NSW Local Councils Reveal Contradicting Approaches and Interpretation in
Administering Freedom of Information Legislation, 25.10.2021
Information released from (2) two NSW Local Councils shows evidence agencies’ approaches and interpretation of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, GIPA, are still miles apart after some 10 years of legislative application.
NSW Freedom of Information Advocate Telina Webb has successfully obtained a number of interest disclosure and secondary employment approval records from Queanbeyan-Palerang Council which were completely unredacted and provided at first instance, with no additional fees imposed, and no requirement for administrative review with either the NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner (IPC) or NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal, (NCAT).
Comparatively however, Port Stephens Council has also released documents, showing it spent over $99,000.00 of public monies fiercely defending the release of the same types of documents inclusive of interest disclosures and secondary employment approval records, outrageously claiming at one stage, by Counsel for the Council Brenda Tronson of Level 22 Barristers, there were concerns the applicant would commit identify fraud if the documents were released. Brenda Tronson was supported by Matthew Cobb-Clark of the same Chambers.
The recent case before the NCAT for such documents resulted in the Applicant Paul McEwan who was un-represented being given heavily redacted documents, with the presiding Tribunal Member making it very clear there is “not a scintilla of evidence” (p 160) Mr McEwan presented the risks alleged by Port Stephens Council. The release of the documents was the first instance they were made available to the public since the inception of the GIPA Act in 2009, leaving Council in breach of the legislation for many years.
Mr McEwan sought the documents after unexpectedly discovering a Port Stephens Council Planning Manager had been operating his own Town Planning Consultancy in parallel to his Council role, and had advertised the business on a Council website. The documents however revealed this was not an isolated case and that numerous Planners had been acting in the same way, with one Planner employing Council staff in the business.
“There is no consistency in the manner in which agencies process requests for information. It might simply be the case right to information officers require much more training, but regardless these are very poor examples of what the public can expect from agency to agency,” stated Telina Webb. Under the GIPA Act 2009 such documents as interest disclosures are mandated for release, and agencies are expected to publish them on their organisational website or make them available free of charge at first instance.
“The questions that should be asked are why Port Stephens Council continues to stand out and spend such a great amount of public monies on legal defences that are not necessary, to obstruct access to information mandated for release, and where are the approvals for unnecessary expenditure coming from?” asks Ms Webb.
“It may be that the questions should be directed to the Port Stephens Council Senior Right to Information Officer Tony Wickham who also occupies parallel roles of Governance Manager, Joint Custodian of Secondary Employment, Complaints Handling Officer, and Code of Conduct Coordinator,” Ms Webb commented.
It remains Ms Webb’s contention that such a collection of roles occupied by one individual would place the officer in a clear and constant position of conflict of interest, and may go somewhat towards explaining why Port Stephens Council continually fights so hard, and spends so much of the public’s money, to keep information from the public.
This latest bundle of Port Stephens Council accounting records provided under Formal GIPA Request reveals senior staff are not maintaining the expected degree of oversight for public monies.
“One email communication between a Council in-house solicitor and a right to information officer makes clear from the dialogue QUOTE “I am not privy to what the estimate was however the dates and actions align / make sense to me for what it’s worth” UNQUOTE and another simply states QUOTE “Looks fine to me” UNQUOTE, discloses that unqualified and ill-informed Council staff are making decisions about paying huge sums of monies, in this particular instance an amount of almost $15,000.00. Where is this individual’s authority to do so? And why isn’t anyone actually checking against the estimates?” questioned Ms Webb.
Ms Webb also questions why a Local Council would continually pass requests for open access information mandated for release under the GIPA Act 2009 to external legal firms and barristers when such documents do not necessitate any form of legal action.
• Tony Wickham can be contacted on 0408 497 649• Brenda Tronson can be contacted on (02) 9151 2212
NSW Freedom of Information Advocate Telina Webb has successfully obtained a number of interest disclosure and secondary employment approval records from Queanbeyan-Palerang Council which were completely unredacted and provided at first instance, with no additional fees imposed, and no requirement for administrative review with either the NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner (IPC) or NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal, (NCAT).
Comparatively however, Port Stephens Council has also released documents, showing it spent over $99,000.00 of public monies fiercely defending the release of the same types of documents inclusive of interest disclosures and secondary employment approval records, outrageously claiming at one stage, by Counsel for the Council Brenda Tronson of Level 22 Barristers, there were concerns the applicant would commit identify fraud if the documents were released. Brenda Tronson was supported by Matthew Cobb-Clark of the same Chambers.
The recent case before the NCAT for such documents resulted in the Applicant Paul McEwan who was un-represented being given heavily redacted documents, with the presiding Tribunal Member making it very clear there is “not a scintilla of evidence” (p 160) Mr McEwan presented the risks alleged by Port Stephens Council. The release of the documents was the first instance they were made available to the public since the inception of the GIPA Act in 2009, leaving Council in breach of the legislation for many years.
Mr McEwan sought the documents after unexpectedly discovering a Port Stephens Council Planning Manager had been operating his own Town Planning Consultancy in parallel to his Council role, and had advertised the business on a Council website. The documents however revealed this was not an isolated case and that numerous Planners had been acting in the same way, with one Planner employing Council staff in the business.
“There is no consistency in the manner in which agencies process requests for information. It might simply be the case right to information officers require much more training, but regardless these are very poor examples of what the public can expect from agency to agency,” stated Telina Webb. Under the GIPA Act 2009 such documents as interest disclosures are mandated for release, and agencies are expected to publish them on their organisational website or make them available free of charge at first instance.
“The questions that should be asked are why Port Stephens Council continues to stand out and spend such a great amount of public monies on legal defences that are not necessary, to obstruct access to information mandated for release, and where are the approvals for unnecessary expenditure coming from?” asks Ms Webb.
“It may be that the questions should be directed to the Port Stephens Council Senior Right to Information Officer Tony Wickham who also occupies parallel roles of Governance Manager, Joint Custodian of Secondary Employment, Complaints Handling Officer, and Code of Conduct Coordinator,” Ms Webb commented.
It remains Ms Webb’s contention that such a collection of roles occupied by one individual would place the officer in a clear and constant position of conflict of interest, and may go somewhat towards explaining why Port Stephens Council continually fights so hard, and spends so much of the public’s money, to keep information from the public.
This latest bundle of Port Stephens Council accounting records provided under Formal GIPA Request reveals senior staff are not maintaining the expected degree of oversight for public monies.
“One email communication between a Council in-house solicitor and a right to information officer makes clear from the dialogue QUOTE “I am not privy to what the estimate was however the dates and actions align / make sense to me for what it’s worth” UNQUOTE and another simply states QUOTE “Looks fine to me” UNQUOTE, discloses that unqualified and ill-informed Council staff are making decisions about paying huge sums of monies, in this particular instance an amount of almost $15,000.00. Where is this individual’s authority to do so? And why isn’t anyone actually checking against the estimates?” questioned Ms Webb.
Ms Webb also questions why a Local Council would continually pass requests for open access information mandated for release under the GIPA Act 2009 to external legal firms and barristers when such documents do not necessitate any form of legal action.
• Tony Wickham can be contacted on 0408 497 649• Brenda Tronson can be contacted on (02) 9151 2212