Dear Wellington Regional Council,

I would like to request the following information about a traffic stop in Miramar, Wellington on the 17th Feb 2019. Details below.

1) The reason for the traffic stop
2) The outcome of the traffic stop
3) The length of the traffic stop
4) Whether the driver of the bus had any prior driving behaviour reports known by the Police, and/or Metlink

Details of traffic stop:
Bus rego GQU11, metlink bus no 4188
Location, Mirimar ave between Shelly Bay Road and Maupuia Road, towards Maupuia Road.
Police vehicle rego HSM175, lights flashing, no siren.

Note that as an independent contractor for Metlink, this information should be held by the driver and/or the operators under s 2(6) of LGOIMA.

Yours faithfully,

Hugh Davenport

Dear GWRC,

Attention Margaret Meek

Thanks for that. Yet another instance of the council having no idea when their drivers are being pulled over, or having a dangerous incident involving one of the buses. For what it is worth, as it seems that GWRC have no idea about it. There was an abusive passenger on the bus that required Police attendance to remove them from the bus. This is something that I would have hoped GWRC knew due to the "oversight" they have over all the bus operators.

Thanks for explaining your reasoning of whether this fit the criteria for s2 (6) and mentioning the relevant documentation issued by the Ombudsman. The document is available at http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/syste... for those following along.

I would like to mention paragraphs 25-26 of that document, labelled "Outcome":
25. For the reasons outlined above, the Ombudsman formed the opinion that the Ministry
was not entitled to refuse the request on the basis that the information was not held by
the Ministry. He concluded that NASCs are independent contractors engaged by the
Ministry for the purposes of section 2(5) of the OIA.
26. In response to the Ombudsman’s provisional opinion, the Ministry advised the
Ombudsman that it had asked individual NASCs to provide the requester with the
information she requested (or in the case of NASCs that are operational arms of DHBs,
transferred her request). Accordingly, the Ombudsman did not consider it necessary to
make a recommendation.

So in that document that it seems that GWRC clearly only read the first part describing the situtation, failed to read the actual outcome that the Ombudsman found, which states that they believed that in that situation the Ministry was *not entitled to refuse the request on the basic that the information was not held by the Minitsry*, and then the Ministry in question inturn asked their contractors to provide the information requested.

I find it interesting that GWRC is *still* attempting to hide information behind their operators which they are meant to have oversight over for the public. Again and again there have been issues with the GWRC bus run network, and again and again the GWRC shifts the blame entirely to the bus operator, then claim that they hold no information about anything.

I would like you to reconsider your refusal on this, and have a more detailed read through the paper that you mentioned to me. I hope that you find that you had misinterpreted and that they are indeed independent operators as defined by s2 (6). I'm sure you are now aware that the Ombudsman is currently investigating you for several refusals of this type. If you stand by your refusal on this, I will add this request to their file.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

Dear GWRC,

Attention Margaret Meek

Just some further to this regarding the scopes of the bus operators contracts. I refer to the Partnering Agreement between GWRC and the bus operators, available at http://www.gw.govt.nz/assets/Transport/B...

Section 9.4.5 states "The Operator shall immediately provide written notice to GWRC of: ... any investigation being undertaken by the Police, the Transport Agency, WorkSafe or any other
regulator which may result in a variation to the Operator's Licence or any other Consent. ". I'm unsure why GWRC was not immediately provided written notice of the actions taken by the Police on this driver. Is this yet another breach of the bus contract that you are going to sweep under the rug?

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

Dear Margaret Meek,

Thanks, I have contacted Ombudsman about how you have interpreted the paras 25-26 of the document you referenced.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport