Exercising legislated legally enforceable rights to access NSW Government information has become a chess game of threats, bullying and deliberate intimidation as more and more agencies raise potential costs applications with NCAT as an important part of the game of dissuasion and punishment.

Today was a case conference between Telina Webb Applicant and Sydney Water Respondent in the proceedings.

Ms Webb initially requested access to the NSW Information & Privacy Practitioners Network, NIPPN, Minutes of Meetings.  The request was made to Sydney Water as its Privacy Officer Robert Sparshott is identified as NIPPN’s current Chair.

Sydney Water responded to Ms Webb’s valid access application by partially providing the information, claiming an overriding public interest against disclosure.  Some of that was embarrassing with images of the publicly-known then-Information Commissioner Elizabeth Tydd blacked out.

Ms Webb sought an external review of the decision with the Office of the NSW Information & Privacy Commissioner, IPC, however was notified it had referred the case to NCAT to avoid “giving the impression there existed a conflict of interest given some of the information concerned the IPC.”

Before the NCAT today was Sydney Water’s in-house solicitor Ms Stephanie Kelly Barnes, a solicitor of some (19) nineteen years, but clearly lacking in fundamental knowledge concerning the access to information process as well as NCAT protocols.  Ms Barnes was taking instructions from GIPA and Privacy Specialist Officer Maria Rana, equally lacking the expected level of knowledge.

It was clear from the outset Sydney Water was not happy to see Ms Webb exercise her rights for an administrative review.

After Ms Barnes’ request the case be directed towards mediation was rejected by the presiding Member, she indicated that should the proceedings require the engagement of external solicitors in NCAT, Sydney Water would be seeking legal costs against Ms Webb.

Ms Barnes also stated Sydney Water wanted to summons the IPC to attend, however the NCAT does not have any powers to do so.  The IPC only participates in NCAT business of its own accord as a 'friend of the court'.

The presiding member repeatedly advised Ms Barnes to get some advice; in other words get some legal advice.

“The difference between mediation and a formal hearing is mediation is confidential, hearings are not.  I don’t think Sydney Water wants this matter to be public nor do they want a formal outcome by caselaw decision.

It is a fundamental matter concerning government information, where government employees’ contact information is classified as non-personal in nature so is outside of any protections of a public interest against disclosure under any legislation.

There is also the issue of asking NCAT to order the IPC to participate when that does not occur.  They know this, and if they don’t they certainly should.  They have access to ongoing publicly-funded training that is withheld from the public.  They have the advantage, they have the resources, they have the knowledge.

And yet we see a solicitor of almost two decades who doesn’t understand the operations of the legislation mandating her employer agency?!” stated Ms Webb.

The threat and claiming of legal costs within NCAT has continued to grow since test cases such as Zidar v Department of Justice in 2018.

At that time NCAT was only (5) five years old and all concerned were still likely learning the NCAT ropes.
Mr Zidar’s case was closely followed (4) four months later by a public presentation courtesy of the NSW Dept of Justice’ Director Open Government and Information Unit’s Jodie Cobbin, where she actually recommends seeking costs against applicants as a management strategy for agency-identified problematic individuals.

Ms Cobbin compiled the presentation “Tale of a Fixated Applicant” in March 2019 and presented it to NIPPN, now established as a covert government cartel predominantly membered by government employees but now inclusive of individuals from private enterprise.

Shockingly Ms Cobbin’s presentation also recommended involving NSW Police, collaborating with other agencies, and seeking restraining orders under the GIPA Act 2009 Section 110, recommendations she highlighted as a "light at the end of the tunnel".

Ms Cobbin published her presentation and circulated it to the whole of the state’s Right to Information and Privacy Officers through NIPPN, confirmed to have existed for several decades whilst hiding in plain sight.

NIPPN enjoys membership of close to (500) five hundred, inclusive of private enterprise, so the presentation has undoubtedly been published in the full sense of the term.

“Ms Cobbin’s presentation exemplifies the truth about our GIPA and PPIP public servants; it is the public's reality.  So much for Open Government Information and Privacy; sorry that title is a total joke.  But the joke’s on the NSW public.  This is another example of the current attitudes exhibited towards the public who choose to access their beneficial legislation, which is what GIPA is.  It’s not for the benefit of the government, it’s for the benefit of the people of NSW,” stated Ms Webb.

Jodie Cobbin is an ex-NSW Police Superintendent who clearly retains her attitude the public are enemies of the state and should be controlled.  Only problem is, she’s no longer a cop.
“Regrettably I can see where this application for review is heading; straight to a costs application which I will face at that time.  But it is disgraceful to see evidence of agency personnel using legislated processes to bully and threaten the public, particularly when costs are not legislated; just disgraceful.  

Raising this issue in NCAT is also proving pointless despite the legislation misconduct in the exercise of the GIPA Act is reportable to the IPC.  Thus far despite hundreds of legitimate requests NCAT do no such reporting, there has not been a single one,” stated Ms Webb.
“We will see where this goes, and in the background Sydney Water’s Ms Barnes and Ms Rana will have the whole of the state backing them at the next NIPPN meeting when they raise ‘issues of concern for discussion, hiding under prep-school Chatham House Rules’. 

There’s just so much wrong with this entire freedom of information system, it’s rotten and corrupted to the core.  And when a respondent agency threatens legal costs at the outset of the legislated administrative review process, that can only be classified as deliberate bullying, harassment, and intimidation.”
Contact:
Robert Sparshott, privacy@sydneywater.com.au
Stephanie Barnes, stephanie.barnes@sydneywater.com.au
Maria Rana, maria.rana@sydneywater.com.au