It's your car, you provide it to your employee Julia Gillard.

You're getting a bit worried about the way it's being driven.   It's been seen quite a few time parked where it shouldn't be - one evening a news crew saw Tim the boyfriend scrape the car against a gate.

On 9 January this year you read on this website that the car had been pinged 8 times in 12 weeks for traffic offences.

You started to worry, so you asked your employee Julia Gillard who was driving the car.

Today, more than 4 months later, the latest instalment in her plan to avoid answering the simple question.   Who was driving?

January 15 update.

March 19 update.

On 12 April the uknown driver, "the 3rd party" wrote to the FOI people objecting to any information that would identify him/her being released.   A copy of the department's response to "the 3rd party" is at the bottom of this page.

Here's today's email from the department to our reader!

Email from FOI Officer, Legal and Strategic Support Branch, Department of Finance and Deregulation

To our reader

As you are aware, a request for internal review was made by a third party regarding your FOI request.  The Department has made a decision on this internal review.  A redacted copy of the decision provided to the applicant is attached.

 

You may request a review of this internal review decision to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) within 30 days (details of review rights are included in the attached decision letter and available on the OAIC’s website at http://www.oaic.gov.au/foi-portal/review_complaints.html).

While the decision maker has decided to release five documents in part, these documents cannot be released to you until the third parties review rights have expired.

 

Regards,

Our reader didn't waste any time, here's his note today to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner

Dear xx,

Please find attached a copy of the Report – Internal Review Decision,  dated today, May 20, 2013.

 

I understand the Parties have 30 days to object – is that correct?

 

From my perspective after a quick read of the decision, I certainly do not agree with the decision maker’s opinion. Essentially the argument not to release the names of the driver(s) and other details relative to the offences, in that this would be a breach of confidentiality and not be in the public interest.

 

I would challenge this, based on the undeniable fact that there has been and as far as the public knows, a person or persons driving the Prime Minister’s publicly funded motor vehicle with scant regard for the law in relation to road rules. If there was one, perhaps two instances of driving infringements, it could be argued that these were out of character for the driver and that the offences did not constitute a pattern of poor driving. As we know, it was not one or two instances and it was many. This is a situation where there is a person or persons suing a publicly funded vehicle, the Prime Minister’s vehicle  no less, showing some level of disregard for authority and certainly a level of irresponsible behaviour that is inconsistent with the level expected by the public.

 

How do we know this person(s) who recklessly drives the Prime Minister’s car in such an irresponsible manner, is still driving around continuing to break the law. Even if there are no more infringements, all that means is that they have not been caught again. This person(s) should not be permitted to use Government vehicles for a period of effective suspension. Without a penalty, the public could not be satisfied the abuse is not going to continue.  

 

I do not wish to know all of the information about the driver – I am not interested in, their Driver’s License details, their address, where the offence took place or details of the personal at Lease Plan.

 

However I am most interested in the names of the offenders and I would like to know whether the Commonwealth continues to support / allow that person to use Government funded cars, and in particular the Prime Minister’s car. It is most certainly of public interest we know who has caused the office of Prime Minster such embarrassment and if the 3^rd parties are continuing to use the car.

 

The person who reviewed "the 3rd party"s concerns and decided not to release his/her identity is

The Accountability bit in the departmental title must be ironic.  Although if "the 3rd party's" joint author is who I think she is and I was an ambitious Assistant Secretary, I might think of overturning the FOI decision that "the 3rd party" and his support team were appealing.

 The first bit of the letter telling "the 3rd party" that he/she is free to continue driving the PM's car without detection by us the car's owners says it all.

"The 3rd party" (often in just one night) had some serious help in his/her submission.  "The 3rd party" seems to have had a co-driver in writing the submission up, it's written from a "we" and at least one bit of the "we" wrote that the FOI response they were appealling would serve no public purpose. And whether or not to give weight to the old Heerey J decision in Colakovski is not the sort of talk over a bevvie you'd expect to hear at, say, the Texas V8 extravaganza or the Tige's head table. 

Get the sense that we're being screwed around?

Download Decision letter_Redacted