NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal Protects Director of Dept of Communities & Justice
from Rightful Action of Breach of Personal Privacy and Misusing the Public’s Personal Information
for a Collateral Purpose by Decision to Prevent Proper Release of Internal Policy Document, 14.08.2024
The matter before the Tribunal, Webb v Secretary, Department of Communities & Justice (2024) NSWCATAD 238, concerned a document originating from the Department in March 2019.
The title of the document was “Tale of a Fixated Applicant”, the brain-child of the Director, Open Government Information & Privacy Unit (OGIPU) (yes it's certainly a mouthful) , Ms Jodie Cobbin ex-NSW Police Superintendent.
Webb first became aware of the document’s existence in mid-2022 when reading Minutes of Meetings from the NSW Right to Information & Privacy Practitioners’ Network, NIPPN.
Those Minutes dated 27th March 2019 recorded a public presentation to NIPPN, a group which includes individuals from private enterprise. That presentation was made at NSW Parliament House in the Jubilee Room; very swanky indeed. The Minutes listed Item 3 – Discussion – dealing with difficult complainants – Dept of Justice:Department of Justice gave a presentation on dealing with difficult applicants.• Department of Justice requested that practitioners send:o Anonymised examples of behavior (eg excessive email, social media/cyber bullying)o Type of application (GIPA, PPIP Act other legislation noting that the issue appears to be across all of government)o Number and frequency of applicationso Number of staff affected and impacto Action taken (restrictions, NSW Police report, escalation)o Contact infoandprivacy@justice.nsw.gov.au
Hmmm, 'difficult complainants', 'difficult applicants', 'fixated applicants'; might as well throw everyone under the same bus via as many labels as possible. Webb decided after reading those Minutes to request an unredacted copy of the presentation under the GIPA Act 2009. Webb did not anticipate any issues accessing the information, given the indications were it qualified as an internal policy document and it had already been published in a very public forum.
It would become known Cobbin not only made the presentation, she requested government information from the whole of the membership population of NIPPN, some 500, effectively bypassing legislated protocols given the GIPA Act 2009 binds the Crown. No doubt she was relying on the prep-school NIPPN Terms of Reference Chatham House Rules for some kind of allegiance and protection under the false premise “share what you want, but don’t disclose where you got it from.” Incredible!
During the Access to Information and Administrative Review process, Justice NSW would eventually provide Webb with (3) three separate versions of the document; graduated in the degree of redactions.
During the hearing of 09th October 2023, Cobbin confirmed she’d utilised numerous departmental resources including USB Device to transport her presentation, a work laptop to create the presentation, a departmental powerpoint template with logo, and work time to create and publish her presentation. Of course, the key issue at all times was the fact Cobbin unlawfully used the public's personal information, fully intended by design of the title, to embarrass, humiliate, denigrate, and single-out her target of an example of how to deal with claimed problematic difficult access applicants. All of which was done covertly, never expecting to be exposed for the offending and unlawful action it was.
She claimed the Ombudsman’s document Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct was insufficient, and so decided to create her own, something with a little more punch...............
Again, she publicly shared the presentation which was made in a public venue to an audience inclusive of individuals from private enterprise.
As such, any reasonable person would agree it came as a shock to learn the presentation included the personal information of a member of the public.
Cobbin did not first seek lawful consent to use the public’s personal information.
Neither did Cobbin lawfully and rightfully disclose to the owner of the personal information that she fully intended to use that personal information for a collateral and separate purpose to what it was originally collected for; a huge NO-NO in Privacy Circles and well-propagated within NIPPN by both the Information and Privacy Commissioners directly to this exclusive group who assert they are 'practitioners'; seriously; as though they have the well-being of the public foremost in their minds.
No surprise then to realise both Cobbin and Justice NSW were in damage control when they received Webb's valid access application; desperate to cover up serious wrong-doing, actioned by one of its senior executives, unable to deny the requested information existed.
“This simple case of document discovery shows how due process is completely ignored when public servants are caught with their bureaucratic pants down!” stated Webb. “Here we have the Director of the OGIPU, using and abusing her position of seniority and trust, to the blatant and deliberate denigration of a member of the public, in nothing more than a show of total disregard for the legislation which she, Jodie Cobbin, is in place to uphold. The title alone stands as testimony to her publicly practiced attitudes.”
“The fact Cobbin fully expected the Tribunal to act outside of its jurisdiction, covering up the unlawful conduct and protecting her, is indicative of just how far the NCAT has strayed from the judicial path. The fact the Tribunal granted her wishes is extraordinary, when compared to the way NCAT regularly trashes the good reputations of members of the public who seek access to justice, responsible government, and accountability of its public servants. There is no equality when we look at decisions such as this, and there is no Rule of Law; that’s very clear.”
“I asked the Tribunal to order Justice NSW to conduct the rightful third party consultations, given the information had been requested, but the Tribunal upheld Cobbin’s position ‘we had no intention of releasing the personal information to you, so we had no obligation to consult with the owner of the personal information’. Cobbin also relied upon the Work Health and Safety Act to support the partial withholding of the presentation, however, this piece of legislation is not designed to cover up and insulate those who breach the legislation. This legislation is concerned with trip hazards and the like. I did expect the Tribunal to see through Justice NSW, but when NCAT and Justice operate within a Slave / Master relationship, with one being managed by the other, the issue of departmental loyalties must come into play.”
