03/11/22
To the Board of CASA,
As you will be aware I believe some members of the most senior levels of CASAs management have been responsible for providing substantially false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s investigation into the closure of my business by CASA. The regulations and advisories that I was allegedly in breach of that were used by CASA as the basis to close my business were.
- CASR 141.050
- The Aviation Ruling
- CAA s29
For clarity there were no allegations ever made against any safety matters or any quality outcomes. It was initially identified as regulatory breach only, noting CASAs narrative has changed overtime.
As you are aware I totally refute that I was in breach of any of those regulations, however that is not the specific purpose of this correspondence.
As you are also aware, I am fully satisfied that at least one CASA Executive has provided, or been responsible for providing, substantially false and misleading information to the Ombudsman investigation into the closure of my business, on multiple topics and on multiple occasions. My reasonable assumption is that it was provided by the CASA Executive to pervert the outcome of that investigation.
The reason that I am seeking to have this matter resolved is because of the two very different alternating narratives that are emanating from within CASA, that support my allegation of misconduct by Mr Aleck, by way of providing false and misleading information to the Ombudsman.
I made multiple requests of CASA over the last 18 months that Mr Aleck be removed as the primary and sole point of contact in dealings with the Ombudsman’s office because of my concerns with his integrity. The CASA CEO chose to leave him in that position for reasons known only to her. My concerns were that he would attempt to pervert the findings of the Ombudsman Office to cover up his misconduct. Mr Aleck was the decision maker that wrongfully declared it unlawful.
Evidence of Mr Alecks “influence” on perverting the findings of the Ombudsman investigation can be found in these two significantly different CASA narratives based on the same facts.
21st July 2021 Ombudsman writes to me advising that they will not be investigating the matter
because CASA had provided us with a reasonable explanation for its view that it was not fully aware of the specific nature of APTA’s operations until just prior to issuing the notice in October 2018.”
However over two years prior on 12th April 2019, CASAs own Industry Complaints Commissioner had come to a completely different conclusion when he stated;
“I don’t consider CASA treated APTA fairly when its approach changed on 23 October 2018. That’s because collectively as an organisation, CASA had an awareness of the APTA business model for a significant period of time prior to its compliance with regulation being called into question. In changing its position so drastically, the circumstances were such that CASA’s actions weren’t fair, given APTA’s likely to have relied on CASA’s failure to highlight any concerns when conducting its operations and planning.
When the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner says “a significant period of time prior” I assume that to be when CASA approved our second base in Darwin 8 years prior. As you are aware I have maintained that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of my business model and its structure for many years, and the ICC findings would seem to support that.
As you are aware, I wrote to the CASA CEO Ms. Spence requesting clarification as to the date that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation. A response to this question is fundamental to my entire matter. Despite my requests, Ms Spence has chosen not to reveal that date. My next step is to approach the CASA Board directly, in the hope that CASA is prepared to provide me with that information, hence this correspondence to the Board.
If the Board is not prepared to provide me with that information, my intention will be petitioning the Minister compelling CASA to reveal that date. My intention is to gather 5000 signatures from within the electorate of Chisholm and submit that petition to my local MP, Ms. Carina Garland seeking the assistance of the Minister. My hope is that additional step is not necessary, but I will continue to pursue this matter. I only advise you of that because my intention is not to “broadside” anybody, although it is important that there are clear expectations. I have included both respective offices in this correspondence to ensure there is awareness at Ministerial level.
Obviously, my strong preference and hope is that truthfulness and integrity prevail on this matter, and that I can obtain a response, therefore finalising this matter at Board Level.
Once the ICC made his determination on 12/04/19 that CASA had an awareness of my business model for a “significant time prior” that should then have become the official position that CASA adopts from the time of that finding and should have been the CASA position presented to the Ombudsman investigation.
I am concerned that two years later the Commonwealth Ombudsman produces a finding that contradicts the previous finding of the ICC. That can only occur if Mr Aleck is pursuing a narrative that differs substantially to that of the CASA ICC. For clarity, the Ombudsman has arrived at a finding based on based on false and misleading information provided by Mr Aleck to the Ombudsman.
As the family that has been significantly impacted by this matter, we think that it is fair and reasonable that CASA clearly nominate the date that they first became fully aware of the specific nature of the operation. As outlined in my correspondence previously, there by necessity, must be an occurrence that occurred on a specific date, in layman’s terms the date that CASA woke up and slapped a palm on its forehead.
This really is a very fair and reasonable request, and I think my family is fully entitled to that date, and most especially because of the discrepancy between the CASA ICC position and that of Mr Alecks.
If I can respectfully request a straightforward, well intentioned, and honest response. As you are aware I have a forum on this topic that has over 1,000,000 views. A copy of the correspondence previously sent to Ms Spence can be accessed via Posts #2376 and Post #2377 on that forum. It contains information that may be pertinent to the Boards response.
Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 119 - PPRuNe Forums
Respectfully, Glen Buckley