2 of 2
Request One for a response from my MP, Dr. Carina Garland-
Why was the matter not fully resolved in a matter of hours, for what reason was it still unresolved after 8 months.
I maintain that this entire issue with CASA could have been fully resolved in less than 4 hours, if CASA employee, Mr Jonathan Aleck had intended for that to be so.
I am simply seeking an explanation as to why that did not occur.
There is no doubt that Mr Aleck deliberately frustrated resolution of the issue unnecessarily and there is an overwhelming body of evidence to support that. That evidence was obtained by me under FOI.
This matter in its entirety is about “intent’”, and very specifically about the “intent” of Mr Aleck.
The CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs deliberately placed crippling trading restrictions on my business that caused enormous commercial and reputational harm. He was not compelled to make those decisions.
Less harmful, safer, and more effective actions and decisions were available to him. He clearly did not follow CASAs own stipulated procedures when taking that action, and at no stage did I have any appeal process available to me.
His actions and decisions were based on existing acrimony between us.
Why couldn’t it be resolved on the spot in one meeting that would last less than 4 hours? A truthful answer to that will promptly bring this entire matter to a head,
As you are aware, with no prior notification CASA placed crippling trading restrictions on my business that cost me and my family more than $10,000 per week initially, and as the months increased that figure rose to approximately $20,000 per week. These remained in place for 8 months until CASA determined that the Business would not be permitted to continue operating in the structure it had adopted for the previous decade. Importantly, Mr Aleck targeted my business specifically, and not others.
All personnel operating under the CASA issued Authorisation now had to Employees of the same Company that held the CASA Authorisation. A most bizarre and unique requirement that has never been placed on any other person’s business, in the aviation industry ever. There is absolutely no legislation that suggests this requirement.
The CASA CEO, the Executive Manager of Legal, international and Regulatory services is fully aware of that, as is the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner.
The result of having these trading restrictions being imposed for a staggering 8 months with no resolution caused significant commercial and reputational harm, not only to me and my family, but also to other Businesses, Employees, Suppliers, Customers and Students.
I am fully satisfied that a Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Services deliberately prolonged resolution of a solution, to bring harm to me and my business, based on existing acrimony between us.
The only “issue” was that CASA wanted to change a paragraph or two in my commercial agreements with my customers. A most bizarre requirement, as CASA never previously had involvement in the commercial aspects of business and focussed on safety and compliance. Nevertheless, I was willing to comply. It was simply a process of retyping some new terminology based on clear and concise guidance on Mr alecks personal requirements.
This entire matter could have been fully resolved within 4 hours at any time before CASA took the action that it did. I believe that Mr Jonathan Aleck placed targeted requirements on me, and me only, and deliberately prolonged resolution of what was a matter that could have been easily resolved and that is in effect the crux of the matter. It is really a matter of “intent: and a powerful employee of CASA using his power to cause commercial and reputational harm to me personally, which in turn, significantly impacted on my health and welfare. It was targeted and it was directed specifically at me. There must be an explanation as to why this simple matter could not be resolved in a matter of a few hours. Considering all the totally unnecessary harm caused, surely my family and I are entitled to that explanation. If CASA is unwilling or unable to address that matter, it is a reasonable request of my MP that they seek that for me.
An explanation provided to you by Ms Spence, the CASA CEO, and understood by you, will help me to understand Mr Alecks actions and decisions. It is imperative that the explanation is signed off by the CASA CEO, Ms Pip Spence because it is CASAs explanation that I am seeking.
I am however asking that you also satisfy yourself with that explanation if it is forthcoming.
I believe it is highly unlikely that Ms Spence will be able to provide a plausible explanation, as to why a well-intentioned meeting of less than 4 hours could not have had this entire matter finalised to CASAs full satisfaction.
If a plausible explanation could be offered, then that may provide a defence/explanation for Mr Alecks actions and decisions, and it would provide him the opportunity to explain his position and why he felt compelled to make those actions and decisions.
If CASA could provide a plausible explanation, then that would compel me to stop making these public allegations about Mr Aleck, and even potentially provide him some recourse.
