Justice NSW Caught Out Bypassing Access to Information Mandates, Requesting the Public’s Personal
information State-Wide for a Fabricated Departmental Study, 24.05.2024
The GIPA Act 2009.
It applies to pretty much every government department and educational facility across NSW.
Every individual seeking access to NSW government information must request such through the formal Access to Information process, particularly when the subject documentation is not classified as open access mandated for release free of charge.
Even the NSW Premier is documented in departmental annual reports as bound by and complying with the GIPA Act, leaving no doubt no person is above the legislation and able to access information outside of it.
However, a published edition of Minutes of a Meeting dated 12th June 2019 shows a senior executive of Justice NSW doing just that; seeking access to NSW government information in breach of the legislation through direct access to right to information and privacy officers.
The meeting was held at NSW Parliament House by the organisation NSW Right to Information & Privacy Practitioners Network, or NIPPN, which has been operating for over (2) two decades. Membership consists of NSW government employees as the name suggests, but is also inclusive of individuals from private enterprise.
The organisation NIPPN has been relying on its Terms of Reference which state meetings are held under prep-school Chatham House Rules, which is not legislated.
This particular meeting saw a number of presenters including one Ms Jodie Cobbin Director / Business Unit Manager, Open Government Information & Privacy Unit within Justice NSW. The presentation was made available to the whole of the state’s population of right to information and privacy officers and those outside of government.
Ms Cobbin is an ex-NSW Police Superintendent, likely accustomed to accessing and using the public’s personal information in that role. But these days she is but a clerk pushing paper around her desk in accordance with statutory obligations under the GIPA and PPIP Acts.
Her presentation on this occasion discussed a number of issues, particularly informing the group of a forthcoming departmental study, and where she solicited every member of NIPPN for feedback on issues practitioners were facing concerning fixated and vexatious (gipa) applicants, towards that study.
Ms Cobbin’s presentation provided her work email address Jodie.cobbin@justice.nsw.gov.au as a contact for that feedback.
In essence, Ms Cobbin solicited the whole of the state directly for individual departmental records and information, with no indication of deidentifying the information, completely bypassing and breaching the GIPA Act 2009. Of course accessing the public’s personal information from secondary government agencies also breached the PPIP Act.
(No, not that kind of soliciting.....)
With some (500) five hundred active members of NIPPN at that time, the cost of properly adhering to the GIPA Act 2009, at $30.00 per access application, would have cost Justice NSW some $15,000.00. Not to mention the amount of time 500 Access Applications would have taken to compose, circulate, and resultantly process.
Not to worry though, as this was public money and did not cost Ms Cobbin any funds of a personal nature.
So having regard to that publicly available Minutes of the NIPPN Meeting which stated “they (Justice) are conducting a study / preliminary assessment of fixated persons / vexatious applicants and are calling for feedback on issues practitioners are facing,” Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information lodged a Formal Access Application for a copy of the TRIM File where the claimed study and the documentation forwarded by NIPPN members in relation to that study were expected to be digitally filed.
So let’s be clear; no actual documents were requested, only the list of documents, a list of the records showing the document file names and date of creation and / receipt.
Today Justice NSW issued its Notice of Decision stating there were no records to be found, so no TRIM File to be had.
Not one.
And obviously no sign of any claimed study.
It was all a ruse on the part of Ms Cobbin to gain unlawful access to the public’s information!
The actual truth is NSW government agencies share the public’s information and collate dossiers of people seeking access to the government’s information.
Yes, every email, letter, record of telephone conversation, social media post, media commentary, correspondence generated as part of the GIPA process, is stored away for use at a convenient time for the agency to use.
This is evidenced to occur with a number of agencies including the notorious Port Stephens Council, Palerang Council, Queanbeyan Council, Goulburn-Mulwaree Council, Dept of Education, Dept of Finance & Services, and now of course Justice NSW.
