-General or anyone else 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, despite her numerous follow up correspondence.
And so there it is. A concise report of corruption of the legislation by a prominent NSW Government Principal Solicitor, where he totally misrepresented the legislation to coerce and take advantage of a self-represented member of the public. On its own merit, misrepresenting the legislation is a matter of its own seriousness. But acting to undermine the legislation, abusing position, authority and public resources, are also matters of their own seriousness. This is the calibre of individual the public has come to expect of its public servants. Webb’s report is available here with the list of recipients. NCAT’s Guideline on Costs is available here, noting Point 5 on discretion. CSO’s legal advice of 2016 on the issue of imposing fees and charges is available here. Michael McIntosh retains his position as Principal Solicitor for the OGIPU. He is also identified as a state representative of the NSW Right to Information & Privacy Practitioners Network, NIPPN, within its Consultative Committee. As a representative of NIPPN McIntosh is documented to have direct access to the Information & Privacy Commissioners. There is no indication the Privacy Commissioner has raised any concerns about McIntosh’s misrepresenting the public’s beneficial legislation. The NSW Premier, the NSW Attorney-General, and the Secretary – Department of Communities & Justice have all effectively turned a blind eye on corruption of the legislation by effectively endorsing the corrupt conduct of one of the government’s most prominent employees and one with a very public face of the organisation. Shame Michael Tidball, 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 OGIPU Principal Solicitor Michael McIntosh 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, McIntosh is not the only solicitor being paid by public monies who acts in this manner. But he is an 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,” stated Webb. “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 awarded against you by the Department of Communities & Justice, in the context of the GIPA Act 2009 or PPIP Act 1998 , we ask that you contact us at info@nswfreedomofinformation.net.
Contact:Micheal Tidball, Secretary Dept of Communities & Justice, michael.tidball@dcj.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 primary legislation concerning the OGIPU, as indicated by the departmental title, is the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, GIPA, and the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, PPIP.
GIPA concerns the public’s legislated rights to request access to NSW government information. PPIP concerns the public’s legislated rights of protection of personal information. These two pieces of legislation are the public’s beneficial legislation. Neither piece provides any benefit to the government, they are public service law. They are not penal; they do not punish or provide any mechanism for punishment. They are not fiscal; they do not make provision for mandatory financial reporting obligations.
They were each free gifts from the NSW Parliament to the people of NSW. As such, every NSW government agency is bound by them. This includes of course the staff employed within those agencies. This means they cannot bypass the legislation.
The report was a scathing account of a serious offence under the PPIP Act. In particular the report set out how the OGIPU Principal Solicitor abused his position within the department in NCAT proceedings against a self-represented Applicant, to act out that breach of the legislation. The report went further, naming one individual, and the extraordinary revelation this course of corruption of the legislation was being acted out in plain sight of the (500) five hundred NIPPN members, an organisation where he is confirmed to sit as part of the Consultative Committee.
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 his job with business as usual and no accountability whatsoever, not even a formal reprimand.
The report concerns the case of the Department of Communities & Justice, Open Government Information & Privacy Unit Principal Solicitor Michael McIntosh. McIntosh operates primarily in the access to information and privacy space, in the area of administrative law. This means he interacts with the public’s beneficial legislation the GIPA and PPIP Acts on likely a daily basis.
It is reasonable to expect McIntosh, as a practicing solicitor since December 2016 and one whom represents the interests of the NSW government, understands the legislation.
He understands the legislation applies to him. He is also bound by Solicitor Rules, a Code of Ethical Standards, and the Government Sector Employee Act 2013. All these align on the expectation of honesty and integrity.
Oh well. So it came as a surprise to see Michael McIntosh’s name at the bottom of documentation emanating from the OGIPU, which made threats of a costs application should the PPIP Application lodged with NCAT not be withdrawn.
So just to reiterate that: Michael McIntosh in his capacity as Principal Solicitor of the OGIPU, and with certain extensive knowledge of the PPIP Act 1998, made threats of legal costs if a PPIP Applicant did not withdraw her PPIP Application from NCAT.
The Applicant was not aware at that time the PPIP Act did not provide any mechanism for a claim of costs. At first, she believed him and as such she took the threat seriously.
Of course that was McIntosh’s intention, that is to coerce the Applicant to withdraw her application under threat of costs.
Turns out there is no mechanism within the PPIP Act 1998 for costs. Let’s just say that again. There is no provision in the PPIP Act 1998, nor GIPA Act 2009 for that matter, the public’s legislation, for costs. 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.
McIntosh knew it was at all times unlawful, but when his superior is on the public record recommending agencies seek costs anyway, well why not go for broke, especially when he's had it straight from the Director's mouth and circulated at a public hearing! What a pair of champions! So on 18th August 2025, Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information sent a report on this corruption of the legislation to McIntosh’s superior Michael Tidball. 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 NSW Attorney-General or anyone else 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, despite her numerous follow up correspondence.
And so there it is. A concise report of corruption of the legislation by a prominent NSW Government Principal Solicitor, where he totally misrepresented the legislation to coerce and take advantage of a self-represented member of the public. On its own merit, misrepresenting the legislation is a matter of its own seriousness. But acting to undermine the legislation, abusing position, authority and public resources, are also matters of their own seriousness. This is the calibre of individual the public has come to expect of its public servants. Webb’s report is available here with the list of recipients. NCAT’s Guideline on Costs is available here, noting Point 5 on discretion. CSO’s legal advice of 2016 on the issue of imposing fees and charges is available here. Michael McIntosh retains his position as Principal Solicitor for the OGIPU. He is also identified as a state representative of the NSW Right to Information & Privacy Practitioners Network, NIPPN, within its Consultative Committee. As a representative of NIPPN McIntosh is documented to have direct access to the Information & Privacy Commissioners. There is no indication the Privacy Commissioner has raised any concerns about McIntosh’s misrepresenting the public’s beneficial legislation. The NSW Premier, the NSW Attorney-General, and the Secretary – Department of Communities & Justice have all effectively turned a blind eye on corruption of the legislation by effectively endorsing the corrupt conduct of one of the government’s most prominent employees and one with a very public face of the organisation. Shame Michael Tidball, 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 OGIPU Principal Solicitor Michael McIntosh 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, McIntosh is not the only solicitor being paid by public monies who acts in this manner. But he is an 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,” stated Webb. “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 awarded against you by the Department of Communities & Justice, in the context of the GIPA Act 2009 or PPIP Act 1998 , we ask that you contact us at info@nswfreedomofinformation.net.
Contact:Micheal Tidball, Secretary Dept of Communities & Justice, michael.tidball@dcj.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.