The Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, or GIPA, is the public’s current legislated mechanism for gaining access to NSW government information.
It was hailed in by the Honourable Nathan Rees as revolutionising. He reassured the public NSW government agencies would relinquish their hold on government records, and that old cultures of control and secrecy needed to go.
Those involved in the creation of the new legislation included the NSW Ombudsman, Right to Information Officers, and so-called key stakeholders of government information. Mr Rees intended the new legislation to change attitudes and provide greater transparency and accountability in government, giving the public the legal right to access information and question the government’s actions.The reality however is very different as the public continues to see more of the same.
Examples include today’s decision by Port Stephens Council, where documentation requested under Formal Access Application has been denied in full.
The requested information consisted of Objecting Submissions to a Development Application (DA); documents generally published on Council websites and also made available on a ‘view only’ basis at Council counters anonymously.
Ordinarily such documents are provided Informally; simply ask and you shall receive.
And they are free of charge.
The GIPA Regulations 2009 Schedule 1 – Additional open access information – Local Authorities reiterates Objecting Submissions to Development Applications are readily made public.
This is to ensure opportunities for corruption are minimised; corrupt property developers are more likely to be exposed, and Council Planning Officers are less likely to exercise favouritism for fear of formal discipline or criminal charges for acting corruptly.
DA documents and files are open to the public. Plans and drawings may be protected by copyright, but they are still viewable. So the entirety of DA documentation files are freely available.
Of course, this does not align with the (2) two decisions issued today by Port Stephens Council concerning this very category of documents, that is open access information mandated for release free of charge.
The Access Applicant on this occasion, Telina Webb, was not asking for DA documentation pertaining to any other person or property. She was asking about the property she and her husband owned in Raymond Terrace; the DA No. 483 of 2011. The DA concerned a swimming pool fence and privacy screen. By the time of lodging the Access Applications in December 2012, with the Decisions issued today, Webb and her husband had been dragged through Council’s ad hoc DA processes, threatened with over $1m of fines, and forced towards the Land & Environment Court due to Council refusing them access to the FREE Council Meeting for adjudication.Initial estimates for their project were $4,500.00. Final costs would reach towards (6) six figures. Yes, six figures, so go figure.That story is written across this Site on numerous pages.
The Right to Information Officer processing Webb’s Access Applications was Tony Leslie Wickham. He maintained control because he was involved. As such he could not delegate this task. Wickham was also the Executive Officer, the Privacy Officer, Governance Manager, Complaints Handling Officer, Code of Conduct Coordinator, and Joint Custodian of Secondary Employment. Clearly these positions are conflicting and should always be separated to ensure Council processes are incapable of being corrupted. But not here.
In the lead up to Council issuing its (2) Notice of Decision documents, Tony Wickham sent the same letter to Webb twice, seeking an advance deposit of $90.00 each, as he estimated the processing times could cost overall $180.00 each. Webb had already paid the statutory fees of $30.00 for each application.
Webb asked Wickam if the payment of the advance deposit gave any reassurance of the provision of the requested information. He would not confirm anything to that regard. Instead stating that he required the advance deposit if the applications were to proceed.
So today Wickham provided his Notice of Decision for each of Webb’s access applications. It was finished with a schedule of processing time, and with an additional bill of $60.00 each. Nice.
In total, Wickham imposed fees totalling $360.00, for information that is free of charge and generally published on Council websites, but he provided nothing at all. No not a single page.
Turns out he couldn’t provide the requested information because he had made a covert unlawful agreement with an author of an objecting submission. That agreement was suggested by Wickham. The author of the document had contacted Wickham directly, asking how he could lodge an open access document and keep it protected from release.
Turns out this individual sat on a number of Council Committees………………….
In response to the request for protection, Wickham had suggested a number of clauses under the GIPA Act 2009, most particularly Section 14 Table 3(f), which asserts information can be withheld if releasing it could see people being exposed to a serious risk of harm, harassment, or serious intimidation.
One would think such a reliance must be based on facts. But not on this occasion; Wickham had suggested it, and informed his partner in crime he, that is Wickham, would implement it, intercede on his behalf should the Information Commissioner come knocking on Council’s door asking any questions.
It’s a matter of “I did it because I could,” and “I did it because I’ll never be accountable for it.”
That pretty sums up the attitude to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, or GIPA, by an individual driven by spite and drunk with autonomy.
He also advised staff had been instructed ‘nothing’s to get past me.’ What a champion!
