As the new NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner prepares to launch Right to Know Week 2024 which sees this year’s theme ‘Mainstreaming Access to Information and Participating in the Public Sector in NSW’, the public continues its decades-long struggle to exercise its legal rights to access government information; a great deal of the time unsuccessful in those endeavours, with the realisation NSW government agencies actually work against and resent the legislation. Apparently "the GIPA Act in NSW is a world-leading example of how to mainstream transparency in the public sector."
As the most obvious question became clear, that is whether or not the problems accessing government information were an anomaly isolated to a limited number of agencies or better still just one, the question formed the basis of the public’s own investigation into agency conduct and attitudes in the exercise of statutory functions.
That investigation was driven by the fact inquiries and complaints into agency misconduct in the exercise of statutory functions are not provided to the public.
“I’d read the reference on the Information & Privacy Commissioners’ (IPC) website, to ‘practitioners’ being a major stakeholder, presumably a stakeholder in the state’s information,” stated Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information. "The stakeholder referred to itself as the NSW Right to Information & Privacy Practitioners Network; which I've since acronymed NIPPN."
“So, following the breadcrumbs I came across a Google Website which has since been deleted (https://sites.google.com/view/information-privacy-nsw-home), where I noted the contact details of the senior privacy officer of iCARE NSW, Ms Nicole Gibbs-Steele who occupied the position of NIPPN Chair. The Site listed only (2) two members. I initiated contact with her in August 2021 asking for the membership list and access to minutes of meetings. She replied a few days later to my Site email address, asking what agency I was connected to, stating ‘we don’t accept gmail, yahoo, or Hotmail email addresses'.”
“Ms Gibbs-Steele stated the group was only open to practitioners who are currently employed in a nsw government agency, local government, state owned corporations, or a university. And basically if I didn’t qualify under any of those I was not going to be given any information other than what was published on the NIPPN Site. Of course, several months later I would be provided information which regrettably revealed Ms Gibbs-Steele was not being truthful about the origin of NIPPN members. And this is where my NIPPN journey started and remains ongoing as at the date of this article,” stated Ms Webb.
iCARE’s Ms Gibbs-Steele would later breach Ms Webb’s privacy which was revealed through the GIPA process, conduct which is both disgraceful and shocking given her position of trust within iCARE.
Case after documented case revealed the extraordinary lengths NSW government agencies were going to in order to obstruct legitimate access to information, avoid accountability for poor quality and often unlawful decision-making, and punish the public they covertly categorised as problematic.
But what did problematic mean? Were agencies saying exercising legislated rights is problematic? It appears so.
Problematic has been described and labelled by one agency, Secretary Dept of Communities & Justice (Justice NSW), as behaviours that are indicative of an unnatural fixation.
It’s a term thrown about initially by the NSW Ombudsman over a decade ago, and it’s been readily embraced by NSW Right to Information & Privacy Officers since; the perfect term to validate and justify retaliatory actions designed to constrain, punish, humiliate, traumatise, and cause maximum overall damage to Access Applicants trying to access their beneficial legislation.
Australian Ombudsmen collaborated, providing carefully selected departmental records, then commissioning a study report based on those records to support a policy titled Unreasonable Complainant Conduct, later amended to Unreasonable Conduct by a Complainant. Clearly the commissioned report was formed with bias and pre-determined agenda, leaving it an embarrassment to the academic community, but cleverly creating a desired moral panic in the process.
The policy has since transcended all departmental expectations as ex-NSW Ombudsman Chris Wheeler collaborated in turning it into a booming business with its own members listed with NIPPN and vice versa, and where NSW public servants are regular guest speakers; SOCAP Australia: where Australian and New Zealand complaint professionals converge for complaint handling training.
Any reasonable person would agree there are no lines of delineation between government and private enterprise with huge amounts of public money to be harvested. SOCAP recently advised it does not make any annual financial reports available to non-members. When an organisation is founded on governmental protocols it is reasonable to expect any attitudes of secrecy will also filter across.
