Request for Urgent Parliamentary Inquiry into the Maladministration, Systemic Abuse, and Failures of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 Released to Public and Members of Parliament, 24.10.2024
The document is damning.
It takes the public and Ministers to the core of the problems the public continues to endure since the inception of the legislation hailed to open up government and ensure the release of the tight grip public servants hold on government information.
Despite the optimism and hope for a brighter more transparent government open to interrogation by the public it serves, the GIPA Act as it’s more readily known, has proven to be a failure on many levels.
The document is dated August 2024 and was attached to numerous requests to meet with Parliamentarians.
On 19th September 2024 the submission author NSW Freedom of Information’s Telina Webb met with Mr Mark Latham who showed serious interest in the matters raised with a shock response from him seeing costs being awarded in the NCAT arena where there are no costs; at least in the context of the GIPA Act which makes no provision for such.
To quote Mr Latham “Costs in NCAT?! In a no costs forum?!” Yes, and the evidence was staring him in the face.
On 14th October 2024 Webb and her husband met with Mr John Ruddick and his Chief of Staff also of the NSW Parliament.
Like others he also expressed initial disbelief the NCAT was awarding costs in the context of the GIPA Act 2009. And like others he was also sceptical costs awarded were not based in law having reference to the NCAT Act 2013 Section 60 concerning this issue.
However, neither Parliamentarian had been informed about the NCAT’s Policy – Costs Guideline, which makes abundantly clear it can only award costs if a particular law provides NCAT the discretion to do so.
Let’s just say that again. NCAT’s jurisdiction to award costs under the NCAT Act 2013 Section 60 is confined to whether or not a particular law gives it the discretion to do so. And GIPA does not provide any such discretion.
Webb also took the opportunity to inform Mr Ruddick of the recent Application to NCAT for a Restraint Order under the GIPA Act 2009 Section 110. That Application sees multiple Applicants including the Dept of Communities and Justice (DCJ), Port Stephens Council (PSC), and Goulburn Mulwaree Council (GMC) colluding against respondents who are not legally represented. The NCAT advertises each party pays its own costs. This is the fundamental message from NCAT. It’s published on its website. NCAT professes that self-representation is the way to go, and “you can be your own best advocate.” But it doesn’t say you will likely find yourself facing opposite large legal teams including barristers, or perhaps the NSW Crown Solicitor, as you endeavour to navigate through the quagmire of formal protocols not disclosed at the outset. And it most definitely does not say NSW government agencies will stack as many solicitors as possible onto the account ledgers to ensure they rack up as much legal costs as possible. NCAT gives the first impression it is an informal setting but that could not be further from the truth. Once inside the NCAT judicial sanctuary, self-represented parties to proceedings will find they are in a court, make no mistake about that. Some presiding members are magistrates, one or two an ex-judge, but mostly they are solicitors; wannabe magistrates and judges living their best judicial lives dealing with defenceless members of the public who are often NCAT virgins and so are easy targets for being railroaded. After all, it’s a long journey to seek an Appeal, intimidated by having to deal with questions of law or applying for leave to appeal. Some find it all too hard and just walk away disillusioned by their first or second NCAT judicial experience. The report to Parliament by Webb is supported by indisputable evidence, some of which from her own personal experience along with that of her husband Paul McEwan. The report sets out the damage the public are suffering, particularly in the area of legal costs, where she has created the new term NCAT Costs Wishes. But likely most importantly the report addresses two (2) fundamental legislative issues underpinning the NCAT which have been clearly ignored to this point; enabling legislation and beneficial legislation. The report identifies the GIPA Act 2009 to be both enabling and beneficial; enabling from the perspective it enlivens an NCAT Application, and beneficial in the sense it exists provide benefit to the public and not NSW government agencies. The GIPA Act 2009 is Parliament’s free gift to the NSW public, ensuring the public’s right to access NSW government information towards open, transparent, accountable government. Enabling legislation is that which enlivens NCAT proceedings; for example an Access Application seeking government records under the GIPA Act 2009. The GIPA Act is the enabling legislation. These two fundamental factors identifying the category of legislation are nowhere to be seen in any caselaw concerning a Costs Wish; nowhere to be seen in agency submissions or statements; it’s just full steam ahead for a Costs Wish knowing the NCAT is all too easily convinced it’s the right and proper thing to do: these pesky public endeavouring to exercise their legal rights need to be punished! The full document is available here. Public commentary is available on the form below, with the public invitation to highlight problematic issues with the NCAT and its Act, the maladministration and abuse of the GIPA Act 2009, and to share and expose Costs Wish stories including Agency pursuit of monies not based in law.
