Office of the NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner Issues Extremely Poor-Quality Decisions
Without Evidence to Validate Legislative Reliance, 19.02.2026
A follow up decision issued today by the IPC’s Director Corporate Services and Business Improvement Mr Ian Naylor is causing significant embarrassment to the regulatory body.
The decision concerns the public’s exercising further enquiry rights under the GIPA Act 2009 Section 126(1) (d), a clause which enables the public to press the agency for more information about the way decisions are made.
Naylor had conducted an Internal Review of an earlier decision by the IPC’s Ms Yasmine Salameh, requested under the legislation by Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information.
Webb sought access to records held by the IPC concerning the NSW Right to Information & Privacy Practitioners Network, NIPPN, and the IPC’s interaction with NIPPN. The request was formulated on information published on the IPC website www.ipc.nsw.gov.au.
In particular the IPC had deleted presentations it had made to NIPPN, and had removed a link to a NIPPN membership sign-up form.
Webb sought access to the approvals for listing and then deleting NIPPN information on a government website, particularly as NIPPN has always claimed it was not a government organisation. She also asked for the NIPPN membership list.
This kind of information is not protected under the GIPA Act 2009 Section 14 Table 3(a), which concerns personal information.
Instead, Webb made specific valid reference to the GIPA Act 2009 Schedule 4, 4, 3, (b), which makes clear the contact details of government employees is disqualified as personal information and so it must be provided if requested.
Webb’s request for internal review disclosed her reliance on Schedule 4, but Ian Naylor threw that out the regulatory window incorrectly applying Section 14 Table 3(a).
He also added that he was of the view the IPC had obligations under Work Health and Safety legislation to ensure the health and well-being of government employees, across the state apparently, and so turned to Section 14 Table 3(f) to partially withhold some of the requested information.
“Naylor claimed there was a risk of the NIPPN member email addresses being published on my site www.nswfreedomofinformation.net, which could result in those persons being harassed. Seriously?! I’ve been here before when Justice NSW made the same claims, but when pressed under oath one of its in-house solicitors Jonathan Franklin stated he was not aware of a single enquiry the result of having non-personal contact information published on an open forum such as my Site. Not one single enquiry. And agencies’ reliance on the Work Health and Safety Act sees decision makers placing secondary legislation superior to the public’s beneficial legislation, which is completely inapplicable,” stated Webb. “Just as GIPA trumps PPIP, leaving GIPA superior in the context of personal privacy considerations, the WHS Act has no bearing on the GIPA Act.”
“Naylor also stated information had been withheld because release was considered to be to the world at large. Too bad he missed the IPC’s earlier decisions making clear the fact information might be shared is not a public interest consideration against disclosure.”
“The irony here is the IPC released all the NIPPN consultative committee member names on all the documents in question. It’s formal decision says some information was withheld when it was all released. So nothing aligns in this document. Very poor on the part of Naylor, very poor indeed,” stated Webb. “It is possible Naylor’s decision was prejudiced due to the highlighting of his poor performance in recent NCAT proceedings, where he was cross-examined by me and was caught out making hearsay statements. It is possible Naylor has allowed his personal feelings to influence his decision-making abilities on this occasion, referring to the Section 14 Table 3(f) clause in retaliation. After all, a Principal Member of the NCAT has stated on the record “we are all inherently biased.”” Section 126(1) (d) provides a mechanism for follow up dialogue about agency decisions in the context of access to NSW government information. Proper application of it could easily result in avoiding the long-winded process of seeking external review with, in this instance, NCAT. But instead, enclosing the statement ‘you can take it to NCAT’ as was the case with Naylor today, gives insight into the deliberate push to external review when it’s not necessary. It’s a deparmental legislative fob off. And it’s an irresponsible use of public monies knowing NCAT decisions require defending which is generally undertaken by the Office of the NSW Crown Solicitor. IPC is not rightfully stepping forward and defending its own decisions.