NIPPN is intrinsically intertwined with and totally dependant upon the NSW Information and Privacy Commissioners (IPC), with confirmation SOCAP members also benefit from that relationship.
This year’s IPC Right to Know Week Program Champions are listed on the IPC website:
It's a false narrative NSW government agencies champion any cause to embrace or respect the public's legal rights to access government information.
Most agency champions see employees as active members of NIPPN, which recently disclosed membership of approximately (500) five hundred.
NIPPN is now documented to have existed for over (2) two decades, created by Phillip Youngman of Youngman Consultancy the result of his performing access to information roles within the NSW government on a contractual basis.
NIPPN’s Terms of Reference state its purpose is to provide a safe place for agency employees to freely discuss government business, with reliance on Chatham House Rules to do so.
Chatham House Rules is not legislated, and as such does nothing to extinguish government employees' statutory obligations.
Chatham House Rules is a false premise participants are somehow protected:
QUOTE "When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed" UNQUOTE.
However, on 29th August 2023, Justice NSW responded to an enquiry on behalf of the NSW Attorney-General, making clear QUOTE "The Chatham House Rule is not legally binding and therefore cannot override the requirements of NSW legislation in any circumstance" UNQUOTE.
Hopefully someone sent out a copy to every Right to Information and Privacy Officer in the state..................
Despite having a plethora of legislation, policies and procedures ensuring the best possible employment conditions for these privileged individuals, the revelation the NSW government is failing to ensure a safe workplace is a shocking one.
NIPPN’s Terms of Reference also state members do not represent the views of their agency employers. No reasonable person could ever succumb to this gas light claim; the Terms of Reference make clear the purpose of the group, they attend meetings in work hours at the public's expense, they disclose they are right to information and privacy officers, etc. Seriously?!
NIPPN is also documented to hold its quarterly meetings at swanky establishments such as NSW Parliament House; nothing ordinary or low key will do for members who attend meetings during work hours at the public’s expense, with catering costs generously covered by, yes, the NSW Information & Privacy Commissioners. The IPC has, since COVID, made facilities available within its own offices.
Since its early days NIPPN has swelled to encompass almost all of the state’s relevant employees, with some select individuals from private enterprise privileged with membership. Such private enterprise is free to peddle commercial wares whilst bypassing legislated procurement processes. Indeed the NSW Crown Solicitor stated under oath during judicial proceedings she uses NIPPN to promote training programs which are then a gateway to the securing of legal representative business. Such a disclosure is expected to be of interest to the ICAC and ACCC.
Guest speakers to NIPPN include the NSW Ombudsman, NSW Crown Solicitor, interstate speakers, Justice NSW, and NCAT, and private enterprise. NIPPN meetings are broken into two parts; the first exclusive of the Information and Privacy Commissioners, the second part inclusive.
It is the first part the public should be extremely concerned about, where NIPPN members regularly breach the public’s privacy out of sight of the Commissioners, unlawfully sharing the public’s information and individual agency access to information strategies, hiding under the Chatham House Rules to do so under the false premise it's completely appropriate and totally acceptable.
NIPPN is also documented to single out members of the public for the benefit of the whole group, collaborating on collective management response strategies for those with the courage to speak out and share their access to information experiences. One such victim is documented as Investigative Reporter Nigel Gladstone of the Sydney Morning Herald, also operating the website Right to Know.
Publicity, or open transparent accountable government, will surely never do!
Of course, all this has been happening in plain sight since NIPPN’s inception.
NIPPN’s website was accessible through the Commissioner’s website but has since been deleted due to public scrutiny of NIPPN activities; now simply referred to as Practitioners, as though they hold some kind of medical or community welfare qualification. These officers have no accreditation, they are not regulated, and any training they receive is also unregulated, but it’s big government business for those peddling to be experts and providing education at the expense of the public purse.
As for community welfare, NIPPN will have none of that.
Make no mistake, NIPPN is a cartel.
It is a cartel with a posse mentality of “let’s get ‘em,” where the general public are treated as the enemy and where exercising beneficial legislation is blatantly and systematically criminalised by those in the position to do so.
