Dear Australian Communications and Media Authority,

On 23 April 2013 I lodged a complaint with your authority regarding what I considered to have been unacceptable bias exhibited by the presenter and producer of the ABC's "Q&A" programme which aired on 11 February 2013, resulting in what I contended to have been breaches by the ABC of provisions 4.1;4.3;4.4 and 4.5 of the ABC's Code of Practice ("the Code").

On 9 May 2013 you advised of your intention to investigate the complaint.

Subsequently, by letter dated 18 July 2013, you advised that you had completed your investigation into the matter and had concluded that the ABC had not in this instance breached the impartiality and diversity of perspectives provisions of the Code.

On 29 July 2013 I requested information from you in relation to the decision making process by which your authority had arrived at its advised conclusion.

On 12 August 2013 you responded to this request in very general terms referring to a process whereby a "team of investigators view and discuss the broadcast as part of [our] investigative process", however the response did not detail the methodology and process by which the material was reviewed in the context of the complaint, or by which the advised "conclusion" in the matter was reached, and by whom.

In order to better understand the process and methodology of your investigation into this matter (and matters of this nature), and the consideration and deliberation process on which your authority's conclusion was based, I now request copies of the following:

1) Details of ACMA's internal procedures and procedural guidelines for review of complaints of the nature of that raised.

2) All ACMA internal memoranda, correspondence, minutes of meetings of ACMA "teams" or officers (including dates and details of those attending) reports and recommendations in relation to ACMA's
investigation reference ACMA2013/794 - Investigation 3042, and the conclusions reached by ACMA as detailed in its above-referred advices of 18 July and 12 August 2013.

Yours faithfully,
G. WILSON

Dear Mr Davie,

Thank you for your preliminary response.

As requested I confirm that - in relation to the first category of documents requested
1) I am only seeking access to ACMA internal procedures and guidelines in place at the time of my complaint;
2) I am happy to exclude duplicate copies of the same document.

To better clarify, I seek only one copy of ACMA's internal guidelines as to the processes and procedures ACMA and its staff were committed to follow in their investigation of my complaint (and as current at the time of the complaint) for the purpose of better informing myself of those processes and procedures and to enable comparison of them with those steps actually taken in the investigation.

Many thanks

Yours sincerely,

G Wilson

Dear Mr Davie,

I acknowledge receipt of letter dated 2 October 2013 from Ms Sue Gabor, ACMA's authorised decision maker, in relation to this matter, with enclosures as referred to in that letter.

On reviewing the information provided I have some concerns that the disclosures are incomplete.

There are no details in the material discovered as to how the complaint investigation was actually managed or handled, by whom in the ACMA organisation, and how the decision (of no breach) was actually concluded.

In particular:

1)Ms Gabor's decision explains the reasons that individual ACMA's officers names have been deleted from copies of emails discovered - and I fully understand and support the reason for this decision - however the inability to determine the positions (and therefore authorities) of ACMA's officers from these internal communications makes it impossible to assess whether the organisations prescribed authorities (i.e. with reference to ACMA prescribed internal procedures) have or have not been followed in the investigation process.

2) Section 2 of my request seeks "All ACMA internal memoranda, correspondence, minutes of meetings of ACMA "teams" or officers (including dates and details of those attending) reports and recommendations in relation to ACMA's investigation reference ACMA2013/794 - Investigation 3042, and the
conclusions reached by ACMA as detailed in its above-referred advices of 18 July and 12 August 2013."

(NB: It seems to in the above regard that the record of the investigation established and maintained on ACMA's AIMS system (as referred extensively in ACMA's Internal Procedures Manual [Document 3])ought to have been included in the disclosure material).

3)Section 7 of Chapter 3 of ACMA's Internal Procedures Manual specifies the requirement that a "WIM" [Weekly Investigation Meeting] to be held as part of the investigation and that notes of such meeting be kept. Document 16 indicates that the matter was included as one of two agenda items for a WIM Meeting on 24 June 2013 however no copies of the notes, minutes or records of that meeting as relevant to the request have been disclosed.

4) The next document disclosed (following the WIM agenda) is an email of 16 July 2013 (from one unidentified ACMA officer to another) referring to a "draft outcome letter" (which formed the basis of the "decision" later communicated to me.

As you know, my enquiry centred around establishing an understanding of ACMA's complaint investigation processes and how they were applied in the instance under discussion to reach the decision made. While ACMA's investigation processes as disclosed seem quite stringent and logical, given the deficiencies of the information disclosed it is impossible to judge whether, in this instance, they have been adhered to, how (and by whom) the complaint was actually investigated and by what process the decision was made. In particular there is a complete absence of any records between the scheduled WIM agenda and the draft decision notification, suggesting at face value that the "decision" was a virgin birth.

It would seem to me that there must be additional material in ACMA's possession relevant to my request that has not been disclosed and I would respectfully request that you review the matter in this context

Yours sincerely,

G Wilson

Dear Ms Gabor,

Many thanks for your most recent email of 10 October and for the additional material and information supplied and provided therein.

Based on your advices I confirm that I am comfortable that my FOI request has been properly responded to and I appreciate your assistance and cooperation in that regard.

However, as you would no doubt appreciate, I am astonished to learn, based on your advice, that there are absolutely no notes or records of the WIM meeting at which the complaint was allegedly reviewed by ACMA officers and at which ACMA's "decision" that no breach had occurred was apparently determined.

As a consequence, the manner in which the complaint and programme material were reviewed, how the decision was arrived at, whether it was a unanimous decision or whether there were dissenting opinions, and whether the outcome was led, in the end, by a predisposition of (e.g.)one particular senior officer, remains a total mystery.

Your response suggests that there is nothing unusual about this and that the following of established internal investigation procedures is effectively considered to be a discretionary and elective matter for ACMA officers. I find this very peculiar indeed, particularly given the standards of transparency and probity expected of an organisation such as ACMA.

However, I do appreciate these matters extend beyond the FOI request with which you have been assisting, so I thank you again for your courtesies on this and will take-up these other concerns with others, as appropriate.

Yours sincerely,

G Wilson