Clearly this is all a great idea for those entrusted with exercising statutory functions under the GIPA Act 2009 and its older sister PPIP 1998.
Just label an individual problematic and it’s pretty much good to go from that point.
Of course, Ms Cobbin’s action to solicit the whole of the state’s right to information and privacy officers for the public’s information for a collateral purpose and in breach of the legislation is nothing new and follows immediately after her earlier presentation to the same group, with her powerpoint slide show titled “Tale of a Fixated Applicant”.
Seeking costs, seeking Section 110 Restraining Orders, formally restricting access to agency services, blocking emails, procrastinating reply to correspondence protocols, and involving NSW police were all great ideas she made public recommending their implementation as "our strategies so far".
What a gal!
Sadly, this single valid Access Application from Webb for documents pertaining to a claimed departmental study and Justice’ Notice of Decision response evidences (2) two key take-aways: some NSW government employees have no regard for the GIPA or PPIP Acts when they want inter-departmental information, and no person responded to Ms Cobbin’s request for information if we are to believe the official response.
In both instances the result is totally embarrassing.
“Personally I don’t believe Jodie Cobbin didn’t receive a single return of information concerning her request. Not one out of (500) five hundred recipients?! It’s not credible. Her intention was underhanded and designed to undermine the public’s legislated rights to access NSW government information. And she got caught doing so. And seriously, fancy admitting no person took her presentation sufficiently serious to provide her anything at all, bearing in mind the agency claims no documentation whatsoever was located. And where is this mysterious study?” stated Ms Webb.
“Presently agencies are not required to provide proof of searches for information, which is a gaping loophole in the legislation, particularly concerning an Access Applicant’s vulnerability to a potential Section 110 Application for Restraint Order, without having to provide any evidentiary proof the prerequisite criteria have been met?! It’s so easy to deny the requested information is held by the agency, storing up that outcome to add to others in the future to be used against the public. Someone needs to remind these publicly-paid individuals they are in their roles to serve the public, not work against it.”
“I have every reason to expect this access application, now deemed unmeritorious, will be stored ready for use at a time when Justice makes a Section 110 Application for Restraint Order against me,” stated Ms Webb. “My access applications and media commentary have effectively placed a target on my back, Justice is very angry, and Ms Cobbin has shown she views such an order as part of an effective management strategy for dealing with what she has classified as fixated applicants. There can be no doubt I will see my name so classified in the very near future as agencies such as Justice NSW work together towards obstructing my legal rights to access NSW government information, punishing me for having the courage to speak up and expose corruption.” A copy of the Minutes of the Meeting is available here. A copy of the Justice Notice of Decision is available here, with no processing time logged indicative the Access Application actually received no due process at all, and noting it was signed off with a pseudonym making it totally defective. If a member of the public used a pseudonym on an Access Application they wouldn’t get past first base.
Contact:Jodie Cobbin, Jodie.cobbin@justice.nsw.gov.au Commentary on this article is invited via the form below.
“I have every reason to expect this access application, now deemed unmeritorious, will be stored ready for use at a time when Justice makes a Section 110 Application for Restraint Order against me,” stated Ms Webb. “My access applications and media commentary have effectively placed a target on my back, Justice is very angry, and Ms Cobbin has shown she views such an order as part of an effective management strategy for dealing with what she has classified as fixated applicants. There can be no doubt I will see my name so classified in the very near future as agencies such as Justice NSW work together towards obstructing my legal rights to access NSW government information, punishing me for having the courage to speak up and expose corruption.” A copy of the Minutes of the Meeting is available here. A copy of the Justice Notice of Decision is available here, with no processing time logged indicative the Access Application actually received no due process at all, and noting it was signed off with a pseudonym making it totally defective. If a member of the public used a pseudonym on an Access Application they wouldn’t get past first base.
Contact:Jodie Cobbin, Jodie.cobbin@justice.nsw.gov.au Commentary on this article is invited via the form below.