This seems to me to be sophistry:
... One reason for the broad conclusion is your specific request that I not review the actions or decisions of the CMT APTA was previously oversighted by, who you commended for their professionalism. Respecting that request means it’s impossible for me to draw any conclusions about which approach to the APTA business model is more likely to be legally correct.
If the ICC has ‘jurisdiction’ to draw conclusions about the comparative legality of two different CASA approaches, the ICC has ‘jurisdiction’ to draw a conclusion about the legality of the current approach in isolation. It’s patently clear that the substance of Mr Buckley’s complaint is that he should be able to continue to do what he was encouraged by CASA to believe was a lawful activity. And in true CASA tradition, who’s blamed for the outcome? The complainant.
The ICC is just a hurdle to getting immediate access to the Ombudsman. Not surprisingly, the Ombudsman describes CASA as being amongst the Ombudsman’s ‘frequent flyers’ i.e. the agencies against whom many complaints are made.