The NSW Department of Communities & Justice’ Director, Open Government Information & Privacy (OGIP) Unit Ms Jodie Cobbin, has admitted under oath during cross-examination that the department’s digital record keeping system does not function to properly search through its records, hampering the public’s rights to access departmental records and information.

Ms Cobbin had filed an Affidavit in NCAT proceedings brought by Applicant Telina Webb of NSW Freedom of Information.
Ms Webb had asked for documentation intimated to be held by Justice NSW, when Ms Cobbin had made reference to documents authored by Ms Webb in separate proceedings with third party agency iCARE.  Those documents contained Ms Webb’s personal information and she had not given any authorisation for iCARE to share her personal information with another agency or any other person.

Given Ms Cobbin had sworn to her knowledge of Ms Webb’s documentation in the possession of iCARE, relying on it in earlier separate NCAT proceedings, Ms Webb assumed Ms Cobbin did have some documentation to support her disclosure and that Ms Webb’s personal information was more than an occasion of Chinese Whispers or rumour.

"New Top Cop for Singleton"
Image courtesy Singleton Argus' Paul Maguire, 22nd November 2012

Ms Cobbin is an ex-NSW Police Officer who rose to the rank of Superintendent however her career encompassed prosecutions and covert operations such as phone tapping.
The presiding Tribunal Member cross-examined Ms Cobbin extensively following Ms Webb, digging deeper into the Affidavit evidence.
Whilst Ms Cobbin’s Affidavit gave the strong impression reasonable and extensive searches for the requested information had been undertaken, there was no disclosure Justice’s systems were only capable of searching and finding document titles and not content.
It was Justice’ solicitor Ms Sue Chew who offered the Tribunal Member the opportunity of witnessing additional searches via a laptop in the possession of Justice’ Right to Information Officer Ms Doreen Lin, AKA and signing off as Jordan Creyson in her Access to Information determination documents, where Ms Lin was invited to go through the search process in the presence of the Tribunal Member in real time.
After some time, both Ms Lin and Ms Cobbin confirmed Justice NSW was not able to properly respond to valid access to information applications, in particular asserting credible searches had been undertaken.
This was a revelation to both the Tribunal and to Ms Webb who has had several access applications with Justice and has taken some of those to the Tribunal for formal Administrative Review.

“It was certainly a revelation to find Justice NSW’ Access to Information Determinations were misrepresenting the quality and degree of searches undertaken by the department in response to valid access applications.
There has never been any disclosure Justice NSW’ digital record keeping system was actually incapable of meeting any request for information, unless a document was titled accurately to meet the scope of the request.  The chances of a document being titled in such way are practically zero.
What makes this much worse is when I was informed by Justice NSW in 2023, that its staff had ‘certified’ the quality and extent of searches undertaken to locate information requested by the public, which was false and misleading designed to give the impression Justice had done everything possible to find documents and staff were ‘certifying’ the searches went above and beyond the requirements of the GIPA Act 2009.
Yes, staff were certifying as to the quality of searches on a false premise!

We must put this into the proper context here; the NSW Dept of Communities and Justice is responding to requests for information from differing members of the public who seek access to custodial records, court records, statements and submissions, state child-care records, the children’s court, Family & Community Service records including DOCS, and the list goes on and on.  And we find the system for searching for records is not capable of locating the information.
The only way a document MAY be located, is if the title of the document meets the scope or criteria of the request; and government departments are very strict on scope,” stated Ms Webb.
“Any reasonable person would agree this action by an ex-NSW Police Officer, to formulate and file a formal Sworn Affidavit with the NSW Judiciary, claiming credible searches have been undertaken in response to a valid access application, but all the while knowing as the Director of the Open Government Information & Privacy Unit that her systems are not capable of performing adequate searches, constitutes a deliberate deception.
That deception is designed to satisfy the Tribunal and result in the closing of the case with the Tribunal agreeing the information is not held by the agency Justice NSW.
Of course, this has huge implications for a member of the public because it only takes (4) four agency access determinations in the category of Information Not Held to result in a formal restriction of access to government services under Section 110 of the GIPA Act 2009.  And presently the (4) four access applications categorised in this way, are not tested in Section 110 proceedings.  It is totally stacked against the trusting public, and these agency personnel know it,” stated Ms Webb.
“Ms Cobbin in her capacity as Director of the OGIP Unit is a role model to her department, exemplifying how senior trusted government employees act behind closed doors to the detriment of the public she serves, sending the message that such behaviours as displayed by Justice NSW, are acceptable.  Given her background as a senior NSW Police Officer, one who has prosecuted offences under the Crimes Act 1900, there can be no doubt Ms Cobbin knows what perjury is.”
The public face of Justice NSW viewable on the website www.dcj.nsw.gov.au, makes clear reference to the GIPA Act 2009, the public’s legally enforceable right to access NSW government information, and the legislated review rights should Access Applicants not be happy with Justice’ GIPA Decisions.
However, that public has been duped into believing their rights are being upheld when the systems in place to do the job do not have the required capacity.
The question remains ‘how much did this system cost and who approved it absent of its fundamental system requirements or performance capabilities?’
Contact:	Jodie Cobbin		Jodie.cobbin@dcj.nsw.gov.au
		Sue Chew		Sue.chew@dcj.nsw.gov.au
		Doreen Lin		Doreen.lin@dcj.nsw.gov.au