The Ombudsman has been unwilling to recognise ABC bias

Here's the way our democracy is working; not. After complaining about ABC pro population growth bias over the last 5 years and citing the ABC-branded "Carbon Tax Debate" as one example of this, the ACMA rejected the complaint. They used this clause in the ABC Code of Practice to defend their decision: “Impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time, nor that every facet of every argument is presented.” (Ref: ABC Code of Practice available on the internet) This defence is arguably absurd for reasons including:

• This can be rephrased as “Impartiality does not require that any facet of any argument is presented”. A clause like this makes no sense when relied upon out of context and in isolation. It would render the Code redundant and worthless, because a significant proportion of the Code is dedicated to defining the Statutory Duty to achieve impartiality as a key performance indicator of Editorial Integrity.
• Use of the clause in isolation is disallowed because the opening paragraph of the Code says “In this Code, the Standards must be interpreted and applied in accordance with the Principles applying in each Section." This means ALL the Principles applying in each Section.
• There is no basis for applying the clause in isolation, when all the other clauses are, for all intents and purposes, contrary to this clause in isolation.
• All the other clauses are not contrary to this clause if it is correctly used in conjunction with the other clauses.
• I have explained that the ABC is guilty of agenda setting bias. This clause refers to facets of an argument. It does not refer to biased definition of an issue or an agenda.

Here are two of the 30 election issues identified by the ABC over the last 5 years and as 2013 Federal Election issues:

• The federal government should put a price on carbon
• How much should the federal government do to tackle climate change?
Yet the ABC was unable to recognise the relevance of Government data showing the link between extreme growth in emissions and extreme population growth? Or the fact that emissions per capita are the highest of any country and remained consistent from 1991 to 2011? So if this omission wasn't pro population bias was it simply gross stupidity? I note that the Code says nothing about gross stupidity; so perhaps this could form the basis for a more plausible excuse than that already claimed ? The Ombudsman has stated: "It may help if I explain that the Ombudsman Act 1976 gives us broad discretion not to investigate complaints where we form the view that an investigation is not warranted in all of the circumstances. In your case, I formed this view because it was apparent that the ACMA and the ABC had made decisions that were open to them under their respective legislation and policies." So you see; the Ombudsman and I currently disagree on what the legislation and policies actually say. To me they say the ABC has no right to deliberately conceal relevant facts that could change public opinion, and the opinion of politicians, about the value of a Carbon Tax. The Code says in the same Section as the infamous "facet" clause: "Assessing the impartiality due in given circumstances requires consideration in context of all relevant factors including the timeframe within which it would be appropriate for the ABC to provide opportunities for the principal relevant perspectives to be expressed, having regard to the public importance of the matter of contention and the extent to which it is the subject of current debate." The ACMA, in its response to me, stated: ".....ACMA may investigate an alleged breach of a broadcasting code of practice in relation to material that has been broadcast...... A complaint about bias under the code in relation to a particular broadcast or broadcasts is enlivened when there is a perspective that has been presented and/or is being explored in the broadcast. Therefore only if a matter of contention is presented, will the standards at Section 4 of the ABC Code apply." So the ACMA's attack on me is based on a claim that a matter of contention was not presented? So claiming (by omission) that the extent of anthropogenic climate change in Australia is not inextricably linked to extreme population growth is not contentious? This argument might apply in a country like Germany where population is relatively stable. But it certainly does not apply in Australia, which has the most extreme population growth of any developed country. As can be seen by comparing the extract from the Code with the ACMA's reference to "contention", the ACMA omitted reference to "the public importance of the matter", or "the extent to which it was the subject of current debate." This arguably reflects a dereliction of duty and a totalitarian objective of silencing dissent. Australia's extreme rate of population growth drives emissions growth far faster than any of the methods proposed for reducing emissions in the short or medium term. The ABC has "beaten us to death" with inane, technophobic, indecipherable babble about how a Carbon Tax or some other financially-based scheme could work. The public has struggled to understand what they were talking about; probably because they didn't understand it themselves. The cult of the exponentially dysfunctional econo-moron rules......... Then, in response to complaints about pro-population growth bias against the public interest, have the ABC, the ACMA and the Ombudsman all sought to silence dissent by abuse of process which includes seeking to misapply sub-subclauses in the legislation in a desperate attempt to evade their Statutory Duties? Where does this leave us now? Well you might ask.