Assuming that Mr Aleck has nothing to hide, he would welcome an investigation into his conduct.
My very strong preference is that this is a matter for the Australian Federal Police, or a similar investigative agent or appointee who is not in the employ of CASA. They are the most serious of allegations. Mr aleck is entitled to that process, as, and I have no doubt that he would encourage it.
The Ombudsman office is not the Body to deal with the matter. Issues addressed in the Robodebt Inquiry continue to plague that Body, and its investigative ability is ineffective.
If you feel for some reason that you are not presently equipped to respond to my correspondence, which would concern me, can I actively encourage you to formulate your Offices response, and draw on CASA or the Ombudsman as you require, but ultimately what I am seeking from my Local MP is an explanation as to why so much harm was caused to him and his family, when it was so completely and easily avoidable, and I am asking that my MP obtain that for me, because CASA refuse to address this key issue.
I assume that you would be able to address that issue, as that has been the central theme of my position. i.e., that Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs took actions and made decisions that he was not compelled to make, and that he chose the more harmful option when a significantly less harmful option, more effective and safer option was available to him was fully available to him by way of a single well intentioned meeting.
I feel that I need to be perfectly frank here. I believe that you as my Local MP have acted against the interests of one of your Constituents, and therefore your explanation is crucial in determining how I proceed.
On this matter, and because of the harm caused, and so completely unnecessarily, and that there is no reason that this entire matter could have been fully resolved in a matter of a few hours, and it is an allegation of misconduct at the very highest levels of CASA, I must continue to pursue this matter.
Before doing so, I need to fully satisfy myself that I have exhausted all other options available to me, including seeking the assistance of my Local MP, Dr Carina Garland. It is essential that if this matter gets to Court, I can clearly demonstrate that I have made all reasonable attempts including attempting to have my parliamentary representative take up my case.
If you as my Local MP could provide a plain English explanation in writing as to why this matter could not be resolved in a matter of hours then it would confirm to me that you have considered this matter and that the stance you have adopted i.e. refusing to assist a Constituent in his allegations of misconduct against emplyees of CASA,is a considered one.
My question to you is this.
Ms Garland, as my Local MP for the Electorate of Chisholm, and as somebody who has had his and his family’s life completely decimated by the actions and decisions of Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive manager of legal, International and Regulatory Affairs.
As the impacted individual who is fully satisfied that this entire matter could have been completely avoided, and so easily.
Could you please provide me an explanation to why this entire matter could not be fully resolved in a matter of hours, what was so complicated?
Request Two of my MP Dr. Carina Garland of Minister Kings “involvement”
I came to you personally with a substantive allegation of misconduct by at least one senior CASA Employee being Mr Jonathan Aleck, and potentially two other CASA employees.
Once I became aware that false and misleading information was being provided to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation by CASA, I approached your office, seeking your assistance, which you initially offered and then later reneged on.
Your change of position from one of offering to assist me, to a position of not being able to assist me, was because of a direction by Minister King, being the Minister responsible for CASA, the Organisation that is being investigated, as per the email above from your Office.
You will understand why I would be concerned that Minister Kings Office may be involved in a “cover up” of misconduct, or at least frustrating processes.
A constituent who has obviously had his life impacted by the matter approaches their MP for assistance, alleging that false and misleading information is being provided to an Ombudsman investigation.
The MP initiates the matter and contacts the Minister responsible for the Agency being investigated.
The Minister responsible for the Agency under investigation then directs that Local MP that the MP is unable to assist the Constituent and provides no further explanation.
I hope you can appreciate that I would perceive that there is potentially a cover up of this matter and it extends to both your office and the Ministers Office.
At our meeting I believe that I provided you with sufficient evidence of misconduct. On the balance of probabilities, with the information that you held, any reasonable person would have been suspicious that there may potentially be an element of misconduct, and you would have had an awareness that on the balance of probabilities, CASA had possibly provided false and misleading information.
If you were unable to determine who was telling the truth you would most certainly have been aware that there are two completely different narratives, and only one of those narratives can be the truthful one.
