27/04/22
Ombudsman Office ref 2019-713834erence
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 Commonwealth 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, to discuss this matter, and my allegations of misfeasance in public office against CASA employee, Mr Jonathan Aleck.
This matter is significant, and it is relevant.
This is effectively a situation where the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office is compelled to arrive at a decision and a final report on my matter.
Crucial to that determination is ascertaining the truth based on the information provided by both CASA employee, Mr Aleck and myself.
The truth can easily be ascertained, and it is fair and reasonable that I ask the Ombudsman’s office to make determinations made on truthful advice and accurate representations.
There is the CASA employee, “Mr Aleck version,” and the “Glen Buckley” version. Both differ substantially. Only one representation can possibly be truthful.
I have previously supplied the Ombudsman’s Office with the details of a current and past CASA employee who have offered to tell the truth on this matter. My understanding is that the Ombudsman’s office has chosen not to take advantage of this offer and relied upon the information provided by Mr Aleck only. Had the Office contacted those CASA employee’s significant clarity would have been bought to the investigation.
The two versions are,
Mr Jonathan Aleck, an Executive Manager within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). The second most senior, and longest serving Executive Manager. A man with two decades of experience within that organisation, and at times during that two decades, acted, as CEO of CASA. A man with impeccable credentials, and despite his industry wide reputation, someone that appears to be a person of substance on a CV. Somebody that the Ombudsman’s Office should be able to depend on.for the provision of truthful information. Mr Aleck yields enormous power within CASA and has been responsible for providing the Ombudsman’s Office with information related to this investigation. Mr Aleck holds extremely high levels of power and authority including the ability to shut down businesses.as he did with mine. He was the decision maker in my matter.
and
Glen Buckley
The person impacted by Mr Alecks decision. Someone who had his two businesses of more than a decade closed down with no prior warning by Mr Alecks change of opinion. A person who lost his home, his savings, and was left destitute. Someone whose physical and mental health has been decimated. My wife and I, have liquid assets of less than $6000 in total. Should my wife or I stop working we would be homeless. Someone whose wife has had a total of four days free of work in over three years, as she desperately tries to save for an uncertain future. A family whose medical decisions are now driven by cost as the only consideration. Irrespective of that impact on me, businesses have closed, staff have lost jobs and entitlements, and suppliers have been left unpaid. The impact of Mr Alecks decision making has been significant.. It seems entirely reasonable that his decisions be subjected to rigorous scrutiny, and most particularly as they are not supported by and safety case.
One of these two individuals, either Mr aleck or myself is responsible for providing substantial and clearly misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office with the intention of perverting the finding of that investigation. This is not a matter that is reasonable for the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to accept. The information is critical to the investigation, and the findings. Providing ,misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office is a substantial matter, and not one that should be ignored.
The Ombudsman’s Office has the legal authority to request a “sworn statement or affirmation”. I will call on you to exercise those powers and ask that both I and Mr Aleck be prepared to produce a sworn statement. The request for a sworn statement will immediately identify that one individual is providing misleading information to your Office. If Mr aleck is not prepared to make a sworn statement, it would be reasonable that an approach is made to the CASA CEO, Ms Spence to provide that sworn statement.
The format of the statement or affirmation should include the following important elements.
- Mr Aleck of CASA asserts that CASA first became aware of Mr Buckley’s business structure some time just prior to October 2018, shortly before they closed it down. Mr Buckley claims that he has a significant body of documented evidence, that in fact CASA first became aware of, and was fully aware of Mr Buckley’s business structure at least 6 years prior to the date that Mr Aleck asserts, and if they were not aware, which I dispute, CASA would have become aware throughout 2016 and 2017 when the business underwent a full revalidation with CASA.
- Mr Aleck of CASA asserts that CASA had never permitted more than one flying school to operate under a single CASA issued authorisation... Mr Buckley claims that CASA had always permitted more than one flying school to operate under a single CASA issued authorisation.
- Mr Aleck of CASA asserts that I have breached the “Aviation Ruling” and CAA Section 27(8) of 1988 which states “An AOC is not transferrable.’ Mr Buckley asserts that he has most definitely has not breached the Aviation Ruling or CAA 27(8) of 1988. I assert that I have not breached any regulations, and therefore Mr Aleck closing my business was unlawful.
- Mr Aleck of asserts that he has followed all due CASA stipulated process. Mr Buckley asserts that Mr Aleck has completely bypassed all procedures that he was required to follow as stipulated in CASAs own manuals. Enforcement Manual (casa.gov.au)
It seems entirely reasonable as the person impacted by CASA Executive Manager Jonathan Alecks decision that these matters be addressed by the Ombudsman’s Office. The role of the Ombudsman’s Office is to inspect the use of departmental powers to ensure those agencies are using their powers as Parliament intended, and if not, to hold those agencies accountable. It is an important community safeguard, and I am asking you to exercise those powers. For complete clarity, my allegation against Mr Aleck is an allegation of misfeasance in public office, an allegation I raised before Parliament as far back as 23/11/20 and can be accessed here,
To date, and after those allegations were first raised with the then Deputy PM, Mr Michael McCormack, there has been no investigation into Mr Alecks conduct. I note your advice in our recent telephone call, that the Ombudsman’s office is unable to investigate an allegation of misfeasance in public office. I accept your guidance on this matter, that I must refer this back to CASAs Industry Complaints Commissioner, and I will do so.
I am asking that the Ombudsman’s report can be withheld until I am availed the opportunity for an investigation into the conduct of Mr Aleck. Should my allegations be upheld, it is reasonable that the Ombudsman’s office would question the truthfulness of the information provided to the office by Mr Aleck, , and that could change the findings arrived at by the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office.
I note also that in previous communications, you have suggested that I also should avail myself of the opportunity to contact my Local MP, Ms Gladys Liu. I am a 56-year resident of the electorate of Chisholm and have made multiple requests to Ms Liu to meet with me over the last three years. For reasons not known to me, Ms Liu has been unwilling or unable to meet with me. That option does not appear to be available to me. The Labor candidate for Chisholm, Ms. Carina Garland has committed to meeting with me, but I am unable to move forward on this aspect, unless there is a change at the upcoming election.
Without access to my local MP for assistance, Ms Gladys Liu I am highly dependent on the accuracy of the findings of the Ombudsman’s Office
I am appreciative of the work done to date by your Office, however the findings of the Ombudsman’s Office will be an important document, that will be relied upon, should I not bring this matter to a conclusion by way of a well-intentioned discussion with CASA
Yours respectfully, Glen Buckley