Owen VK2OMD posted:
I would not expect anything to change in the way in which call sign issue is required. The WIA president reported in December a financial shortfall, and that usually drives efforts to maximise revenue and cut costs... I doubt they are about to sponsor anything that cuts their revenue in the short term. The WIA in its dual role of contractor to ACMA and lobbyist for amatuers [sic] has a conflict of interest.
I expected better of you, Owen, than to make remarks displaying such ignorance. Do you claim to have no knowledge of the fact that the exam service and callsign recommendation functions the WIA performs on behalf of the ACMA are done on a cost-recovery basis under a Deed with the Commonwealth Government?
It's no
secret. The WIA President's Comment columns are posted monthly on the website, here:
http://www.wia.org.au/joinwia/wia/presidentsblog/, where the cost-recovery nature of these functions is discussed - sometimes at length - over the years. You refer to (the) ". . . WIA president reported in December . . .", but failed to look further into the matter, or if you did, failed to offer any qualifying information you found there.
Under the terms of the Deed,
the Institute cannot derive any net financial benefit. There's an annual audit by Government auditors. That's no secret, either (and you can read about it in the same source just quoted). If the Institute gave away the callsign management function tomorrow, the Australian amateur radio community would be the poorer for it (literally!), but the Institute's financial position would not materially change, after adjustment of office arrangements to accommodate the workload reduction.
Please explain - in clear, unequivocal language - just where you sheet home the "conflict of interest". If you actually have a cogent argument, don't you have a responsibility as a citizen to take the issue to your local federal MP?
The real concerning issue with your situation, that I see, is that the ACMA acted on the "complaint" of one person, who is shielded from scrutiny - apparently by some interpretation of privacy law - and you have been denied natural justice (procedural fairness, if you like) as a result, in that the complaint (and the complainant) cannot be examined.
