ACMA refuses to proceed with FOI request.

V

VK2RK

Guest
From the get-go ACMA responded to my FOI request with a some what intimidating letter "FOI - Acknowledgement - Campiciano - 10 March 2021"
setting out possible costs that I could incur with the request.
I responded thanking for the advice and left it at that.

What followed was a denial to proceed with the request citing inconvenience to the ACMA with other spurious noise as to the manner I had submitted the request. "FOI - Acknowledgement - Campiciano - 10 March 2021"

Below is my responce to Mr. Brody, I am sure Mr. Brody is the architect behind the intended destruction of our service.

My response to the ACMA denial of my FOI request

Dear Mr. Brody
Thank you for your email.
Firstly your communication to me regarding my FOI request on the March 10, 2021 3:24 PM I found intimidating with your presentation of possible costs
regarding my requested FOI I responded to you on the March 11, 2021 that the time frame for the consultation is very narrow, that I still required the information in consideration to the consultation.
Now I find that you have made a decision to disallow my request purely based on inconveniences to ACMA
I further note that you are critical that my request does not define a period of interest, How can I do this since ACMA has engaged for a considerable time to attempt to destroy the Amateur Radio Service, that ACMA has failed to understand the Amateur Radio Service having caused in recent time changes that have been detrimental to the structure and functionality of the service.
Now ACMA continues with the process to provide administrative advantages to the ACMA, that is very cleverly setting up scenarios such that are forcing a class licence onto the Amateur Radio Service as ACMA has already done with the section relative to overseas visiting amateurs of the proposed changes to the Class licence instrument.
Why did you not submit the proposed amendments to that part of the act that defines a class licence for the consultation due on the April 2nd 2021? Is ACMA trying to be clever and keep intent hidden, I hope not as this is totally dishonest by those involved in the strategy at play.
My request was in line to discover what and how caused ACMA to have such a low opinion of what the Amateur Radio Service is about, a Service that has contributed and still does to the community at large, truly I believe that ACMA is totally ignorant of the facts aligned with the Amateur Radio Service. Does not listen to those that express concerns only to respond with what I think are condescending remarks, only using two dysfunctional organizations to show that ACMA is following due process.
As far as the three options you propose and offered to me, I can only choose the last one, “Indicate that you do not wish to revise your request” I do so in ignorance of what has led ACMA in been so anti Amateur Radio Service that wishes to turn it into a glorified CB service further eroding its structure that has provided benefits to Australian Community for just under 100 years. Historically (I am sure you will skip past this part) As a service we have provided in time of War a pool of ready trained operators, in time of civil
emergency a pool of ready obtainable resources providing communication when all else failed, more importantly at no cost to any concerned. What value does ACMA place on this ? I know a fat ZERO
So you have denied my request and that you provided the legal position for doing so, but what you did not provide is the moral position for doing so aside in furthering the goal of ACMA to completely disrupt the honoured service of Amateur Radio.

Concluding ....
Thank you for your time in this matter.

Regards
Robert Campiciano
 

Attachments

V

vk3tjs

Guest
Well...so much of a consultation when the knowledge of facts is denied to us.
Very well written letter Rob. Thank you.
 
B

BillC

Guest
And I thought that the ACMA WAS a public service and that those whom are within WERE public servants. Obviously I am not mistaken.
 
V

VK3TEX

Guest
They are NOT public servants but a more secretive arm of the Russian KGB!!

This should raise SERIOUS ALARM BELLS with WIA and RASA too if they care at all about what ACMA is hiding...

If you can Rob, please make them aware of what is happening with your denial of service from ACMA.
If the WIA will not take a more affirmative action on getting more details out of ACMA on what their true intentions are, then I will leave the WIA VERY QUICKLY.

If the changes to Amateur Radio happen without the proper consultation of Amateurs, and go ahead with a class licence I will become the biggest pain in the ass for ACMA, THATS A PROMISE!!

Les, VK3TEX.
 
V

VK2RK

Guest
Got a phone call today (17/3/2021) from ACMA Nicholas Brody, I think the architect of the spirit of the proposed legislative amendments.
He started waffle on with condescending speech, I quickly stopped him and said "any comments in the matter he was to put them in writing so it would be on the record" that I was not interested in reducing my scope of inquiry in the FOI (His aim in contacting me)
Then directly I asked him (since the last communication was a notification of intent to not proceed with the FOI) if he had made a decision
on the denial of the FOI. As expected he would not say in one way or other.
So I think that my request will expose what they don't wish me to find. Denial on the request will give me cause to engage the ministerial complaint process, so they know that I have them snookered, so will see what happens now.

Les thank you for your comments. I must admit I felt a bit alone in this.
Got some information today that ministers have already been contacted and inquiries are been made, but you know the value of rumors.
That will be the next course of action if things go against us, in the mean time the more people send in submission the better will our case be, noting that all submissions get published and are not hidden.

