2. The events in question concern a motor vehicle accident which occurred on or about 14 December 1998, when damage occurred to a Telstra cable cabinet with a capacity of 1,800 lines. Police attended the incident, and Telstra's recoverable damages officer, Ms de Schipper, was able to obtain a police report indicating the registration number of the vehicle which caused the damage: this was a 1979 Chrysler with registration OMJH 862, registered in the name of Renae Gardner at address 11 Turner Street Wonthaggi. The cost of the repair to the cabinet was approximately $18,000. Telstra sought to recover that amount by letter of demand dated 20 September 1999 addressed to the above address. The letter was returned to Telstra on 26 October 1999 marked "not at this address". Ms de Schipper said she checked the electoral rolls, Telstra's data base, and the yellow and white telephone directories to try to identify the person concerned. She then retained a private investigator to locate the driver of the vehicle. The evidence was that the private investigator was unsuccessful and suggested to her that the name provided to police may have been false, and that it would be desirable to obtained the driver details from VicRoads.

3. According to the evidence, the report from the investigator was completed in Nov 1999. According to Ms de Schipper, the next action on the part of Telstra in this regard was its letter dated 25 January 2001 to the respondent seeking details of the registered operator of the vehicle.

4. The respondent relied on exemptions under s.33 and s.38 of the Act.

s.33 - Information relating to personal affairs

5. It was conceded by the applicant that the information contained in the documents falls within s.33 by virtue of information relating to the personal affairs of any person. However, it was submitted on behalf of the applicant that disclosure would not be unreasonable.

6. It was common ground that it is necessary in determining whether release would involve unreasonable disclosure to take into account the matters set out in Re Page and Metropolitan Transit Authority (1998) 2 VAR 243 at 245-6, which include:

* the interests which the applicant has in the information,

* the circumstances in which the information was obtained,

* the likelihood that the person concerned would not wish to have it disclosed without consent, and

* whether the information has any current relevance.

7. Mr Batskos made a number of submissions on behalf of the applicant concerning these matters, which are briefly summarised as follows:

* The Tribunal's task is to weigh the public interest in favour of disclosure against the public interest in protecting the individuals right of privacy against unreasonable invasion;

* Telstra seeks the information in order to assist it to recover the cost of repairing the cabinet so as to ensure it continues to meet its obligations under the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999. In doing so, Telstra aims to protect the public purse and to ensure continuity of service to customers. Since the service they provide is of benefit to the public, there is a public interest in assisting them to recover monies spent on repairing damaged cabinets.

* People who allow their information to be on a register assume it will be released to others upon request; there is no assurance of confidentiality, and the public would have a reasonable expectation that the information would be available to the public.

* Since in this case it appears that false information was given to police the right to privacy can reasonably be diluted in this case.

* The information is still relevant even thought the person is no longer the registered proprietor of the vehicle.

* Disclosure here would not be unreasonable because there is a public interest in protecting the public purse and telephone services to the public; the inconvenience to VicRoads would be minimal and the invasion of privacy would be minimal and not unreasonable. In this regard he distinguished this case from the facts of the Citi Consulting cases (Re Citi Consulting Pty Ltd v Department of Treasury and Finance (No 1) (1999) 15 VAR 321 and Re Citi Consulting Pty Ltd and Department of Treasury and Finance (No 2) (unreported, VCAT, Coghlan DP and Anagnostou M, 30 August 1999), in which the Tribunal found that disclosure of the information increased the chance that money rightfully belonging to members of the public could be returned to or find them. He submitted that Telstra's motive here was not purely commercial.

* The case of Re Commonwealth of Australia and Road Traffic Authority (1988) 2 VAR 373 ought to be distinguished on its facts on the basis that the case dealt with information on drivers licences and there, the public interest lay in recouping debts which had not been proven; here it was said the aim is to establish contact with a prospective debtor - with a view to protecting the public purse.

* The purpose of the application is relevant - it requires finding a balance between the strength of claim to access against the interest of people to maintain their privacy.

* No stress and anxiety would be caused to the person whose details would be disclosed.