“Protecting NSW right to information and privacy officers by the inapplicable use of the public’s beneficial legislation can only be seen as preferential treatment and deliberately acting with bias. It shows the regulatory body the IPC shows favour. That actually does make some sense when we realise the IPC is evidenced to have a dozen of its employees listed as NIPPN members. I guess the Commissioner is trying to prevent that getting out, but it’s such a bad look, and it’s far too late for such a reactive response strategy,” stated Webb. “The public may have thought a new NSW Information Commissioner would breathe new life into the organisation, herald in some new age of openness and transparency as is continually professed through Right to Know Week etc. But it’s just lip service.”
If you feel the IPC has improved its service provision since the inception of the new Commissioner contact Telina Webb at info@nswfreedomofinformation.net, and she will share that account. The names of the individuals claimed to be protected under personal information category includes, all of whom the IPC has identified as NIPPN Consultative Committee members, are:
Michael McIntosh, Dept of Communities & Justice Principal Solicitor,Michael.mcintosh@dcj.nsw.gov.au
Edward Ryan, Service NSW, Privacy Manager Enterprise Risk & Enablement,Edward.ryan@customerservice.nsw.gov.au
Andrew Millikan, Transport for NSW, Information Management & Data Governance, Andrew.millikan@transport.nsw.gov.au
Kate Cumming, Sydney University, Manager, Archives & Records Management Services, kate.cumming@sydney.edu.au
Tram Nguyen, Office of the NSW Crown Solicitor, Senior Solicitor, tram.nguyen@cso.nsw.gov.au
Chris Wilson, Northen Beaches Council, Information Management Manager, chris.wilson@northernbeaches.nsw.gov.au These are individuals with direct access to both Commissioners, who act as conduit to the Commissioners on behalf of the whole of the state's population of Right to Information and Privacy Officers. These individuals do not interact with the Commissioners on behalf of the NSW public, they are self-serving for their respective agencies (albeit the NIPPN mantra states they do not represent the views of their agency employers................) “Any individual genuinely contacted the direct result of the publication of their NSW government workplace contact information on my Site, who finds they have been exposed to a risk of harm or of serious harassment or serious intimidation in accordance with the GIPA Act 2009 Section 14, 3 (f), please contact me without hesitation,” stated Webb. “Of course I would rightfully expect evidence of such a claim.”
The decision concerns the public’s exercising further enquiry rights under the GIPA Act 2009 Section 126(1) (d), a clause which enables the public to press the agency for more information about the way decisions are made.
Naylor had conducted an Internal Review of an earlier decision by the IPC’s Ms Yasmine Salameh, requested under the legislation by Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information.
Webb sought access to records held by the IPC concerning the NSW Right to Information & Privacy Practitioners Network, NIPPN, and the IPC’s interaction with NIPPN. The request was formulated on information published on the IPC website www.ipc.nsw.gov.au.
In particular the IPC had deleted presentations it had made to NIPPN, and had removed a link to a NIPPN membership sign-up form.
Webb sought access to the approvals for listing and then deleting NIPPN information on a government website, particularly as NIPPN has always claimed it was not a government organisation. She also asked for the NIPPN membership list.
This kind of information is not protected under the GIPA Act 2009 Section 14 Table 3(a), which concerns personal information.
Instead, Webb made specific valid reference to the GIPA Act 2009 Schedule 4, 4, 3, (b), which makes clear the contact details of government employees is disqualified as personal information and so it must be provided if requested.
Webb’s request for internal review disclosed her reliance on Schedule 4, but Ian Naylor threw that out the regulatory window incorrectly applying Section 14 Table 3(a).
He also added that he was of the view the IPC had obligations under Work Health and Safety legislation to ensure the health and well-being of government employees, across the state apparently, and so turned to Section 14 Table 3(f) to partially withhold some of the requested information.
“Naylor claimed there was a risk of the NIPPN member email addresses being published on my site www.nswfreedomofinformation.net, which could result in those persons being harassed. Seriously?! I’ve been here before when Justice NSW made the same claims, but when pressed under oath one of its in-house solicitors Jonathan Franklin stated he was not aware of a single enquiry the result of having non-personal contact information published on an open forum such as my Site. Not one single enquiry. And agencies’ reliance on the Work Health and Safety Act sees decision makers placing secondary legislation superior to the public’s beneficial legislation, which is completely inapplicable,” stated Webb. “Just as GIPA trumps PPIP, leaving GIPA superior in the context of personal privacy considerations, the WHS Act has no bearing on the GIPA Act.”
