Chatham House Rules.  It’s been around for a long time.  It has been globally propagated as “….helping create a trusted environment to understand and resolve complex problems.  Its guiding spirit is:  share the information you receive, but do not reveal the identity of who said it.”
Sounds great on the surface and looks good at first glance.
However, queue NSW government agency personnel meeting to discuss government business, including unlawfully sharing the public’s personal information and bypassing legislated protocols generally, and the ensuing problems immediately present when this non-legislated reliance becomes clear.

Existing for over (2) two decades the NSW Right to Information & Privacy Practitioners Network, or NIPPN, has been continuously operating under Chatham House Rules.  NIPPN is documented holding public meetings at NSW Parliament House functions rooms, during government business hours, and at the public’s expense.

NIPPN office bearers claim membership is exclusive to agency personnel, but this has since been totally discredited with evidence individuals from private enterprise hold membership; some for decades.

These officers, calling themselves practitioners as though they are concerned with the well-being of others, are mandated to ensure the public’s personal information is secure and protected.

The same officers however are now documented to rely on Chatham House Rules to defend their claim of anonymity and protection, pushing aside the mandated legislation in the process.

It is an example of complete disregard and disrespect for the public’s legal rights, and it is an abuse of position and power to do so with the inherent expectation of being protected by a back-up membership group of approximately (500) five hundred.

A primary example of this unqualified reliance on Chatham House Rules was when at the NIPPN meeting of 27th March 2019, the NSW Dept of Communities and Justice Director and Business Unit Manager, Open Government Information & Privacy Unit (OGIPU) one Ms Jodie Cobbin (yes it's a very long-winded title......), did make a public presentation inclusive of the public’s personal information.

Ms Cobbin did not first seek the public’s consent to do so, using the information for a collateral purpose which is unlawful.

Ms Cobbin is an ex-NSW Police Superintendent, no doubt accustomed to accessing the public’s confidential personal information in that role, but failing to recognise her new role within Justice NSW does not give her such privileges.

The purpose of Ms Cobbin’s public presentation titled “Tale of a Fixated Applicant” pointed out members of the public she had personally categorised as problematic and difficult to deal with in the context of Access to Information.

It was also her intention to distribute her personal management strategies for dealing with these people she had classified as undesirables requiring control, dissuasion and punishment for simply endeavouring to exercise their legal rights to access NSW government information.

The Minutes of the Meeting were published on the NIPPN website, since deactivated, and so Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information lodged an Access Application with Justice NSW for a copy of the presentation.

That matter has remained ongoing for over a year with a recent Appeal heard and the outcome currently pending.

However in the meantime Ms Webb petitioned the NSW Attorney-General seeking his position on the legitimacy of Chatham House Rules.

Today Ms Webb received a response from Justice NSW on behalf of the Attorney-General, making clear “….The 12 Information Protection Principles (IPPs) impose obligations on NSW public sector agencies, statutory bodies, universities and local councils in relation to the way they collect, store, use or disclose personal information.  I confirm that the Chatham House Rule does not override the PPIP Act or the IPP’s.”

"Government employees meeting to discuss government business and unlawfully share the public's personal information; who would have thought?  What makes it worse if that were remotely possible, past NIPPN Chair Nicole Gibbs-Steele Senior Privacy Officer of iCARE NSW, swore an affidavit NIPPN was not governmental.  We just cannot take anything these trusted privileged individuals say with any credibility whatseover.  They certainly do not meet to share cooking recipes or knitting patterns!  The joke is on the public when the public's been paying the bills for these swanky gatherings; little knowing what NIPPN members were up to.  There is nothing about these activities or actions which represents open, transparent, accountable government," stated Ms Webb.

"None of these trusted privileged individuals are professionally qualified, they are not regulated, and they work to undermine the legislation and the public's rights to access NSW government information and ensure security of personal information.  They wouldn't last 5 minutes in private enterprise where there is real accountability and consequences."

NIPPN has since amended its full organisational title to NSW Privacy & Right to Know Practitioners Network, as is advertised on the website of the Office of the NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner (IPC) via a form link.

The public should be very concerned the IPC endorses an organisation comprising mandated public servants who regularly breach the legislation; it is not a good look for either of the Commissioners and discloses where their first loyalties remain.

The IPC's endorsement of NIPPN is available here and here.
The Justice NSW letter debunking Chatham House Rules is available here.  Let's hope the Attorney-General duly sent out 500 memos........

Contact:
NIPPN Chair Robert Sparshott, privacy@sydneywater.com.au
NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner, ipcinfo@ipc.nsw.gov.au
NSW Attorney-General Michael Daley, (02) 7225 6070 or office@daley.minister.nsw.gov.au
Commentary on this article is invited via the form below.
Thank you!

Error
