Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA

[glenb]

Hansard Part 3 of 3

Senator STERLE:Can I ask you why?

Mr Buckley: Just to make sure I understand, you're asking why I didn't go to a lawyer to pursue this matter until now?

Senator STERLE:Yes, when it first came up. I've been around industrial relations a while, and what they say is one thing and what happens in reality is another thing. But did you have contracts with CASA to become the overarching training provider?

Mr Buckley: That was the process that I went through for the two years, so that was basically the intent. I already had the process operating under me in a somewhat similar format. It was a two-year ground-up engineering process to attend to a deficiency that existed in the industry. Each of the members sought legal advice on the contracts. There was a lot of input into the contracts. But, in my opinion, CASA can bring up the contracts, but CASA had regulations, and I met every single one of the regulations. They stipulated over 600 procedures. The suite of manuals is as wide as I can go on the camera here.

Senator STERLE:Okay. But, going back to my original question—there's probably a very good reason—why did you not go and seek legal support or advice and say, 'How can I defend myself? How can I avoid losing not only my house but my parents' money? My workers have lost their jobs.' You've lost your job, and then CASA came in and told the crew that they were through; they had to give you the flick. You were eight months unemployed. Why didn't that happen? I'm just trying to get a clear picture.

Mr Buckley: The situation is that, as soon as CASA put those restrictions on my trade, that cost me somewhere between $10,000 and $15,000 per week. I started haemorrhaging money quickly. My parents stepped in to support the cycle. There wasn't a lot of money left over. I believed that good intent would prevail. I put complaints in to the Industry Complaints Commissioner. This is one of the suggestions I'd like to attend to, and I'd like to leave enough time for that. On the aviation ruling, which was the document that CASA originally used, the CASA internal Industry Complaints Commissioner came back and found that it wasn't worth investigating because CASA had taken it off the table. So then I put a complaint in to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and the Commonwealth Ombudsman came back and found that there was a deficiency that could have caused detriment to me. So the answer to the question is that I'm a big believer in due process. The process is to go to the Industry Complaints Commissioner as the first thing. These things take time. Also, I've never engaged a lawyer. I've been in court on two occasions and haven't engaged a lawyer, because once a lawyer's engaged it's combative. It's two parties each trying to do the other one over. I just want CASA to sit down, acknowledge that they've made a mistake, say a lot of people have been impacted by this and return everybody affected to the situation they were in in October 2018, before CASA started this process. It shouldn't need a lawyer. It should need Tony Mathews, the chair of the board, to step up and act with good intent.

Senator STERLE:Forgive me, Mr Buckley, but I am unclear as to why CASA cut you off at the knees.

Mr Buckley: Yes. There is no safety argument. You put that to them. Ask them: 'Was there any regulatory risk? Did any planes slide off the runway? Were there any allegations of unapproved maintenance? Were there any allegations at all?' Ask them that question.

Senator STERLE:Alright. Why do you think they did it? You did touch on a certain person—CMT2 to CMT3.

Mr Buckley: Yes.

Senator STERLE:Give us a bit more history. Don't mention the name; that's fine. But why would this individual go out of their way to put you out of business?

Mr Buckley: I think it came from higher up. That's why I say it was misfeasance. I think it comes from the highest levels in CASA. I was a critic of the regulations before they came in. I predicted what they would do to industry. They did do it to industry, so I was somewhat of an embarrassment. I also point out that CASA introduced these new regulations. They came to me. There are 350 flight training organisations in Australia. They gave these 350 businesses three years to transition to the new format, parts 141 and 142, or cease trading after that date. Those new regulations took away 90 per cent of my revenue by way of the 150-hour commercial pilot licence rules. My business was faced with shutting down in three years and a loss of revenue unless I stepped up to what was called a 'part 142' organisation. I was very, very critical of CASA and I still am critical of CASA.