A perfect example of this was when NIPPN member Port Stephens Council did give favour to a member of the public, entering into an unlawful agreement to conceal and protect open access information mandated for release by using a false claim of a risk of harm, against a completely innocent access applicant. Council thereafter compiled a false and misleading letter to the Information Commissioner stating apprehended violence orders had been issued against the victim, that police had been called to the victims neighbourhood due to disturbances involving him, and that the victim posed a serious risk to public safety.
All lies.
Of course, that letter was never to see the light of day, and if a Council solicitor hadn't had a serious crisis of conscience and released it unredacted to the victim, it may very well have remained Exempt Information under the Act never to be released to the public.
However, not satisfied, Port Stephens Council thereafter weaponised and circulated the false document to a number of secondary government departments and also the NSW judiciary.
And in July 2018 the same Council executive published a presentation with images of 'them' v 'us', exemplifying his personal attitude to the public's beneficial legislation and legally enforceable rights (supposed rights anyway).
Yes, this is the mentality of NIPPN members.
Clearly they resent the public’s beneficial legislation and they are continually evidenced undermining the public’s legally enforceable rights (supposed rights of course) to access government information. And giving favour to a mate is all in a day’s work when actioned behind agency office doors.
The screenshot of this year’s Right to Know Week Program Champions includes the NSW Police Force. This makes the unlawful sharing of the public’s information under a false premise of protection under Chatham House Rules so much worse if that were even remotely possible.
There are other examples in addition to Port Stephens Council’s infamous stella performance: using unlawfully shared information in judicial review proceedings, denying software document search capabilities in order to prevent access to information, inflating processing charges to make accessing information difficult if not impossible, engaging large legal teams against mostly self-represented access applicants, using psuedonyms in official documents, misusing Work Health & Safety legislation, and applying to NCAT for Costs Wishes outside of the legislation.
Indeed Justice NSW, documented to have at least 8 active NIPPN members, has now been exposed circulating a publicly presented powerpoint slide show titled “Tale of a Fixated Applicant.” The presentation was made by an ex-NSW Police Superintendent who now occupies the role of Director, Open Government Information & Privacy Unit (OGIPU) of Justice NSW, who admitted to unlawfully using the public’s personal information, identifying her targets to every NIPPN member, recommending strategies including engaging NSW Police, collaborating with other agencies, seeking restraining orders, and seeking unlawful legal costs.
And all this rationalised because access applicants were legitimately following up on outstanding responses, seeking valid reviews of agency decisions, and expressing individual writing styles with underlining, bold, capital, and highlighted lettering being cleverly twisted into threatening and bullying behaviours that needed to be controlled and punished.
Surely these government employees can't be so overly-sensitive, or has woke madness completely infected the NSW government?
The same Justice NSW individual solicited the full NIPPN membership for information and records specifically concerning fixated / vexatious access applicants, qualifying her solicitation claiming Justice NSW was conducting a study but which has since been discredited as not existing. As an ex-NSW Police Superintendent it's more likely Justice NSW was compiling dossiers to be used at the right time against unsuspecting members of the public, the result of agency collusion and breach of privacy through the NIPPN mechanism.
The Justice NSW presentation of March 2019 “Tale of a Fixated Applicant” was made available to the whole of the state’s right to information and privacy officer population, approximately numbered at 500, and let us not forget those individuals in private enterprise who enjoy exclusive membership and unrestricted open access to a great deal of the public's personal information.
And it doesn’t stop there.
NIPPN collaborates on lobbying for legislative change, all for the benefit of government and to the detriment of the public of course; circulating pro forma submissions to ensure documents align with pre-determined agreed objectives.
NIPPN also has direct and regular access to both the Information and Privacy Commissioners; access which is unobtainable to the general public.
It all rounds up to be an entire system of government evidenced to be working against the public, and it’s all happening in plain sight with the public paying the bills.
The public doesn’t stand a chance against this cartel and its objectives.
And let’s not forget it also regularly taps into the NSW Crown Solicitor, so if there’s any legal advice to be had it’s immediately at hand.
