I appreciate that this may be a difficult read, and it is subject to more editing than I had hoped. The Office of the Deputy PM is aware that I am posting this at 9PM, on this forum. I will finalise this over the weekend and welcome your feedback, good or bad. Cheers. Glen25/04/22
To: Catherine, the Reviewing Officer from the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office
Mr. Ramzi Jabbour of the Office of the Deputy PM
Dear Catherine of the Ombudsman’s Office,
I am writing to ask you to place a hold on publishing your findings from the three-year investigation into my matter, until the Office of the Deputy PM has had an opportunity to meet with me over coming weeks.
If my understanding is correct from our telephone call. The Ombudsman’s Office initiated its own review of the investigation, and by taking that action, I forfeit any opportunity to initiate a review or respond to that investigation. An opportunity that would otherwise be available to me had the Ombudsman’s Office not initiated its own review. Hopefully you will appreciate my concerns.
I have raised allegations of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs previously to the Department of the Deputy PM and also before Parliament in the current Senate Inquiry into CASA, and that presentation can be accessed via the attached link. To date those allegations of misfeasance in public office have not been investigated. Mr Aleck is the individual responsible for providing you with all information. Mr Aleck was the sole decision maker regarding this matter. For complete clarity on this matter. I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck has provided substantially misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office. It is reasonable for me to assume that he has done so, to pervert the findings of your investigation. He would have been fully aware that he was providing misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office at the time he provided it. It was a conscious and considered decision. It was not an “error.”
From my interactions, there is no doubt this has been a challenging task for your Office. I believe those problems commenced immediately this matter was passed from the first Officer to the Second Officer. At that handover you will be aware that I was unable to discuss the matter with Officer Two at the handover stage. This was a critical point of the investigation. The reason provided to me was that the Ombudsman Office was unable to discuss the matter with me due to “COVID restrictions. It was a telephone call that I was requesting, and that ability for a one-on-one conversation should have been made available at the handover stage. It seems entirely unreasonable that I am unable to have a telephone call with the Ombudsman Office, and that COVID could possibly have created that requirement.
I do note however that irrespective of that, the matter was significantly interfered with by CASA providing clearly untruthful guidance to your Office. I had previously made allegations of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck in Parliament before the Senate and that presentation can be accessed later in this correspondence. I have submitted a small portion of my evidence. An example would be that Mr Aleck would have you believe that CASA was not aware of my business model, yet I have provided irrefutable evidence that in fact CASA was fully aware at least 2 ½ years before Mr Aleck would have you believe.
I have provided the contact details of two CASA employees, one current and one past employee who have an expert knowledge of this matter. Their testimony is essential to arriving at the truth, and the Ombudsman office has chosen not to avail themselves of that opportunity.
The Ombudsman’s Office advised me that they cannot investigate an allegation of misfeasance in public office against Mr Aleck the second most senior employee of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. If that is the Ombudsman’s Office position, then it seems unlikely that an investigation can actually be conducted into this matter.
My understanding was that the Ombudsman’s Office could investigate those matters, and that is why the complaint was submitted to your office in the first instance. If I quote directly from the Ombudsman’s Act.
3(6) For the purposes of this Act, action that is taken by an Officer of a prescribed authority shall be deemed to be taken by the Authority,
(a) If the officer takes, or purports to take, the action by virtue of his or her being an Officer of the authority, whether or not:
·
The action is taken for in connexion with, or as incidental to, the performance of the functions of the prescribed authority; or
·
The taking of the action is within the duties of the Officer; or
·
If the officer takes, or purports to take, the action in the exercise powers or the performance of functions conferred on him or her by an enactment.
An officer is a person who is employed in the service of or is a member of the staff of a prescribed authority. CASA is a prescribed authority.
Irrespective of my understanding I must respect your position and I note your advice that an allegation of misfeasance in public office needs to be made to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner, and I concurrently with my submission to the office of the Deputy PM, I will lodge my allegations with the ICC.
The report will be substantive, and readers of that report will place significant weight on findings of the Ombudsman’s Office. I am fully satisfied that the gross technical errors have arisen as the result of disinformation provided by Mr Aleck could affect my ability to pursue this matter through litigation, and therefore ask for the delay in the release of that report.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Dear Mr XXXXXXXXX of the Deputy PMs Office,
As you are aware, I have been seeking the assistance of my local MP for the Seat of Chisholm, Ms. Gladys Liu for three years on this matter, and she has chosen to completely ignore those requests for assistance by me.
Thankyou for the telephone call, the other day. It was significant, and for the first time in the last few years, I am confident that I have reached the person that I should be dealing with. I have had the opportunity to do some research.
From that research, I have developed a high level of confidence. As you will appreciate, trust takes time and experience to develop, my sincere hope is that I can have both trust and confidence in you. The next month will be telling.
In that call, you asked me to provide a summary of my matter, and I directed you to two magazine articles written about this matter. I titled them “APTA before CASA action” and “CASA after CASA action”. Both written by Steve Hitchen of Australian Flying magazine. I hope you have had an opportunity to read them. The links are attached here for quick reference
This matter is extremely complicated, and to be frank I am not the best person to explain it to you, because the truth is that I do not understand why CASA closed my business down.
From your background you will appreciate the importance of clear and concise communications. The value of those communications increases significantly, if they are “well intentioned”.
In my opinion, the most efficient approach now, would be for you to make a request of Pip Spence, the CASA CEO. This matter is best explained by CASA. I think it reasonable that CASA explain their perspective and that I respond to that.