Let me give you a brief example of what these new regulations have done to a country flying school versus a city flying school. A country flying school will probably be, in almost every single case, below a classified part 141 school. My school, like many of the city schools, is a higher classified part 142 school. Both the 141 school and the 142 school can deliver a commercial pilot licence. In the 141 and 142 schools they can fly to exactly the same syllabus, fly exactly the same aircraft with exactly the same flying instructor, they do all the same CASA flight exams, they fill in the same CASA CPL test application form and are able to do exactly the same flying test. The 141 school has to do the training in 200 hours. The 142 school—the higher level school, like mine—gets to do it in 150 hours, but it's competency based training. How can CASA possibly mandate that a 141 school, a country school, be forced into delivering a 200-hour commercial pilot licence with GST on it, when the guy down in the city, at my business, can do a 150-hour commercial pilot licence course, exempt of GST? It's the same course. It's competency based training. Why should the guy in the country flight school have to fly another 50 hours before he can do a flight test, even if he meets the competency? You can understand why country flying schools haven't got a snowflake's chance in hell. People from the country will gravitate to the city to chase the more cost-effective option provided in the big-city schools. It's ludicrous.

Senator STERLE:It does sound like it was set up for failure. Chair, there are a lot of questions we need to pose to CASA, and I'll be very interested to hear their points. There's a lot of background information there. I'm very keen to know why they cut you off, Mr Buckley. Could you prepare something for us about that—just a simple set of questions to put back to the committee that we can ask?

Mr Buckley: Certainly, I can do that.

Senator STERLE:We can seek answers. If you parted your hair the wrong way, or you wore orange socks, or you gave them the ****s—sorry, you upset them—I could understand, but I'm none the clearer.

Mr Buckley: Wilco, nor am I. When Mr Carmody—who's down there now—spoke at the last RRAT committee, he said that CASA very rarely get the opportunity to publicly defend themselves. Here's a perfect opportunity for Mr Carmody to publicly defend himself. I'll make a written submission of suggestions of how I believe CASA could be improved, because I realise that we're getting short of time. I'd like to say something in parting. You are aware that CASA did surveys of their own staff. There was a massive lack of confidence in the senior executive of the organisation. It really does need a clean-out.

I very formally, before the both of you today, lodged a claim of misfeasance. I believe there should be a process by the Commonwealth Ombudsman or the Attorney-General's Department for that allegation to be followed through. I stand fully liable for everything I say. I'll support it with evidence. If that isn't forthcoming, I will go out to industry and I will seek industry support. I live in the seat of Chisholm, a marginal seat, and at the next federal election I will run as an independent politician against the current incumbent, Gladys Liu, if I have to. I'm not going away, Mr Carmody. Let me be very clear.

CHAIR: I just have one more question for you, Mr Buckley. At the very first step, when you went to the Industry Complaints Commissioner within CASA, what where the words you used—was it that CASA had said it was off the table?

Mr Buckley: Correct. The document that CASA used—it must have been bring-your-kid-to-work day or something, because they used completely the wrong document. CASA's argument was that, because it was off the table, they weren't investigating. That means that CASA could go and allege unsafe behaviour by a pilot, who tries to appeal to the Industry Complaints Commissioner; CASA realise that they've ballsed-up two months down the track and say they've taken it off the table, and he's denied his rights. I emphasise that the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigated the same matter, found an administrative deficiency, and it did cause detriment to me. I await stage 2 of his investigation, which will include the CASA direction to my employer to terminate my employment based on the comments that I was making publicly.

CHAIR: I'm still intrigued about the independent complaints commissioner. So that person has gone and sought advice, I assume, from the legal team at CASA?

Mr Buckley: Yes.

CHAIR: It's a little bit circular, isn't it?

Mr Buckley: It's very, very circular. That's one of my suggestions to you. Mr Carmody sits on the board of CASA, who the Industry Complaints Commissioner reports to. It's ludicrous to me. This is one of my suggestions: there needs to be a redesign of the board. I wrote to Tony Matthews, the Chair of the CASA Board, for six months before I went public with this. He completely ignored every request. I raised substantive allegations against these personnel. It was six months. Had he acted within an appropriate time line and demonstrated good governance, I'd probably be in a very, very different situation today.

CHAIR: Mr Buckley, we are out of time. I am very pleased that you have had the courage to come forward and do this. I do have some serious concerns about due process when people are pursued by CASA. I've a number of complaints from people who've come before me, so I'm very concerned that we have a cultural issue that urgently needs to be addressed. But, of course, that's cold comfort to you who have lost your home. Your parents are so out of pocket, and, devastatingly, your children have been impacted as well. So I thank you for your contribution today. I know you'll be watching the rest of the inquiry with interest. This is the process of a Senate inquiry—to try and shine lights into dark corners and help bring some justice to issues. Thanks for coming today. Please go with our thanks.

Mr Buckley: Thank you so much, both of you, for your time.