Police on sexual act, report finds

A WOMAN escaped a drink-driving charge after two male police officers turned a blind eye to her breath test results when she agreed to perform a sexual act on one of them in the back of her car, the annual NSW Ombudsman report reveals.

The report said the Ombudsman received almost 3000 formal complaints about the NSW Police Force last year. Most were about police misconduct, inadequate investigations and excessive use of force.

Forty-nine officers were charged with 136 offences in the past year, 13 fewer than the year before, and 24 were sacked, including one of the officers who suggested the sexual favour, the report says.

The officer was dismissed and his colleague quit after an investigation found the men perverted the cause of justice.

The woman had been stopped early one Saturday for a random breath test. She was over the limit and one of the officers promised not to charge her if she performed a sexual act on his colleague.

After inviting him into her car, she was later allowed to leave without being charged.

The report also found that 65 per cent of the officers were charged with criminal offences as a result of complaints made by other police officers. There was a "noticeable decrease" in the officers charged with domestic violence and sexual assault.

"The fact that such a high percentage of complaints against police are generated by their colleagues indicates a healthy professionalism and intolerance for misconduct by serving police," the report says.

It also said the failure to pursue relevant lines of inquiry, such as interviewing key witnesses or reviewing security camera material, were the main reasons police investigations were identified as being deficiently handled.

Related:

Over 130 police have criminal convictions
New South Wales Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione has defended his force, as new figures show 133 serving officers have criminal convictions.

Show MPs' allowances, review says

MEMBERS of the NSW Parliament could be compelled to reveal details of how they spend their allowances and other information now kept secret, as part of the Ombudsman's review of the Freedom of Information Act.

In a discussion paper to be made public this morning, the NSW Ombudsman has raised the idea that the NSW act reflect the British act, which includes the House of Commons and the House of Lords as public authorities. At present all parliaments in Australia are exempt from FoI laws although parliaments in India, South Africa and Ireland are included.

The issue, one of 139 raised in the paper, is certain to be controversial after journalists and freedom-of-information activists in Britain recently won a High Court battle forcing its parliament to disclose vast numbers of receipts detailing how politicians spent their allowances.

The documents prompted widespread criticism after revealing numerous instances where politicians used allowances to furnish and renovate private homes or to pay for life insurance policies for spouses, information the court found was in the public interest.

The Ombudsman's discussion paper is the first stage of a review of the act, which the Ombudsman branded "complex, confusing and often frustrating".

The Ombudsman's paper says that for nearly 15 years the government has ignored his calls to "institute an independent and wide-ranging review" and that he's been forced to act alone.

Non-government bodies might also lose their exempt status as part of the review.

Public submissions will be accepted until the end of October.

Ombudsman to review state FoI laws

THE state's Ombudsman, Bruce Barbour, will conduct an unprecedented review of the state's Freedom of Information Act after the repeated failure of the NSW Government to examine the laws.

Mr Barbour did little to hide his irritation with the NSW Government in a release yesterday. "For almost 14 years, each NSW Ombudsman, including myself, has called for an independent and comprehensive review of the FoI Act," Mr Barbour said. He said the legislation was "the cornerstones of good governance" which "ensure[d] that government decision-making is open and transparent, and that decision-makers are held accountable for their actions".

"In the absence of the NSW Government initiating a review of the act, I have decided to conduct my own independent review."

[The trouble with that proposition though, and everybody knows it, is that the Ombudsman is only an insurance policy for the government. Just another arm of government, a government stooge and a toothless terrier for the people. Oh! he may get to the bottom of the problem.... after the current elected government is out of office? Bruce Barbour's portfolio is flawed to say the least because of the Ombudsmans Act restricting his ability to ask certain questions or to obtain certain evidence off the authorities themselves. And if anything at all he's just covering up for the government's latent acts and now trying to look like someone who actually cares? Anyway...]

Mr Barbour's provocative move [?] comes [allegedly] as the Sydney Morning Herald battles with police over the release of the names of pubs and clubs most linked to alcohol-related crime.

The Queensland Government is reviewing its freedom-of-information laws and the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has promised important changes to federal laws by Christmas. One recommendation at the 2020 Summit at the weekend was that freedom-of-information laws be overhauled.

The 1989 act was no longer relevant to the way the Government works, Mr Barbour said. "Both applicants and agencies continually voice their frustration with the act," he said.

Mr Barbour said he would investigate freedom-of-information practices at government agencies, councils, universities and area health services, but which ones had not been decided.

Last year's NSW Ombudsman annual report highlighted the abysmal state of NSW's freedom-of-information laws. The report found that applications released in full in NSW dropped from 81 per cent in 1995-96 to 52 per cent in 2005-06. This compared with the Commonwealth where 78 per cent of requests were granted in full.

Mr Barbour said his review, to begin in two weeks, would involve audits of freedom-of-information files held by the organisations and interviews with staff working in the area. He said he would create a discussion paper and invite submissions. This is expected to be released in July. "The findings from our investigation will inform our final report and recommendations to Parliament," he said.

A freedom-of-information expert, Peter Timmins, welcomed the review but doubted the NSW Government would enact recommendations. "The NSW Freedom of Information Act is certainly long, long overdue for re-examination and improvement," said Mr Timmins, who runs a consultancy specialising in freedom-of-information laws.

"But we're seeing here an Ombudsman starting an inquiry without any indication the Government will respond positively to what emerges. Mr Iemma and his predecessors just don't seem to be interested in making any changes in this area."

The Greens MP Lee Rhiannon criticised the Government for ignoring earlier pleas by the Ombudsman to review the laws. "Premier Morris Iemma has failed to review and revamp FOI laws over the years as his government has been enjoying the spoils of a 'secret state'," Ms Rhiannon said.

A spokeswoman for Mr Iemma, Alison Hill, said the Premier would support the review. Ms Hill did not answer a question about why the NSW Government had not acted on previous Ombudsman recommendations that the Government review the laws.