The matter could be expedited if CASA provided you with a response to the following 12 questions within 7 days. These are all matters that CASA could reply to, within those timelines, and the information would be readily available to CASA.. By limiting the responses to one page per question, this his will ensure that the responses are clear and concise.
Question One:
Considering that the Ministers own Statement of Expectations
Statement of Expectations for the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the period 31 January 2022 to 30 June 2023 (legislation.gov.au) requires
CASA to demonstrate “risk based and evidence driven decision making by CASA (including well documented safety cases)”, could CASA provide a one page summary of the supporting safety case for the action they took against me and my business.
Question Two
In a one page response can CASA clearly identify in clear and concise language the regulations that CASA claim Mr Buckley breached, and how he breached them. Could CASA also confirm that there is precedent to the way these rules were applied.
Question Three
Is the CASA CEO and Board, fully satisfied that in its dealings with Mr Buckley, Mr Aleck has acted in accordance with the following obligations.
· The Ministers Statement of Expectations of CASA Statement of Expectations for the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the period 31 January 2022 to 30 June 2023 (legislation.gov.au)
· The PGPA Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (legislation.gov.au)
· CASAs Regulatory Philosophy Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
· Administrative Law
· The Public Service Values and Code of Conduct APS Values, Code of Conduct and Employment Principles | Australian Public Service Commission (apsc.gov.au)
Question Four
The Ombudsman’s Office has formed the opinion that CASA obtained legal advice. Could you identify the date that Mr Aleck first sought any external and independent legal advice, and what that legal advice stated. Who did Mr Aleck consult with to arrive at his determination that Mr Buckley was operating illegally and subject to regulatory action.
Question Five
Was Mr Aleck compelled to make the decisions that he did. Was there a more proportional approach available to him, and why was that not taken. Could CASA also identify how I could have resolved this matter
Question Six
Mr Buckley claims that this entire matter could have been avoided by a well-intentioned 4-hour discussion, without even sending the notification of October 2018, and that it was not necessary to drag this matter out for 8 months. Can CASA clearly outline in one page why this matter was unable to be resolved.
Question Seven.
Mr Buckley claims that your notification of October 2018, prevented him taking on any new customers, and that CASA also contacted all existing customers and directed them to leave his business. You also placed a freeze on processing all administrative tasks for his business. This continued for 8 months, with those trading restrictions in place. At the 8-month mark, CASA determined that the business was unlawful and forced all remaining customers leave the organisation. Is it true that on multiple occasions I made CASA fully aware of the commercial impact of their action, and that information w
Question Eight
Considering that the CASA action led to significant commercial losses, Mr Buckley claims that CASA never at any stage provided him with a “decision letter”, despite his repeated requests. That “decision letter was essential if he was to approach the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Could CASA provide a copy of that decision letter, if any that was provided to Mr Buckley. If it was not provided, that appears to be a breach of administrative law. Can you explain this?
Question Nine
After Mr Buckley lost his business, he secured employment in the industry as a CASA approved Head of Operations. CASA wrote to his Employer and directed that his continuing employment was not tenable based on comments that he was making publicly
Question Ten.
In Parliament to the Senate, the previous CASA CEO, Mr Carmody stated that I had stalked and assaulted CASA employees. I claim that is a blatant untruth put to the Senate, and in the public domain to damage my reputation and reduce the credibility of my allegations of “misfeasance in public office” by Mr Carmody to damage my reputation and Could CASA provide any police reports, any internal OHS reports to support Mr Carmody’s allegation that
“Mr Buckley assaulted CASA employees”
“Mr Buckley stalked CASA employees”
Does CASA stand by those allegations. If so, can CASA identify why no police report was ever made.?
Question Eleven
You advised Mr Buckley that his flying school of ten years that operated EXACTLY the same as every other flying school in Australia,. Was now operating in breach of the regulations, specifically ………..
Could CASA clearly explain the decision making and how it is feasible that overnight, his school, Melbourne Flight Training was now in breach of the regulations, after 10 years of operations. Noting that their had been no change to any legislation, and by referring to the initial notification of October 2018, it was a regulation from 1988 that CASA used to initiate the action.
Question Twelve
Considering that Mr Buckley has raised allegations of misfeasance in public office. No investigation at all by CASA into the conduct of Mr Aleck.has occurred. For such substantive allegations to be raised in such a formal process i.e. before Senate, it seems highly suspect, and not in accordance with expectations on either Private industry or the Public service. Has any investigation into the conduct of Mr Aleck been made, and if not can CASA explain that lack of action.
What are my expected outcomes?
Expected outcome One
I am seeking an investigation initiated by Office of the Deputy PM into the conduct of Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs. I am confident that Mr Aleck will appreciate that opportunity to defend his professional reputation.
“The truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like to be challenged.”
Expected outcome Two
· That I have the opportunity to submit a request for an “Act of Grace payment.” That request would have two components.
(a) Reimbursement for the commercial harm caused to staff, customers, suppliers, and businesses impacted with the exclusion of mine, by Mr Alecks decisions. The intention would be to put all affected Parties in the position that they were in before Mr Aleck made his determination that my business was unlawful, and as if those people and entities had never met Glen Buckley.
(b) Consideration of reimbursement also to me and my family for the harm caused to us.
Expected outcome Three
That the Office of the Deputy PM give CASA 7 days to respond, and that 7 days after that time, the Office of the Deputy PM provide me the opportunity for a two hour meeting. My preference would be that the CASA CEO or her nominee attend that meeting.