WIA = One submission
15000 Hams = 15000 Submission (Only if)
 
V

VK2RK

Guest
After telling ACMA's Mr. Brody that any communications to me regarding the FoI are to be made in writing and on the record.

I received the following email... Not a letter but an email
"(sic)
Dear Mr Campiciano

I refer to your emails dated 11 March 2021 and 13 March 2021, in which you raise concerns about your freedom of information (FOI) request and the transparency of the ACMA’s current consultations relevant to amateur licensing.

FOI request charges and timeframes for decision
The information about charges for processing FOI requests under the Freedom of Information (Charges) Regulations 2019 was provided to you for information purposes. This is a standard approach, and is included to assist the applicant, rather than intimidate them.
The timeframes for making decisions in response to FOI requests are statutory timeframes set out in the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act). The ACMA is required to comply with these statutory timeframes when making any decision under the FOI Act. Further information about the timeframe for notifying a decision can be found on the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner’s website. In particular, see paragraph 3.137 of the FOI Guidelines: https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-...ocessing-and-deciding-on-requests-for-access/

In my letter dated 12 March 2021, I notified you that I intend to refuse access to the documents you have requested on practical refusal reasons in accordance with sections 24 and 24AA of the FOI Act. Your request is extremely broad, encompassing the ACMA’s spectrum reform program and is further complicated by not being limited to a specific timeframe, which could potentially capture documents, information and internal ACMA communications dating back to 2014.

I have not yet made a formal decision to refuse your FOI request.

I also note your advice that you do not wish to revise your FOI request. Under the request consultation process of the FOI Act, you still have the opportunity to revise your request by 29 March 2021. I am also happy to receive a request for an extension, if required.

Some possible ways to narrow the focus of your request are:
> provide more detail about the specific matters that are of interest to you,
> narrow the timeframe of your request.

Doing this would reduce the number of relevant documents, and reduce the time spent on processing irrelevant material, which may help us to provide you with documents and information you are seeking.

Consultations

The ACMA recognises the amateur service as a longstanding user of radiofrequency spectrum and supports the amateur service through spectrum planning and radiocommunications licensing arrangements. In particular, we continue to support amateur access to certain frequency bands.

Our public consultation processes are one way that the ACMA engages with stakeholders to articulate our work and to achieve outcomes that are in the best interests of all our stakeholders. Consulting on regulatory changes is an important role of the ACMA, and we welcome the input of the amateur community.

The ACMA’s Have your say page lists all our consultations in order of their release, starting with the most recent. Public consultation is important for ensuring our decision-making is transparent. Both consultations you refer to satisfy our public consultation requirements in terms of timing and public access.

I note however that the consultations you refer to are separate pieces of work with different policy objectives.
I understand that your main area of interest is amateur radio. I believe that you are most interested in our Review of non-assigned amateur and outpost regulatory arrangements paper. The objective of this process is to identify the best licensing mechanism that would reduce regulatory burden and minimise costs for licensees, while preserving the current operational utility for licensees.


Your FOI request sought information on the Proposed changes to class licences consultation process, and “Radcomms licensing and allocation reform”. In the Proposed changes to class licences paper, we propose to make minor changes to a number of class licences, in part to reflect upcoming changes to the Radiocommunications Act 1992 (i.e our ‘primary legislation’). These minor changes are:

> alignment and clarification of the electromagnetic energy arrangements, and
> ensure references to standards are updated to reflect the introduction of ‘equipment rules’, which will replace standards and labelling notices in the primary legislation.

I raise this because I believe this is outside your area of interest, as it largely does not alter arrangements for amateur radio.
In addition, you have sought information on “Radcomms licensing and allocation reform”. The reforms that this refers to were the result of a long-running review process originated in 2014. As I have stated, this request is extremely broad, and is the key reason why I communicated to you that I would intend to refuse access. However, this part of the request too is effectively unrelated to the regulation and spectrum access arrangements for the amateur radio community.

I hope that this email provides you with assistance both about our work program, and the process of gaining access to documents under FoI.

Kind regards,
Nicholas Brody

Manager
Spectrum Licensing Policy"



I have responded, see next post
 
V

VK2RK

Guest
My response letter to Mr. Brody from ACMA

Small part of the letter
too long to post, just download the letter.
"Your decision is a simple one, either accept or refuse the request, it seems that you are dragging things out for reasons only known to you.

In response to “Consultation”
As much as the ACMA likes the Amateur service to think that the ACMA supports Amateur Radio Service, the present and past actions by the ACMA shows an opposing view in line with a body evidence.


1/ Failed to properly administer the C Tick compliance along with refusal to investigate complaints.
2/ Failed to administer and investigate Radio Interference complaints to the Amateur Radio Service.
3/ Placed commercial consideration over and above that of the Amateur Radio Service."



 

Attachments

Top