For a second time in recent months the Office of the NSW Crown Solicitor has opted to a new methodology of protection for the State's Right to Information and Privacy Officers, all of which is afforded through the generosity of the public purse.

In administrative proceedings with the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) in September 2022 the Crown Solicitor's Kirri Mattes successfully secured a blanket not-for-publication order to ensure NSW Freedom of Information would not publicise the details of an iCARE Officer who had given sworn testimony at an NCAT hearing concerning a request for government information.  The Order currently states that no reference to the individual's details or any aspect of the sworn testimony is to be publicised.

There was notably nothing of a confidential nature about the testimony, and the iCARE Officer was not a board member or executive.

Kirri Mattes succeeded in her endeavours by trawling through the website www.nswfreedomofinformation.net, locating several pages of information which exposed NSW government agency misconduct, including a particular media release about a NSW Right to Information / Governance Officer, and insisted that reporting on NCAT hearings by identifying government personnel was a form of harassment and personnel needed the protection provided by the NCAT Act 2013 Section 64(1).

Following on from Kirri Mattes' example in September 2022, the Crown Solicitor's Sophie Maltabarrow filed a like-Application in January 2023, making clear reference to the earlier Order in September 2022, citing the same reasons, the same iCARE Officer (14) fourteen times, and even going so far as to broaden the scope of the Order to include all other iCARE personnel.  Ms Maltabarow makes numerous references to the earlier 'protected' information in her Application, exhibiting contempt for the tribunal's order.

Again, it is Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information in the NCAT's hot seat, but this time on the issue of iCARE's breaching her privacy.  Documents provided to Ms Webb under the GIPA Act 2009 evidence iCARE staff disclosing her name and the name of her Site, along with the full details of her request for information, which was shared with a senior office holder of the organisation NSW Right to Information & Privacy Practitioners Network, the Network.  That senior office holder then proceeded to share the same information with other Network Members.

The Network was first made reference to on this Site in its Media Release of 21st December 2021, which highlighted the activities and purpose of the Network and the support it has received from the Office of the NSW Information & Privacy Commissioners (IPC) for a number of years.  The Network had been holding its quarterly meetings at the Jubilee Room and Theatrette of NSW Parliament House in Sydney, fully funded by the IPC also for a number of years.

The Network consists of the whole of population of NSW Right to Information & Privacy Practitioners, as the name suggests, which currently number in excess of (460) four hundred and sixty.

Ironically, Kirri Mattes does not appear to have any issue with Network members openly naming and singling out members of the public, sharing the public's requests for information and personal information without the public's consent, or formulating collective response strategies on how agencies should approach valid requests for government information by those who publicise the outcomes.

Such conduct has been documented by the Network itself.

The Order gained by the CSO's Kirri Mattes and which is again sought by the CSO's Sophie Maltabarrow, seems to be seeking confidentiality of what has already been made public.

It would be difficult to see how the NCAT would be able to sustain or qualify this new methodology for seeking anonymonity of government personnel in the context of ensuring the principles of open justice and government transparency and accountability are suitably balanced.

Ms Webb has informed the Tribunal that this particular application for an Order under the NCAT Act 2013 Section 64(1) is unable to be enforced since she has made all documentation pertaining to this latest case available on the internet, and has shared them with interested parties.

Ms Webb has also referred the Tribunal to the Network's operating under Chatham Rules which enables members to share agency information without being identified for doing so.

The Tribunal's decision concerning the Section 64(1) Application is pending at the time of publication.

The public will be invited to comment on the application and use of the NCAT Act 2013 Section 64(1).

Kirri Mattes:                 (02) 9474 9538

Sophie Maltabarow:    (02) 9474 9341