A formal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman has been lodged after Police refused an Official Information Act (OIA) request relating to the country’s new roadside oral-fluid drug testing regime, describing the request as “vexatious.”
Nigel Gray said he had spent several months submitting a series of OIA requests seeking information about the legal authority, scientific validation, safety measures, training, procedures, thresholds and public rights associated with the testing programme. While Police did not refuse the requests on substantive grounds, Gray said he was surprised by the reasoning used to reject his latest application.
According to Gray, Police cited section 18(h) of the Official Information Act, which allows agencies to refuse requests considered “vexatious”. He claims the refusal letter referenced his public social media activity, stating Police had become aware of his Facebook posts. Gray argues the correspondence did not identify which posts were reviewed, when they were made, or how they were relevant to the request.
Gray also took issue with what he described as Police forming a judgement about his views, saying the response suggested he held a “fixed position” on the issue and was not seeking information for legitimate reasons. He argues the OIA process should focus on the information requested rather than the beliefs of the requester.
The refusal letter also referred to Gray’s dissatisfaction with previous Police responses and his stated intention to complain to the Ombudsman. Gray contends that disagreeing with an agency’s response or seeking an Ombudsman review should not be grounds for refusing an information request.
Among his other concerns, Gray noted that Police claimed he already had access to the information despite the latest request containing 11 new questions. He also highlighted that the response came from a different officer than those who had handled previous correspondence, describing the change in personnel and tone as notable.
Gray confirmed he has now lodged a formal complaint with the Ombudsman’s Office, which has acknowledged receipt of the matter. He says the complaint will seek an independent review of the Police decision, while the questions he originally submitted about the roadside drug testing programme remain unanswered.
As it is, roadside alcohol testing is a ‘guilty until you prove your innocence’ logic; which is not supposed to be how the law works.
This is a outdated Australian drug test which does not take into account how the body stores cannabis levels when they are no longer impaired by the drug. I sent repeated questions to Chris Bishop who would not answer any of my questions or the science behind the test. This is a Minister who is always out of his depth who hides behind his staffers. I think I will also send my disappointment to the Ombudsman.
The police breaking the law isn’t anything new or unusual.
Okay, so if the police have to pay a fine to the court, isn’t that just transferring money from one government department to another.
A more effective measure is to dismiss the police employees who break the law.
The whole thing is deplorable, treating the public as if they are criminals, without any basis, is slow creep pre-crime of the kind found in 1984. Drug testing today, what tomorrow, demanding people share their financial and debt details, any old criminal history they have long since paid for, personal metrics, home ownership? Oh and before anyone scoffs, this is exactly the information Chinese police have at their disposal when they pull someone over, including retinal scans.
The police running interference based on the fact essentially someone has criticised them, tells you in no uncertain terms the notion of them representing you, is a thousand miles from reality. In essence the globalist political party’s are constructing a dystopian prison state and this lot are the guards.
Plenty of reasons to stand up against this… again, it failed in Oz, it will fail here… the only thing it will do is make people poorer because some roadside outdated test won’t let you drive and will fine you…to pay for another dodgy test at a lab somewhere…
and I want to know if they are using this to complete their database for digital ID linking your specific DNA to your future digital ID… adding your DNA to the police data base…the only legal way they could do it if you never took the previous roadside PCR tests or the arsehole colon testing kits they sent out to all and sundry… I for one think this is the main drive behind this… roadside test everyone in a way that allows saliva collection…for digital ID…
Its still in place in Nazi-stralia. The creeps here no doubt latched onto it. As for DNA collection, interesting idea but all they need do is take from a blood sample, you have given over the years, without your knowledge. I’ll bet they already have a database for most of us.
It is 100% about collecting as much DNA as possible. I reckon that is why they will not give your sample (even if it’s negative) back to you. They say it is a biohazard and will be disposed of by them…yeah right. How can a bit of spit soaked onto a sponge be a biohazard in my own hands?! Surely it’s more of a biohazard in the back of a police car in a plastic bag or whatever the heck they are going to keep them all in. I don’t trust them one little bit. There’s going to be some interesting test cases once this thing really kicks off. But unfortunately most sheeple will comply, just like they did with the jabs.
How about we focus on pharmaceutical impaired drivers who are getting wobbly from overmedication side effects and injections causing heart problems, white rubbery clots, vertigo etc. Having been on the road touring for 6 weeks I’ve seen the worst drivers who are more often than not older gents and ladies who can’t stick to their lane, dangerous overtaking and have their heads in the clouds. But here we see Daddy fascist government and its enforcers at it again, keeping us ‘safe’.