“Naylor also stated information had been withheld because release was considered to be to the world at large. Too bad he missed the IPC’s earlier decisions making clear the fact information might be shared is not a public interest consideration against disclosure.”
“The irony here is the IPC released all the NIPPN consultative committee member names on all the documents in question. It’s formal decision says some information was withheld when it was all released. So nothing aligns in this document. Very poor on the part of Naylor, very poor indeed,” stated Webb. “It is possible Naylor’s decision was prejudiced due to the highlighting of his poor performance in recent NCAT proceedings, where he was cross-examined by me and was caught out making hearsay statements. It is possible Naylor has allowed his personal feelings to influence his decision-making abilities on this occasion, referring to the Section 14 Table 3(f) clause in retaliation. After all, a Principal Member of the NCAT has stated on the record “we are all inherently biased.”” Section 126(1) (d) provides a mechanism for follow up dialogue about agency decisions in the context of access to NSW government information. Proper application of it could easily result in avoiding the long-winded process of seeking external review with, in this instance, NCAT. But instead, enclosing the statement ‘you can take it to NCAT’ as was the case with Naylor today, gives insight into the deliberate push to external review when it’s not necessary. It’s a deparmental legislative fob off. And it’s an irresponsible use of public monies knowing NCAT decisions require defending which is generally undertaken by the Office of the NSW Crown Solicitor. IPC is not rightfully stepping forward and defending its own decisions.
“Protecting NSW right to information and privacy officers by the inapplicable use of the public’s beneficial legislation can only be seen as preferential treatment and deliberately acting with bias. It shows the regulatory body the IPC shows favour. That actually does make some sense when we realise the IPC is evidenced to have a dozen of its employees listed as NIPPN members. I guess the Commissioner is trying to prevent that getting out, but it’s such a bad look, and it’s far too late for such a reactive response strategy,” stated Webb. “The public may have thought a new NSW Information Commissioner would breathe new life into the organisation, herald in some new age of openness and transparency as is continually professed through Right to Know Week etc. But it’s just lip service.”
If you feel the IPC has improved its service provision since the inception of the new Commissioner contact Telina Webb at info@nswfreedomofinformation.net, and she will share that account. The names of the individuals claimed to be protected under personal information category includes, all of whom the IPC has identified as NIPPN Consultative Committee members, are:
Michael McIntosh, Dept of Communities & Justice Principal Solicitor,Michael.mcintosh@dcj.nsw.gov.au
Edward Ryan, Service NSW, Privacy Manager Enterprise Risk & Enablement,Edward.ryan@customerservice.nsw.gov.au
Andrew Millikan, Transport for NSW, Information Management & Data Governance, Andrew.millikan@transport.nsw.gov.au
Kate Cumming, Sydney University, Manager, Archives & Records Management Services, kate.cumming@sydney.edu.au
Tram Nguyen, Office of the NSW Crown Solicitor, Senior Solicitor, tram.nguyen@cso.nsw.gov.au
Chris Wilson, Northen Beaches Council, Information Management Manager, chris.wilson@northernbeaches.nsw.gov.au These are individuals with direct access to both Commissioners, who act as conduit to the Commissioners on behalf of the whole of the state's population of Right to Information and Privacy Officers. These individuals do not interact with the Commissioners on behalf of the NSW public, they are self-serving for their respective agencies (albeit the NIPPN mantra states they do not represent the views of their agency employers................) “Any individual genuinely contacted the direct result of the publication of their NSW government workplace contact information on my Site, who finds they have been exposed to a risk of harm or of serious harassment or serious intimidation in accordance with the GIPA Act 2009 Section 14, 3 (f), please contact me without hesitation,” stated Webb. “Of course I would rightfully expect evidence of such a claim.”
Contact us using this form to start your conversation about any good works or improvement of services by the IPC.