On that basis, that is the unlawful agreement, it is hence easy to see why Wickham would apply the same parameters by default to these (2) two requests for objecting submissions. It was a case of one in all in.
These humble access applications for open access information would see highly inapplicable charges, the obstruction of information on a false premise, and a non-legislated publication on Council’s website publishing the Section 14 Table 3(f) clause as reasoning for withholding information.
None of these actions aligns with the legislation.
“I won’t be seeking a review of these decisions. I need to focus on selling our beautiful home. The outcome of Council denying my husband and I access to the FREE Council meeting for our DA, and instead forcing us to the Land and Environment Court, has left us with legal bills we have to pay. This whole experience has been nothing short of traumatising. Added to this is the fact I’ve suffered (3) three TIA’s through this horrendous DA process. I don’t see how I could cope with going to NCAT or any other review process after all that,” stated Webb.
“This was going to be our retirement, our dream home. This all started over a privacy screen, when we received a brochure in the mail from Council about swimming pool safety. When we considered Council’s brochure and the state of our pool fence we knew we had to make it compliant. Funny thing is, what we inherited was Council Approved! What a joke! And the joke's on the public,” stated Webb.
“I waited until the DA was finalised until I lodged my access applications for the DA documents. I based my applications on Council’s reports, which stated there were only (2) two objectors, which was not true. There were always (3) three, with one privileged with a cloak of invisibility."
"I had asked Council Informally over (30) thirty times for the Objecting Submissions, but was always refused. In May last year, Tony Wickham told me I couldn’t have the documents Informally, but invited me to lodge a Formal Application. But he already knew he was never going to give the documents to me. By March / April 2012 he had made a deal with one of our neighbours to protect DA documents. He already knew he would not be providing the information, and he knew Council staff and solicitors had misrepresented the number of objecting submissions it held. Looking at Council’s ad hoc DA process, this was just more of the same,” stated Webb.
“The objectors were always fully informed their objections would be provided if released. Council DA notification letters made that clear, and the published advertisements in the local newspapers reiterated that. How then can these people have access to special considerations? None of it makes sense,” stated Webb.
Wickham’s Notice of Decisions are available here and here.
Wickham’s unlawful agreement is available here.
Wickham’s Non-Disclosure publications on Council’s website are available here and here. Council maintained there were only ever (2) two adjoining neighbors notified of the DA, which is false and misleading. The addresses of the (5) five neighbours Council notified about the DA is available on Council’s DA Tracker and here. Two (2) of those have confirmed they did not lodge objecting submissions. Images of the Council approved non-compliant pool gate, fencing and climbing structures are available here.
Of course, this does not align with the (2) two decisions issued today by Port Stephens Council concerning this very category of documents, that is open access information mandated for release free of charge.
The Access Applicant on this occasion, Telina Webb, was not asking for DA documentation pertaining to any other person or property. She was asking about the property she and her husband owned in Raymond Terrace; the DA No. 483 of 2011. The DA concerned a swimming pool fence and privacy screen. By the time of lodging the Access Applications in December 2012, with the Decisions issued today, Webb and her husband had been dragged through Council’s ad hoc DA processes, threatened with over $1m of fines, and forced towards the Land & Environment Court due to Council refusing them access to the FREE Council Meeting for adjudication.Initial estimates for their project were $4,500.00. Final costs would reach towards (6) six figures. Yes, six figures, so go figure.That story is written across this Site on numerous pages.
The Right to Information Officer processing Webb’s Access Applications was Tony Leslie Wickham. He maintained control because he was involved. As such he could not delegate this task. Wickham was also the Executive Officer, the Privacy Officer, Governance Manager, Complaints Handling Officer, Code of Conduct Coordinator, and Joint Custodian of Secondary Employment. Clearly these positions are conflicting and should always be separated to ensure Council processes are incapable of being corrupted. But not here.
In the lead up to Council issuing its (2) Notice of Decision documents, Tony Wickham sent the same letter to Webb twice, seeking an advance deposit of $90.00 each, as he estimated the processing times could cost overall $180.00 each. Webb had already paid the statutory fees of $30.00 for each application.
Webb asked Wickam if the payment of the advance deposit gave any reassurance of the provision of the requested information. He would not confirm anything to that regard. Instead stating that he required the advance deposit if the applications were to proceed.
So today Wickham provided his Notice of Decision for each of Webb’s access applications. It was finished with a schedule of processing time, and with an additional bill of $60.00 each. Nice.
In total, Wickham imposed fees totalling $360.00, for information that is free of charge and generally published on Council websites, but he provided nothing at all. No not a single page.
