By email
Shed 39, 2 Fryatt Quay
Pipitea, Wellington 6011
PO Box 11646
8 February 2019
Manners Street
Wellington 6142
T 04 384 5708
File Ref: OIAP-212673595-299
F 04 385 6960
www.gw.govt.nz
Hugh Davenport
[FYI request #9187 email]
Dear Mr Davenport
Request for information – follow up to OIA 2018-358
I refer to your follow up request for information referred to our response to your information dated
23 January 2019, which was received by Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) on 23
January 2019. You have requested the following information:
“
For the correspondence requested, in one of the emails received from Bruce Horsefield, he stated "
just after midday on 19 September we received notification that one of the communications
operators for the bus company had identified the driver and that that information was forwarded to
the depot where the driver is employed." However, none of the documents you attached suggested
that the driver was identified. Can this correspondence please be attached as originally requested.
See note below about what is defined as "information held" in terms of the LGOIMA.
In addition, Bruce stated "The bus operator confirmed that the depot Operations Manager would be
speaking to the driver concerning the incident. This was conveyed to you via email on 20 September
2018.". Again, there is no sign of the correspondence where the bus operator confirms that the
Operations Manager will speak with the driver.
In addition, Bruce stated "We subsequently received further advice that on the day after this incident
and prior to the driver being given his shift card for the service runs that he would be responsible
for, a discussion occurred between that driver and the Depot Operations Manager.". Again, no sign
of this correspondence.
As stated in this request, "This may not be all the correspondence between GWRC and the
operator.", so this request requires all correspondence.
I believe that this correspondence listed above, and potentially other correspondence with the
operator is "directly related" to this case, and was specifically asked in this request. I would like this
provided please. If you are refusing to provide this information, can you please list the reason(s)
why in accordance with the LGOIMA.
RESPONSE TO FOLLOW-UP
For the Police query, can you please confirm whether the Police contacted Transzurban. I believe
that the Police contacted them, due to the following statements in Police file 181011/0350.
"Police emailed tranzurban on the 29/10/2018 requesting CCTV footage of incident."
"Police confirmed they had spoken directly to Tranzurban as part of their enquiries and stated
Tranzurban take all complaints seriously"
I would like acknowledgement from GWRC that the operator was contacted by the Police.
I should note that in that Police file, the CCTV footage provided to the Police were either not from
the same bus, or from a different time/day, as the bus was not in the same location. Given that
GWRC previously stated that the bus was at that location (OIA 2018 322), this suggests that the
operator purposefully withheld information from the NZ Police during an investigation while acting
as an agent for the GWRC. ”
GWRC’s response follows.
19 September advice
Attached is a copy of the response received by the operator in relation to this incident. You will see
that this records that the driver had been identified and the follow-up action to be taken.
Note that as part of our complaints management system, the response from the operator was directly
input into our complaints management system by the operator for consideration by our Customer
Resolution Team.
I have also attached a copy of general details related to this investigation recorded in our complaints
management system by the operator.
Subsequent advice and correspondence
As part of our review of documents referred to our original response, we have conducted a
subsequent search for correspondence. We have identified correspondence between GWRC and the
operator which had previously not been identified in our original search. The documents had not
been identified as they had not been saved in accordance with our document management protocol.
I apologise for this.
Police involvement
GWRC has previously provided you with our response in relation to Police involvement in this
matter.
Details withheld from documents
Please note that we have elected to withhold the driver’s identification number, the names of
Customer Resolution Team members involved in this case and names of operator contacts in
accordance with section 7(2)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act
RESPONSE TO FOLLOW-UP
PAGE 2 OF 3
1987 (the Act) on the basis that we consider that it is necessary to protect the privacy of these
people.
We have considered whether the public interest in the requested information outweighs GWRC’s
need to withhold personal details. As a result, we do not consider that the public interest outweighs
GWRC’s reason for withholding parts of the document under the ground identified above.
If you have any concerns with the decision(s) referred to in this letter, you have the right to request
an investigation and review by the Ombudsman under section 27(3) of the Act.
Yours sincerely
Greg Pollock
General Manager, Public Transport
RESPONSE TO FOLLOW-UP
PAGE 3 OF 3
