Sorry folks, as best I can. Not very good with technology
INDUSTRY COMPLAINTS COMMISSIONER
16 October 2019
Mr Glen Buckley
[email protected]
Dear Glen
Complaint — direction to APTA’s new owner
I refer to your complaint about the email sent by CASA Regional Manager Jason McHeyzer’s email to
APTA’s new owner at 2:14PM on 27 August 2019 (’the email’).
In particular, you are concerned at Mr McHeyzer’s comment that your status as APTA’s Deputy Head
of Operations was untenable given the statements you were making publicly. You state that as a
result of this email, APTA terminated your employment.
In resolution of your complaint, you initially advised you were seeking a public apology from CASA to
protect your professional reputation; and a statement as to whether the email breached any
stipulated procedures.
You’ve later clarified you want ‘…CASA to clearly outline the reason this action
was taken’ and that you only seek a view on the appropriateness of the email.
Because it’s not my role to apologise on behalf of CASA or outline its reasons for taking particular
actions, in this preliminary outcome I have only reviewed the reasonableness and appropriateness of
CASA’s email.
At this stage, I propose to conclude CASA’s email was unreasonable and inappropriate.
That’s because the email’s most natural meaning draws a correlation between the statements you may
have made publicly (presumably about CASA and in your capacity as an APTA office holder) and the
tenability of your employment when no such connection exists.
CASA has no proper role in censoring public debate or comment on its operations as the email may have inferred.
Mr McHeyzer states that the email was poorly worded and did not convey what he was attempting
to say to APTA’s new owner. Given the limited scope of my review imposed by your requests1 I don’t
consider it’s possible to continue my review any further than a finding of its appropriateness or
otherwise.
1. You declined my request to corroborate with APTA its understanding of CASA’s interactions, or its response. In addition,
you’ve stipulated that only the email of 2:14 on 27 August be reviewed. You believe that subsequent interactions, such as a
call later that day between Mr McHeyzer and APTA, and subsequent emails between APTA and Mr McHeyzer and Craig
Martin were ‘carefully crafted’ with input from CASA’s Legal Branch. On that basis you didn’t believe they were relevant to
your complaint.
That’s because I’m unable to make an assessment about the email in its broader context or test your claim it led to APTA terminating your employment. And as a result, I don’t believe I can make any assessment of CASA’s actions in all the circumstances.
Referral rights
When you submitted this complaint you noted: ‘I will provide CASA the “first right of refusal”. If the CASA ICC chooses not to deal with it, I will go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.’ In my reply of 4 September, I set out my opinion that given your concerns about my integrity and the ICC’s investigative processes ‘the best forum for (this complaint) to be considered is the Commonwealth Ombudsman’.
On 9 September I set out that it was my hope you’d already contacted the Ombudsman on this matter. But if you haven’t, information about how to make a complaint can be found at
Home - Commonwealth Ombudsman. Alternatively, you can contact the Ombudsman on 1300 362 072.
Yours sincerely
Jonathan Hanton
Industry Complaints Commissioner