8. Mr O'Meara relied on the case of Re Commonwealth of Australia and Road Traffic Authority and the reasoning of Member Rosen; he also submitted that disclosure would be unreasonable for the following additional reasons:

* It would undermine the very specific statutory scheme of privacy created by s.92 of the Road Safety Act;

* The person concerned in this case has stated that they do not want their name/address released;

* Release of the information in these circumstances may cause stress and anxiety to that person;

* The public interest here has been made reducible to the financial interests of a largely privatised, publicly listed corporation;

* In all the circumstances, disclosure would be unreasonable.

9. Having heard the evidence of Mr Pollard and Miss de Schipper, and the submissions of counsel, I find the exemption based on s.33 to be made out. I do so based on my acceptance of the submissions of counsel for the respondent that disclosure in these circumstances would be unreasonable. I consider that the observations made by Member Rosen in Re Commonwealth of Australia at pp 376 and 377 are relevant to this case, and I do not accept that members of the public who register their vehicles have an expectation of their personal details being released to the public on demand, nor do I accept the proposition that they ought not to have any expectation of confidentiality.

10. In my view, the existence of s.92 of the Road Safety Act is a very clear indication of Parliament's intentions concerning the privacy of information on the register, and in my view compelling evidence would be required before a conclusion could be reached that disclosure of such information, notwithstanding the existence of the statutory privacy scheme enshrined in s.92, would not be unreasonable. The only evidence before me in this regard was that of Ms de Schipper to the effect that access to the information by this route would be quicker and cheaper than by gaining access via a court order, which is contemplated by s.92(3)(j) of the Road Safety Act. It was also suggested that the expeditious recovery of monies owed in respect of damage to Telstra cabinets would mean that the cost of such repairs would not be borne by customers or the community. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that disclosure would not be unreasonable.

s. 38 - documents to which secrecy provisions of enactments apply

11. It was conceded by the applicant that the disputed document falls within s.38 of the Act by virtue of the existence of a secrecy provision in an enabling enactment, namely, s.92(2) of the Road Safety Act 1986, which prohibits disclosure of information in the course of employment which is of a personal nature. It was also common ground that the circumstances of this case do not attract any of the exemptions to the prohibition against disclosure which are set out in subs 92(3) of the Road Safety Act. Accordingly, the document is exempt from disclosure and the only issue for determination is whether the document should be released pursuant to the public interest override provided in s.50(4) of the Act.

s. 50(4) - does the public interest "require" release of the document?

12. The Tribunal can decide to grant access to an exempt document where it is "of the opinion that the public interest requires that access to the document should be granted under this Act". The operation of the "public interest override" has been discussed in some detail by Phillips JA in Department of Premier & Cabinet v Hulls [1999] VSCA 195; [1999] 3 VR 313 at pages 340-343, 348. In essence, the Tribunal must be satisfied that considerations of public interest are so strong as to override those factors that confer exempt status in the first place.

13. On behalf of the applicant, it was submitted that the following matters established the public interest in favour of disclosure:

* Protection of the public purse by ensuring that the cost of repairs is not borne directly or indirectly by the community;

* Enabling Telstra to better perform its statutory service obligations under Commonwealth legislation;

* The disclosure of one set of information here would potentially benefit many hundreds of consumers of telephone services by ensuring that manpower was not diverted from the day to day maintenance of lines and service;

* Resort to s.92(3) in order to recover money for damage to property meant that litigation was being encouraged, which was a drain on the public purse.

14. Mr Batskos recited the same factors which make disclosure not unreasonable under s. 33 as those which support the release of the documents pursuant to s.50(4) of the Act.

15. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that there is no public interest identified by the applicant which "requires" or necessitates or demands disclosure of the information. Counsel for the respondent drew my attention to:

* the strength of the exemption created by the combination of s.38 of the Act and s.92 of the Road Safety Act;

* the intention of Parliament as disclosed in the Minister's second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum to the Road Safety (Disclosure of Information) Bill;

* the unlikelihood that licence holders would expect or condone release of their personal details to their creditors'

* the availability of other means of obtaining the information: s 92(3)(j) of the Road Safety Act;

* the fact that the person identified in the document does not consent to the applicant's request.

16. On the material before me, I am not satisfied that the public interest requires that access to the document should be granted under the Act, for the following reasons:

17. Firstly, there is a strong legislative exemption created by the combination of s.38 of the Act and s.92(2) of the Road Safety Act. The strength of the exemption is emphasised by the penalty to which VicRoads is exposed if such information is disclosed, as well as by the explicit list of exceptional circumstances in which the information may be obtained.

18. In my view, the enactment of s.92 provides clear evidence of the view of the community in relation to the importance of maintaining personal privacy in connection with information held by VicRoads, except in the circumstances set out in s.92(3). The present circumstances do not fall within the exemptions listed. The careful consideration given by the parliament to the exemption is reflected by the minister's second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum to the Road Safety (Disclosure of Information) Bill .

19. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Transport said, inter alia:

....."The present provisions are in need of amendment as a result of a number of developments.

These include the moves towards national uniformity in road transport matters, the increasing need to safeguard the privacy of the individual in the electronic age and the operational needs of agencies engaged in combating crime and law enforcement generally.

One exception to the proposition that civil matters are not dealt with in this bill is that the Sheriff may use the information to enforce judgments and orders of courts in their civil jurisdiction. It should also be noted that disclosure to or by a court in compliance with an order made by it is one of the permitted exceptions to the need for a confidentiality agreement..."

20. Secondly, I do not accept that licence holders would expect their details to be revealed to potential creditors, except in accordance with the provisions of s.92 (3)(a) to (m). Mrs Rosen observed in Re Commonwealth of Australia and Road Traffic Authority (1988) 2 VAR 373 at 377 that -

"In order to drive a motor vehicle in the State of Victoria there is a legislative requirement that a licence be obtained; failure to comply involves severe penalties. It is not inherent in fulfilling that requirement that an applicant for a driver's licence would expect his address to be readily available outside the agency. It is , in my view, unlikely that driver's licence holders would expect that their addresses would be revealed to government agencies, organisations or persons who claim to have moneys owing to them. Further, there is in my view a real public interest in the respondent being able to obtain information that is accurate and in particular in receiving correct addresses for its drivers licence records: see Targridge Pty Ltd v Road Traffic Authority (Mrs Rizkalla, 7 September 1988, p.5, unreported)."

21. It should be noted that since this decision, s.92 of the Road Safety Act been enacted in its present form. Mrs Rosen's observation that driver's licence holders would be unlikely to expect that their addresses would be revealed to agencies or persons claiming to have money owed to them remains relevant to the present case, and may apply with even more force where the disclosure is not to law enforcement authorities but to partially-privatised, publicly-listed corporations, such as Telstra.

22. Thirdly, I am not satisfied that the applicant has established an identifiable public interest in the disclosure which requires or demands overriding s.38 of the Act. In this case, the public interest identified by Mr Batskos appears to be the interest in shareholders of Telstra in not having to pay for repairs for damage caused by others to Telstra equipment. Since some of the shareholders in Telstra are members of the community, there is said to be a "public interest" in identification of those who damage Telstra equipment so that the money can be recovered by them. It was also submitted that customers of Telstra who benefit by the appropriate maintenance of Telstra equipment would benefit by not having to bear the cost of repairs to damaged equipment. Nothing in this submission, in my view, establishes that the interest thereby identified is a "public interest", or, even if it were, that such an interest requires or demands overriding a carefully articulated privacy strategy (set out in s.92 of the Road Safety Act) which itself has sought to balance the requirement of privacy against the need for law enforcement agencies to perform their duties.

23. In circumstances such as these, where the person concerned does not consent to release of the information, and where there parliament has made provision to access to the information, for example by resort to a court order within the framework of s.92(3)(j) of the Road Safety Act, I am not satisfied that the public interest demands or requires release of the information pursuant to the public interest override in s.50(4) of the Act.

24. It follows from the above that the decision of the respondent must be affirmed.