Dear Mr Hanton, Please allow me to comment on my view of the ICC process, now that I am in receipt of the final report.
After waiting 8 months to receive the report, I am truly concerned at the avoidance of the key issues, and the apparent lack of intent to provide an honest, open and transparent assessment. Can I specially identify some critical shortcomings.
In matter A, I made allegations of shortcomings regarding the processes associated with the Latrobe Valley audit/visit by CASA. This had been identified as a Level Two audit by the Regional Manger in my presence, and in the presence of CASAs Head of Regulatory Services.
CASA was later to reverse their stance and state it was not an audit.
At the exit interview at Latrobe Valley on the day, only a minor anomaly was identified.
CASA advised a written report would follow, as is the procedure. That report never arrived.
At a later CASA meeting, the audit was raised, and this time the topics had changed entirely in nature.
It was identified that the audit results had not been provided to me, although they had been provided to CASA legal, and CASA confirmed that fact.
CASA then denied an audit was done which surprised me. CASA then claimed there were no audit results.
I then tried to get them under Freedom of information, and there was simply page after page after page of completely redacted material, so you will appreciate my confusion. CASA prepared audit results months later that were not dated and differed completely from what we had previously been advised. Completely new allegations of regulatory breaches that I steadfastly refute arose. Over a 6-month period I have 30 emails that were not answered as I tried to attend to the fabricated breaches. Quite simply, CASA could not respond because they could not substantiate them.
I asked you to investigate why audit results would be sent to CASA legal before I am afforded the right to reply. You did not respond.
I asked you specifically to identify if breaches of Administrative law had occurred, and you chose to ignore this request.
I asked you to specifically investigate how an onsite audit debrief could differ from the Head Office debrief which differed entirely from the undated audit results written months later. You completely ignored this.
In Matter B, you specifically undertook to address”
whether CASAs requirements of APTA were more onerous than those imposed on (XXXXXXXXXXX)”. You have chosen to completely avoid this most critical complaint about the different manner with which CASA engages different operators in your final report, despite undertaking to do so. This is fundamental to my complaint and by avoiding it you have denied me fairness. A determination here was one of my critical complaints.
You will recall that it was CASAs inappropriate use of the Aviation Ruling that has lead to this process that has resulted in business closures, loss of jobs, and associated damage. It was the wrong document to be using.
In Matter F, you specifically undertook to make a determination on
“the Aviation Rulings applicability”. Instead, because CASA chose to take it
off the table, after two months, you have cleverly avoided the issue.
How can CASA use the wrong document, cause enormous damage, and then decide to “take it off the table”. That is in fact the very thing the ICC should be investigating, rather than be complicit in avoiding addressing the complaint. A thorough determination of this complaint was fundamental to an open and transparent investigation on your behalf.
In
matter Q, I made complaints against item 9 of CASAs regulatory philosophy.
https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who...ory-philosophy It cannot be denied that this entire situation could have been avoided had Mr Brad Lacy my first contact person within CASA decided to raise any concerns he had. Instead he initiated a course of action that bought significant damage. At the start of the process in October 2018, I made CASA very aware of the consequences of their actions, and tragically it has unfolded as I suggested. Closed businesses and lost jobs. CASA placed a number of restrictions on my ability to trade that ultimately lead to its failure. My expectation is that you would have comprehensively addressed CASAs stated criteria in Item 9 against my businesses experience, as I requested and you undertook.
In
matter L, you undertook to address whether CMT 3 had acted in accordance with CASA regulatory philosophy although you chose to avoid this in your final report.
In
Matter T, I specially mentioned that CASA processing times averaged 30 minutes per month. i.e. if APTA paid for a CASA task taking 5 hours, that would take 10 months to process. I alleged that my processing times were well outside industry norms. You undertook to address this, and in fact you chose to avoid addressing it.
Matter A1 and B1 were complaints about CASA continually refusing to respond to requests for assistance. CASA clearly made allegations of regulatory breaches of which I am required to resolve. I made over 30 requests to help me resolve those. That alone is outrageous, and you undertook to address this matter, which you did not.
My overall opinion of my ICC experience It can never have the credibility it deserves as long as the ICC is on the payroll of CASA. It is natural, that on receipt of such a substandard report, I would feel that I may not have been afforded fairness.
The Department is critically under resourced. It was clearly identified that the CASA action was costing my business $10,000 per week. Eight months is an unacceptably long-time frame for any business to wait.
Mr Crawford in his role as the head of the Aviation Group appeared to have more detailed knowledge of the process, and I will attend to that in separate correspondence.
Industry make claims that the ICC process is used as a CASA process to delay access to the Ombudsman, and sadly that is my feeling.
Having met you, I had a high expectation, to say that I am extremely disappointed in the depth and integrity of the work would be a significant understatement. Not only for my own interest, but for the benefit of those that follow me later, I am compelled to accelerate my complaint.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley