NSW Dept of Communities & Justice Evidenced Switching between Work Health & Safety Legislation and
Freedom of Information Legislation to Obstruct Legitimate Access to Government Records, 29.08.2023
Justice NSW has issued a Notice of Decision in response to a valid request for government information from Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information, evidencing how agencies readily switch between different clauses and pieces of legislation in order to obstruct access to information.
In today’s Notice a departmental officer (indicated to be using a pseudonym to sign off on documentation) relied upon the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA) Section 14 Table 3(f) asserting Ms Webb posed a serious risk of harm to a Justice NSW staff member should the requested information be released to her.
The officer relied on and referred to a number of media releases on Ms Webb’s Site www.nswfreedomofinformation.net, articles which highlight agency misconduct and inappropriate actions in the exercise of the GIPA Act 2009. The officer further claimed Justice NSW had concerns any documents released pursuant to the request for information would be published.
Justice NSW is fully aware the historical false claims Ms Webb posed any risk of harm as claimed by NSW government agencies have been completely quashed and discredited as such, with agencies challenged to produce documentary evidence to support the claim and failing to do so.
This recent Notice follows from a current case in the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) which sees Justice NSW continuing to defend the withholding of departmental information from Ms Webb on the basis of compliance with the Work Health & Safety Act and also the fact she has a website.
During those current proceedings the Information & Privacy Commissioner (IPC) has made clear in her submissions that referring to the Work Health & Safety Act is not sufficient on its own, the agency must show evidence of why it’s applicable under the circumstances.
The IPC also submitted that having a website does not qualify as personal factors of an access application under the GIPA Act 2009, and as such should not be a factor for withholding information.
There can be no doubt the IPC’s recent submissions have resulted in Justice NSW changing tact, switching from the Work Health & Safety Act to the GIPA Act 2009 Section 14 Table 3(f) to withhold departmental information and records from Ms Webb.
“Regrettably, this is yet another example of agency inconsistency, where anyone exercising their legally enforceable rights (supposed) to access government information find agencies making contradicting decisions to justify partial or full refusal of access to information, resulting in avoidable and unnecessary statutory reviews that soak up time and incur financial costs. It’s actually embarrassing when this is occurring within the same government department and with the same officer,” stated Ms Webb.
“The concern is that these are examples of NSW agency’s actions to prevent the release of government information, and most importantly that such examples emanate from the top tier of NSW government. The Open Government, Information & Privacy Unit of Justice NSW is publicly documented making presentations to the whole of the state’s population of Right to Information & Privacy Officers, with agency personnel looking to this Unit for guidance on what to do. The public has the right to know how its public servants conduct business on behalf of the public, most of whome are relatively oblivious to what is really occurring behind departmental closed doors.” "Any reasonable person would agree such actions do not align with any department tasked to be one of Open Government............"
Contact:
Jordan Creyson, (02) 9716 2662
In today’s Notice a departmental officer (indicated to be using a pseudonym to sign off on documentation) relied upon the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA) Section 14 Table 3(f) asserting Ms Webb posed a serious risk of harm to a Justice NSW staff member should the requested information be released to her.
The officer relied on and referred to a number of media releases on Ms Webb’s Site www.nswfreedomofinformation.net, articles which highlight agency misconduct and inappropriate actions in the exercise of the GIPA Act 2009. The officer further claimed Justice NSW had concerns any documents released pursuant to the request for information would be published.
Justice NSW is fully aware the historical false claims Ms Webb posed any risk of harm as claimed by NSW government agencies have been completely quashed and discredited as such, with agencies challenged to produce documentary evidence to support the claim and failing to do so.
This recent Notice follows from a current case in the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) which sees Justice NSW continuing to defend the withholding of departmental information from Ms Webb on the basis of compliance with the Work Health & Safety Act and also the fact she has a website.
During those current proceedings the Information & Privacy Commissioner (IPC) has made clear in her submissions that referring to the Work Health & Safety Act is not sufficient on its own, the agency must show evidence of why it’s applicable under the circumstances.
The IPC also submitted that having a website does not qualify as personal factors of an access application under the GIPA Act 2009, and as such should not be a factor for withholding information.
There can be no doubt the IPC’s recent submissions have resulted in Justice NSW changing tact, switching from the Work Health & Safety Act to the GIPA Act 2009 Section 14 Table 3(f) to withhold departmental information and records from Ms Webb.
“Regrettably, this is yet another example of agency inconsistency, where anyone exercising their legally enforceable rights (supposed) to access government information find agencies making contradicting decisions to justify partial or full refusal of access to information, resulting in avoidable and unnecessary statutory reviews that soak up time and incur financial costs. It’s actually embarrassing when this is occurring within the same government department and with the same officer,” stated Ms Webb.
“The concern is that these are examples of NSW agency’s actions to prevent the release of government information, and most importantly that such examples emanate from the top tier of NSW government. The Open Government, Information & Privacy Unit of Justice NSW is publicly documented making presentations to the whole of the state’s population of Right to Information & Privacy Officers, with agency personnel looking to this Unit for guidance on what to do. The public has the right to know how its public servants conduct business on behalf of the public, most of whome are relatively oblivious to what is really occurring behind departmental closed doors.” "Any reasonable person would agree such actions do not align with any department tasked to be one of Open Government............"
Contact:
Jordan Creyson, (02) 9716 2662