The document is dated August 2024 and was attached to numerous requests to meet with Parliamentarians.
On 19th September 2024 the submission author NSW Freedom of Information’s Telina Webb met with Mr Mark Latham who showed serious interest in the matters raised with a shock response from him seeing costs being awarded in the NCAT arena where there are no costs; at least in the context of the GIPA Act which makes no provision for such.
To quote Mr Latham “Costs in NCAT?! In a no costs forum?!” Yes, and the evidence was staring him in the face.
On 14th October 2024 Webb and her husband met with Mr John Ruddick and his Chief of Staff also of the NSW Parliament.
Like others he also expressed initial disbelief the NCAT was awarding costs in the context of the GIPA Act 2009. And like others he was also sceptical costs awarded were not based in law having reference to the NCAT Act 2013 Section 60 concerning this issue.
However, neither Parliamentarian had been informed about the NCAT’s Policy – Costs Guideline, which makes abundantly clear it can only award costs if a particular law provides NCAT the discretion to do so.
Let’s just say that again. NCAT’s jurisdiction to award costs under the NCAT Act 2013 Section 60 is confined to whether or not a particular law gives it the discretion to do so. And GIPA does not provide any such discretion.
Webb also took the opportunity to inform Mr Ruddick of the recent Application to NCAT for a Restraint Order under the GIPA Act 2009 Section 110. That Application sees multiple Applicants including the Dept of Communities and Justice (DCJ), Port Stephens Council (PSC), and Goulburn Mulwaree Council (GMC) colluding against respondents who are not legally represented. The NCAT advertises each party pays its own costs. This is the fundamental message from NCAT. It’s published on its website. NCAT professes that self-representation is the way to go, and “you can be your own best advocate.” But it doesn’t say you will likely find yourself facing opposite large legal teams including barristers, or perhaps the NSW Crown Solicitor, as you endeavour to navigate through the quagmire of formal protocols not disclosed at the outset. And it most definitely does not say NSW government agencies will stack as many solicitors as possible onto the account ledgers to ensure they rack up as much legal costs as possible. NCAT gives the first impression it is an informal setting but that could not be further from the truth. Once inside the NCAT judicial sanctuary, self-represented parties to proceedings will find they are in a court, make no mistake about that. Some presiding members are magistrates, one or two an ex-judge, but mostly they are solicitors; wannabe magistrates and judges living their best judicial lives dealing with defenceless members of the public who are often NCAT virgins and so are easy targets for being railroaded. After all, it’s a long journey to seek an Appeal, intimidated by having to deal with questions of law or applying for leave to appeal. Some find it all too hard and just walk away disillusioned by their first or second NCAT judicial experience. The report to Parliament by Webb is supported by indisputable evidence, some of which from her own personal experience along with that of her husband Paul McEwan. The report sets out the damage the public are suffering, particularly in the area of legal costs, where she has created the new term NCAT Costs Wishes. But likely most importantly the report addresses two (2) fundamental legislative issues underpinning the NCAT which have been clearly ignored to this point; enabling legislation and beneficial legislation. The report identifies the GIPA Act 2009 to be both enabling and beneficial; enabling from the perspective it enlivens an NCAT Application, and beneficial in the sense it exists provide benefit to the public and not NSW government agencies. The GIPA Act 2009 is Parliament’s free gift to the NSW public, ensuring the public’s right to access NSW government information towards open, transparent, accountable government. Enabling legislation is that which enlivens NCAT proceedings; for example an Access Application seeking government records under the GIPA Act 2009. The GIPA Act is the enabling legislation. These two fundamental factors identifying the category of legislation are nowhere to be seen in any caselaw concerning a Costs Wish; nowhere to be seen in agency submissions or statements; it’s just full steam ahead for a Costs Wish knowing the NCAT is all too easily convinced it’s the right and proper thing to do: these pesky public endeavouring to exercise their legal rights need to be punished! The full document is available here. Public commentary is available on the form below, with the public invitation to highlight problematic issues with the NCAT and its Act, the maladministration and abuse of the GIPA Act 2009, and to share and expose Costs Wish stories including Agency pursuit of monies not based in law.
Contact us using this form to start your conversation about your costs story.