Investigation Report No. 3220

File No. / ACMA2014/415
Licensee / Gumnut Nominees Pty Ltd
Station / Rete Italia 1593AM Melbourne
Type of Service / High Power Open Narrowcast Radio (networked HPON)
Issue / Complaints handling
Relevant Legislation/Code / Codes 2.4 and 2.5 of the ANRA Open Narrowcasting Codes of Practice 2011
Date finalised / 9 July 2014
Decision / No breach of codes 2.4 or 2.5 of the ANRA Open Narrowcasting Codes of Practice 2011

Background

On 25 May 2014, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) received a complaint about Rete Italia1593AM Melbourne, a high power open narrowcasting service operated by Gumnut Nominees Pty Ltd (the licensee).

The complainant alleged that the licensee had broadcast private information and had failed to respond to a complaint made in September 2013. Additionally, the complainant claimed the licensee had not advisedthat the complainant couldrefer the matterto the ACMA.

The licensee submitted to the ACMA that the correspondence was not a complaint but a request for information, namely for audio copies of certain broadcasts. The licensee agrees that they failed to respond to the complainant’s original letter of September 2013, and by the time the licensee received the complainant’s second letter in April 2014, the audio copies of the broadcasts were no longer available.

Assessment

Without audio of the relevant broadcasts, the ACMA cannot investigate whether the licensee broadcast private information. The ACMA’s investigation was therefore limited to the complaint handling aspect alleged by the complainant.

The assessment was based on written submissions from the complainant, copies of correspondence between the complainant and the licensee, and the licensee’s submission to the ACMA.

Issue

The issue for this investigation waswhether the complainant submitted a valid complaint to the licensee and, if it was a valid complaint, whether the licensee’s response complied with the complaint handling provisions under code 2.4 and code 2.5 of the ANRA Open Narrowcasting Codes of Practice 2011 (the codes).

Relevant code provisions

The relevant provisions of the codes are extracted below.

CODE NO. 2

HANDLING COMPLAINTS

2.4Written complaints will be acknowledged in writing, within fifteen days from the receipt of the complaint and the narrowcaster will respond substantively to the complaint within thirty days of receipt. If the complainant has not received a response within sixty days or considers that a response within that period is inadequate he or she may refer the complaint to the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

2.5A complainant will be advised that he or she is entitled to refer the matter to the Australian Communications and Media Authority where the complainant is not satisfied with the response to a written complaint.

Finding

The licensee did not breach code 2.4 orcode 2.5 of the codes.

Reasons

Code 2.4 - Acknowledging the complaint

Code 2.4 of the codes requires a licensee to acknowledge written complaints within fifteen days and to respond substantively to the complaint within thirty days of receipt.

The codes do not provide a definition of ‘complaint’. As a result, the ACMA relied on the common meaning of the word, as defined by the Macquarie Dictionary.

Complaint

noun 1. An expression of grief, regret, pain, censure, resentment, or discontent; lament; fault-finding.

The complainant’s original correspondence to the licensee of September 2013 requestedaudio copies of broadcasts as the complainant believed that the licensee had broadcast ‘some personal information’. The complainant did not express grievance or ‘fault-finding’ with the licensee and there was no express criticism of the licensee or the particular broadcast.

The complainant did not use the word ‘complaint’ at any time in the correspondence with the licensee, nor is there any reference to an intention to make a complaint.

The complainant’s correspondence did not seem to be a complaint(in accordance with the dictionary meaning). Therefore, it was reasonable that the licensee did not consider it a valid complaint under the codes and did not respond in accordance with code 2.4.

The ACMA is satisfied that the licensee did not breach code 2.4 of the codes.

Code 2.5 – Right to refer the matter to the ACMA

Code 2.5 of the code requires the licensee to advise a complainant of their right to refer the matter to the ACMA if unsatisfied with the licensee’s response to the complaint.

As indicated above, the complainant’s correspondence to the licensee was not a valid complaint under the codes. Therefore, the licensee was not obliged to refer the complainant to the ACMA in accordance with code 2.5.

The ACMA is satisfied that the licensee did not breach code 2.4 of the codes.

Decision

I, Kristy Eulenstein, Acting Manager, Broadcasting Standards Section, Citizen and Community Branch, being the appropriate delegated officer of the ACMA, determine for the above reasons that the licensee, Gumnut Nominees Pty Ltd,in the handling of the complainant’s correspondence, did not breachcode 2.4 or code 2.5 of the ANRA Open Narrowcasting Codes of Practice 2011.

Signed: ------

Kristy Eulenstein

dated this 9 day of July 2014

ACMA Investigation Report – Complaints handling by Rete Italia1