"There is no evidence Cobbin followed any departmental protocols defining the process for the creation of her personal punitive policy. Policy is not created by one person. It is a series of methodologies, recommendations, research, consultation, testing and retesting. Clearly none of that part of this document now circulated state-wide as a recommendation on 'how DCJ deals with problematic individuals' who try to access their beneficial legislation and exercise their legal rights. Cobbin's presentation supported the unlawful sharing of the public's personal information where she suggests agencies collude, she suggested to involve NSW Police (of course!), and she recommended seeking costs in NCAT proceedings which is most definitely not founded in law. What a champion for all things democratic, open and transparent!", stated Webb. "The fact the Department of Communities & Justice partners annually with the NSW Information Commissioner's Right to Know Week as a Program Champion is an absolute farce and fully exposes a culture of hypocrisy." No doubt Jodie Cobbin in her past life as a NSW Police Superintendent was so accustomed to accessing the public’s personal information and acting as judge, jury and executioner at will and at any time of her choosing, she has arrogantly continued to do so in her new role as clerk. "The Tribunal had no ethical right or jurisdiction to cover up Cobbin's wrongdoing. The public has the right to hold the government to account, and question its actions. Such scrutiny is set out in the GIPA Act 2009 as the Object of the Act; it's written in stone. The fact the Tribunal was informed about the dissemination of the document state-wide, was informed Cobbin had acted unlawfully, and that she publicly propagated a departmental policy document which had not seen due process, but yet it acted to protect Cobbin indicates the absence of any respect for the Rule of Law by this particular Tribunal Member. It's little wonder no Tribunal Member has yet made any warranted referral to the Information & Privacy Commissioner(s), little wonder at all," stated Webb.
The three versions of the presentation are available here, here and here, where it’s easy to properly collate the pages to show what was eventually released.
An audit of the case will be published in due course inclusive of the Access Application, Notice of Decision, unredacted copies of departmental affidavits and submissions as a matter of public interest and to provide the public insight into what to expect of the Access to Information process when administered by the Dept of Communities and Justice.
If you have any views about Jodie Cobbin using and abusing the public’s personal information, bypassing her statutory obligations under the GIPA Act 2009, and her reluctance to lawfully conduct third party consultations, you can submit your comment on the form below or email Telina Webb direct on info@nswfreedomofinformation.net.
Contact:
Jodie.cobbin@dcj.nsw.gov.au
infoandprivacy@justice.nsw.gov.au
The title of the document was “Tale of a Fixated Applicant”, the brain-child of the Director, Open Government Information & Privacy Unit (OGIPU) (yes it's certainly a mouthful) , Ms Jodie Cobbin ex-NSW Police Superintendent.
Webb first became aware of the document’s existence in mid-2022 when reading Minutes of Meetings from the NSW Right to Information & Privacy Practitioners’ Network, NIPPN.
Those Minutes dated 27th March 2019 recorded a public presentation to NIPPN, a group which includes individuals from private enterprise. That presentation was made at NSW Parliament House in the Jubilee Room; very swanky indeed. The Minutes listed Item 3 – Discussion – dealing with difficult complainants – Dept of Justice:Department of Justice gave a presentation on dealing with difficult applicants.• Department of Justice requested that practitioners send:o Anonymised examples of behavior (eg excessive email, social media/cyber bullying)o Type of application (GIPA, PPIP Act other legislation noting that the issue appears to be across all of government)o Number and frequency of applicationso Number of staff affected and impacto Action taken (restrictions, NSW Police report, escalation)o Contact infoandprivacy@justice.nsw.gov.au
Hmmm, 'difficult complainants', 'difficult applicants', 'fixated applicants'; might as well throw everyone under the same bus via as many labels as possible. Webb decided after reading those Minutes to request an unredacted copy of the presentation under the GIPA Act 2009. Webb did not anticipate any issues accessing the information, given the indications were it qualified as an internal policy document and it had already been published in a very public forum.
It would become known Cobbin not only made the presentation, she requested government information from the whole of the membership population of NIPPN, some 500, effectively bypassing legislated protocols given the GIPA Act 2009 binds the Crown. No doubt she was relying on the prep-school NIPPN Terms of Reference Chatham House Rules for some kind of allegiance and protection under the false premise “share what you want, but don’t disclose where you got it from.” Incredible!
During the Access to Information and Administrative Review process, Justice NSW would eventually provide Webb with (3) three separate versions of the document; graduated in the degree of redactions.
During the hearing of 09th October 2023, Cobbin confirmed she’d utilised numerous departmental resources including USB Device to transport her presentation, a work laptop to create the presentation, a departmental powerpoint template with logo, and work time to create and publish her presentation. Of course, the key issue at all times was the fact Cobbin unlawfully used the public's personal information, fully intended by design of the title, to embarrass, humiliate, denigrate, and single-out her target of an example of how to deal with claimed problematic difficult access applicants. All of which was done covertly, never expecting to be exposed for the offending and unlawful action it was.