It is interesting to note the reference within the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Section 110, a section designed to all-but-extinguish legislated rights to access government information, where the term ‘concorting’ is used to criminalise the public’s fundamental rights to hold conversations about government records and activities, and where access applicant virgins seeking out information on the process are viewed as engaging in some kind of socially unacceptable conduct. The private enterprise NIPPN member responsible for successfully lobbying for this denegrating term 'concorting' to be added to the legislation, only able to find a reference within the Irish Freedom of Information Act.
If it wasn't so serious we would all be laughing.
But imagine that!
The government dictating what conversations the public is permitted to have!
It could never happen in Australia!
Yet it is the very government dictating those autocratic terms which is doing the concorting in the full sense of the criminal context, and again it’s the public paying those catering bills when they get together to do so.
NIPPN activities have been exposed through the public’s endeavouring to access its beneficial legislation, the GIPA Act 2009.
It is solely through the ongoing efforts of this Site’s Administrator Telina Webb that NIPPN has been exposed for what it really is; a cartel with a posse mentality focused on obstructing the public’s legislated rights and trampling over the professed open transparent government the parliament promised.
“I continue to be victimised by NSW government agencies for exercising my legal rights under the GIPA Act. I am not the only one, as I’ve seen evidence of agency collusion and breaching privacy to share access application records for Section 110 Orders under GIPA. Agency personnel treat the public like criminals when we haven’t done anything wrong, haven’t committed any offences. It’s all about silencing and controlling us. They accuse us of bullying, intimidating, threatening behaviours. I personally have not made one phone call to any agency officer in the context of GIPA, I have never raised my voice in any meeting, not written any threatening letter, nothing. Not even when under immense pressure during judicial proceedings under cross examination by government engaged lawyers and barristers. Nor did I act out in any unacceptable manner when Port Stephens Council successfully obtained several unlawful Costs Wishes against my husband and I totalling approximately $30,000.00 in a no-costs forum. But I could fill boxes with the same kind of actions on agency letterheads and in judicial transcripts,” stated Ms Webb. “NIPPN is a cartel in the true sense of the word. I've personally experienced the posse mentality, and it has the resources to do so very effectively. No NIPPN member will ever spend a single cent of their own personal monies. They don’t have to, they have unfettered access to the public purse. I’ve seen accounting records showing the same person spending the money is signing off on the approvals for payment, sometimes within minutes of receipt of an invoice. It is a totally corrupt system. They are able to act in this collective destructive agenda-driven manner because they have no guardians; nobody's watching or checking on what they're doing, fitting the crime triangle referred to in Routine Activity Theory. It's all in a day's work for these public servants.”
“I continue to be victimised by NSW government agencies for exercising my legal rights under the GIPA Act. I am not the only one, as I’ve seen evidence of agency collusion and breaching privacy to share access application records for Section 110 Orders under GIPA. Agency personnel treat the public like criminals when we haven’t done anything wrong, haven’t committed any offences. It’s all about silencing and controlling us. They accuse us of bullying, intimidating, threatening behaviours. I personally have not made one phone call to any agency officer in the context of GIPA, I have never raised my voice in any meeting, not written any threatening letter, nothing. Not even when under immense pressure during judicial proceedings under cross examination by government engaged lawyers and barristers. Nor did I act out in any unacceptable manner when Port Stephens Council successfully obtained several unlawful Costs Wishes against my husband and I totalling approximately $30,000.00 in a no-costs forum. But I could fill boxes with the same kind of actions on agency letterheads and in judicial transcripts,” stated Ms Webb. “NIPPN is a cartel in the true sense of the word. I've personally experienced the posse mentality, and it has the resources to do so very effectively. No NIPPN member will ever spend a single cent of their own personal monies. They don’t have to, they have unfettered access to the public purse. I’ve seen accounting records showing the same person spending the money is signing off on the approvals for payment, sometimes within minutes of receipt of an invoice. It is a totally corrupt system. They are able to act in this collective destructive agenda-driven manner because they have no guardians; nobody's watching or checking on what they're doing, fitting the crime triangle referred to in Routine Activity Theory. It's all in a day's work for these public servants.”