Turns out he couldn’t provide the requested information because he had made a covert unlawful agreement with an author of an objecting submission. That agreement was suggested by Wickham. The author of the document had contacted Wickham directly, asking how he could lodge an open access document and keep it protected from release.
Turns out this individual sat on a number of Council Committees………………….
In response to the request for protection, Wickham had suggested a number of clauses under the GIPA Act 2009, most particularly Section 14 Table 3(f), which asserts information can be withheld if releasing it could see people being exposed to a serious risk of harm, harassment, or serious intimidation.
One would think such a reliance must be based on facts. But not on this occasion; Wickham had suggested it, and informed his partner in crime he, that is Wickham, would implement it, intercede on his behalf should the Information Commissioner come knocking on Council’s door asking any questions.
It’s a matter of “I did it because I could,” and “I did it because I’ll never be accountable for it.”
That pretty sums up the attitude to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, or GIPA, by an individual driven by spite and drunk with autonomy.
He also advised staff had been instructed ‘nothing’s to get past me.’ What a champion!
On that basis, that is the unlawful agreement, it is hence easy to see why Wickham would apply the same parameters by default to these (2) two requests for objecting submissions. It was a case of one in all in.
These humble access applications for open access information would see highly inapplicable charges, the obstruction of information on a false premise, and a non-legislated publication on Council’s website publishing the Section 14 Table 3(f) clause as reasoning for withholding information.
None of these actions aligns with the legislation.
“I won’t be seeking a review of these decisions. I need to focus on selling our beautiful home. The outcome of Council denying my husband and I access to the FREE Council meeting for our DA, and instead forcing us to the Land and Environment Court, has left us with legal bills we have to pay. This whole experience has been nothing short of traumatising. Added to this is the fact I’ve suffered (3) three TIA’s through this horrendous DA process. I don’t see how I could cope with going to NCAT or any other review process after all that,” stated Webb.
“This was going to be our retirement, our dream home. This all started over a privacy screen, when we received a brochure in the mail from Council about swimming pool safety. When we considered Council’s brochure and the state of our pool fence we knew we had to make it compliant. Funny thing is, what we inherited was Council Approved! What a joke! And the joke's on the public,” stated Webb.
“I waited until the DA was finalised until I lodged my access applications for the DA documents. I based my applications on Council’s reports, which stated there were only (2) two objectors, which was not true. There were always (3) three, with one privileged with a cloak of invisibility."
"I had asked Council Informally over (30) thirty times for the Objecting Submissions, but was always refused. In May last year, Tony Wickham told me I couldn’t have the documents Informally, but invited me to lodge a Formal Application. But he already knew he was never going to give the documents to me. By March / April 2012 he had made a deal with one of our neighbours to protect DA documents. He already knew he would not be providing the information, and he knew Council staff and solicitors had misrepresented the number of objecting submissions it held. Looking at Council’s ad hoc DA process, this was just more of the same,” stated Webb.
“The objectors were always fully informed their objections would be provided if released. Council DA notification letters made that clear, and the published advertisements in the local newspapers reiterated that. How then can these people have access to special considerations? None of it makes sense,” stated Webb.
Wickham’s Notice of Decisions are available here and here.
Wickham’s unlawful agreement is available here.
Wickham’s Non-Disclosure publications on Council’s website are available here and here. Council maintained there were only ever (2) two adjoining neighbors notified of the DA, which is false and misleading. The addresses of the (5) five neighbours Council notified about the DA is available on Council’s DA Tracker and here. Two (2) of those have confirmed they did not lodge objecting submissions. Images of the Council approved non-compliant pool gate, fencing and climbing structures are available here.
Council Approved: Gate and Pool Fence not stable or secured.
Council Approved: Climbing Structure
Council Approved: Reo-Mesh attached to 1200mm high fence provides a Climbing Structure
Council Approved: Pool Pump, wiring & Electrical Box - a Climbing Structure
The Access Applications and Decision Notices are now fully public information; Tony Wickham has provided these records to the Office of the Information Commissioner, the Anti-Discrimination Board, and the NSW Civil & Administrative Tribunal.
Wickham did not first seek Webb’s consent to do so, given they contain her personal information.
Contact:
Tony Wickham: Tony.wickham@portstephens.nsw.gov.au
Wickham did not first seek Webb’s consent to do so, given they contain her personal information.
Contact:
Tony Wickham: Tony.wickham@portstephens.nsw.gov.au