She claimed the Ombudsman’s document Managing Unreasonable Complainant Conduct was insufficient, and so decided to create her own, something with a little more punch...............
Again, she publicly shared the presentation which was made in a public venue to an audience inclusive of individuals from private enterprise.
As such, any reasonable person would agree it came as a shock to learn the presentation included the personal information of a member of the public.
Cobbin did not first seek lawful consent to use the public’s personal information.
Neither did Cobbin lawfully and rightfully disclose to the owner of the personal information that she fully intended to use that personal information for a collateral and separate purpose to what it was originally collected for; a huge NO-NO in Privacy Circles and well-propagated within NIPPN by both the Information and Privacy Commissioners directly to this exclusive group who assert they are 'practitioners'; seriously; as though they have the well-being of the public foremost in their minds.
No surprise then to realise both Cobbin and Justice NSW were in damage control when they received Webb's valid access application; desperate to cover up serious wrong-doing, actioned by one of its senior executives, unable to deny the requested information existed.
“This simple case of document discovery shows how due process is completely ignored when public servants are caught with their bureaucratic pants down!” stated Webb. “Here we have the Director of the OGIPU, using and abusing her position of seniority and trust, to the blatant and deliberate denigration of a member of the public, in nothing more than a show of total disregard for the legislation which she, Jodie Cobbin, is in place to uphold. The title alone stands as testimony to her publicly practiced attitudes.”
“The fact Cobbin fully expected the Tribunal to act outside of its jurisdiction, covering up the unlawful conduct and protecting her, is indicative of just how far the NCAT has strayed from the judicial path. The fact the Tribunal granted her wishes is extraordinary, when compared to the way NCAT regularly trashes the good reputations of members of the public who seek access to justice, responsible government, and accountability of its public servants. There is no equality when we look at decisions such as this, and there is no Rule of Law; that’s very clear.”
“I asked the Tribunal to order Justice NSW to conduct the rightful third party consultations, given the information had been requested, but the Tribunal upheld Cobbin’s position ‘we had no intention of releasing the personal information to you, so we had no obligation to consult with the owner of the personal information’. Cobbin also relied upon the Work Health and Safety Act to support the partial withholding of the presentation, however, this piece of legislation is not designed to cover up and insulate those who breach the legislation. This legislation is concerned with trip hazards and the like. I did expect the Tribunal to see through Justice NSW, but when NCAT and Justice operate within a Slave / Master relationship, with one being managed by the other, the issue of departmental loyalties must come into play.”
"There is no evidence Cobbin followed any departmental protocols defining the process for the creation of her personal punitive policy. Policy is not created by one person. It is a series of methodologies, recommendations, research, consultation, testing and retesting. Clearly none of that part of this document now circulated state-wide as a recommendation on 'how DCJ deals with problematic individuals' who try to access their beneficial legislation and exercise their legal rights. Cobbin's presentation supported the unlawful sharing of the public's personal information where she suggests agencies collude, she suggested to involve NSW Police (of course!), and she recommended seeking costs in NCAT proceedings which is most definitely not founded in law. What a champion for all things democratic, open and transparent!", stated Webb. "The fact the Department of Communities & Justice partners annually with the NSW Information Commissioner's Right to Know Week as a Program Champion is an absolute farce and fully exposes a culture of hypocrisy." No doubt Jodie Cobbin in her past life as a NSW Police Superintendent was so accustomed to accessing the public’s personal information and acting as judge, jury and executioner at will and at any time of her choosing, she has arrogantly continued to do so in her new role as clerk. "The Tribunal had no ethical right or jurisdiction to cover up Cobbin's wrongdoing. The public has the right to hold the government to account, and question its actions. Such scrutiny is set out in the GIPA Act 2009 as the Object of the Act; it's written in stone. The fact the Tribunal was informed about the dissemination of the document state-wide, was informed Cobbin had acted unlawfully, and that she publicly propagated a departmental policy document which had not seen due process, but yet it acted to protect Cobbin indicates the absence of any respect for the Rule of Law by this particular Tribunal Member. It's little wonder no Tribunal Member has yet made any warranted referral to the Information & Privacy Commissioner(s), little wonder at all," stated Webb.
The three versions of the presentation are available here, here and here, where it’s easy to properly collate the pages to show what was eventually released.
An audit of the case will be published in due course inclusive of the Access Application, Notice of Decision, unredacted copies of departmental affidavits and submissions as a matter of public interest and to provide the public insight into what to expect of the Access to Information process when administered by the Dept of Communities and Justice.
If you have any views about Jodie Cobbin using and abusing the public’s personal information, bypassing her statutory obligations under the GIPA Act 2009, and her reluctance to lawfully conduct third party consultations, you can submit your comment on the form below or email Telina Webb direct on info@nswfreedomofinformation.net.
Contact:
Jodie.cobbin@dcj.nsw.gov.au
infoandprivacy@justice.nsw.gov.au
NB: This article was published post the release of the final version of the document on 27.08.2024