"Routine Activity Theory relies on 3 irreplacable elements:
1. A likely offender
2. A suitable target
3. The absence of a capable or suitable guardian"
Crime Triangle courtesy of www.crimeprevention.nsw.gov.au
.jpeg)
"I've been engaging with NIPPN members, and most particularly Ms Gibbs-Steele, since August 2021, and the membership list has still not been duly provided despite formal proceedings in the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) where I was successful. iCARE falsely protested the NIPPN membership list was not government in nature. iCARE continues to obstruct full access to the list on claims the information is personal in nature, albeit the legislation makes very clear it is not. This single and continued action to obstruct access to the most fundamental of government information has been ongoing for over (3) three years. I've recently had to recommence proceedings in NCAT because of that, with iCARE tapping into the NSW Crown Solicitor again against an unrepresented party," stated Ms Webb. "This is a matter of significant public interest as it concerns the administrative operations of our state government and how it responds to the public's endeavours to access its beneficial legislation."
“Take a look at www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au and see the evidence of NSW government agencies colluding and breaching the public’s privacy by unlawfully sharing personal information to secure Section 110 orders. Read the numerous successful Costs Wishes. It’s definitely corrupt,” stated Ms Webb.
The goal is to silence the public, obstruct legislated rights, and of course describe those exposing corruption through the GIPA Act as process abusers.
But didn't ex-NSW Attorney General Mark Speakman state "the public can use information to drive improvement" ?
And the Chief Commisioner of ICAC Peter Hall commented "Information is key to the investigation and prevention of corruption."
Not to omit the previous Information Commissioner Elizabeth Tydd's affirmation "Citizens have the right to access government information."
Regrettably such statements are propoganda and empty words within moments of video recorded for posterity. The public's reality could not be more opposite to these inspirational statements, made no doubt by individuals who have never lodged an access application and have no concept whatsoever of the suffering and trauma inflicted on the public by so-minded NIPPN members.
Ms Tydd endorsed such actions by the organisation group NIPPN. Under her watch she and her staff stifled public debate, refused to meet with the public, rejected requests to petition for legislative change, and used NSW Police to intimidate the public. She now sits as federal information commissioner.
Perhaps it is the new NSW Information Commissioner Rachel McCallum, on consideration of her first Right to Know Week Event professing to mainstream accessing information and ensure public participation that will see some positive change on the side of the public she and her fellow NIPPN members do actually serve.
Perhaps Ms McCallum will reset the parameters of her attendance at NIPPN meetings, duly insisting she be present for the whole of the meeting.
Readers are again referred to the IPC's media release of 23rd September 2024 "Transparency is a core pillar for supporting public participation in the public sector. Mandated openness under legislation is one reason the GIPA Act in NSW is a world-leading example of how to mainstream transparency in the public sector." Someone forgot to survey the NSW public.
Public commentary on this expose is available on the form below, with the public invitation to highlight problematic issues with the GIPA Act 2009 and to share personal GIPA experiences.
Ms Tydd endorsed such actions by the organisation group NIPPN. Under her watch she and her staff stifled public debate, refused to meet with the public, rejected requests to petition for legislative change, and used NSW Police to intimidate the public. She now sits as federal information commissioner.
Perhaps it is the new NSW Information Commissioner Rachel McCallum, on consideration of her first Right to Know Week Event professing to mainstream accessing information and ensure public participation that will see some positive change on the side of the public she and her fellow NIPPN members do actually serve.
Perhaps Ms McCallum will reset the parameters of her attendance at NIPPN meetings, duly insisting she be present for the whole of the meeting.
Readers are again referred to the IPC's media release of 23rd September 2024 "Transparency is a core pillar for supporting public participation in the public sector. Mandated openness under legislation is one reason the GIPA Act in NSW is a world-leading example of how to mainstream transparency in the public sector." Someone forgot to survey the NSW public.
Public commentary on this expose is available on the form below, with the public invitation to highlight problematic issues with the GIPA Act 2009 and to share personal GIPA experiences.