The point being that if you are aware that there are two completely different narratives being provided on matters that are black and white with a significant body of evidence readily available indicating that one is truthful and one is not, then by choosing not to pursue that matter it indicates a concerning level of apathy, if I was to use the most polite and respectful word that applies in such a situation.
A Constituent of your Electorate of Chisholm has had he and his family’s livelihood, business, mental health and life’s savings devastated by the actions and decisions of a single CASA employee, it is a simple request, that if ethics have prevailed in this matter, should be able to be clearly and concisely responded to.
I am seeking an explanation as to why you would be directed by the Minister, not to assist me with my allegations.
The very purpose of our system of Government is that our local Representative uses their best endeavours to assist and represent their Constituents.
I am concerned that Minister King would send you a direction that you cannot assist a constituent of your Electorate, and that causes me significant concern. Whilst I am not making an allegation specifically of an attempted “cover up’ of this matter, at this stage, I am fully satisfied that I am entitled to a “statement of reasons” as the person impacted as to why a Minister would send that direction to a Local MP seeking to pursue justice in a matter that has so obviously caused so much harm and trauma to a constituent of the Electorate of Chisholm.
To clarify this matter and ensure clear expectations regarding my second request
Part A, of this request. Could I respectfully request you confirm that Minister Kings position is unchanged, and that is, that her Office has directed you not to assist me in this matter, and therefore I need to approach other appropriate MPs and/or Senators that I have listed above and included in this correspondence.
Part B, If Minister King maintains the position that you are not able to render assistance to a family that lives within the electorate, could your Office please provide me with an explanation as to why you are unable to render that assistance. I would provide Minister Kings response to those other MPs and Senators to form part of their consideration as to whether they can render assistance to me and my family, and I feel that my family are entitled to that explanation.
Request Three- The identical structure was and continues to be permitted by CASA
CASA maintains that they never permitted the structure that I adopted in my business. I truthfully maintained that multiple organisations adopted that identical structure and that they continue to do so. There can only be one truthful answer. Either CASA always permitted it, and continues to do so 5 years later, or CASA never permitted it.
For clarity, I maintain that CASA always permitted and formally approved the exact same structure that I also utilised after a comprehensive CASA process, and I had been doing so for a decade. It was, and is common-place throughout the industry only after a CASA approval
For complete clarity on this matter. CASA always, and most significantly, continues to, permit Operators to adopt the structure that I adopted.
CASA has led the Ombudsman to form the view that the structure that I adopted was “new and unusual”.
I truthfully maintain that I had been operating in that same structure for a decade, with the only changes being those of “continuous improvement” programs or keeping fully up to date with all legislative changes.
Importantly many flight training operators in Australia adopted that same structure.
To you as my MP, I put this third request to you.
If I claim that I operated in the same structure for a decade, and that I adopted a structure that was completely normal throughout the flight training industry and continues to be.
And if CASAs position is that is not the case, CASA never permitted it
CASA steadfastly refuses to respond to my requests. I’m simply asking that you consult with CASA, and obtain a response to these questions.
Fourth request
I am making a formal request to you as my MP that you arrange a meeting between CASA and myself, and I would like you to attend that meeting.
I only ask that a Board Member of CASA also participate in that meeting, in an Observer status.
I would like Ms. Spence or her nominee to attend that meeting.
If you are unwilling or unable to facilitate that meeting, I will make that same request of the other listed MPs and Senators.
I invite you to bring any person you feel may add value to the meeting, and ideally that could be a Member of the AFP or some other nominee, independent of CASA and with some expertise in investigative matters and misconduct.
I would like you to attend that meeting to provide you the opportunity to bring yourself completely up to speed on this matter and ensure full transparency. A meeting of that nature will reduce timelines by many months and avoid the “ping pong” that is so often associated with these matters, as I have experienced to date.
In that Forum, I would raise my allegations, provide evidence, and provide phone access to two past CASA Employees from the most senior of positions, and high levels of expertise in this area.
At the conclusion of that meeting, I would seek your advice on the best path forward.
If no other options are available, I would seek a robust legal assessment of this matter utilising the funds from the Crowd Funding that the industry organised for me.
For that reason, I have also provided a copy of this correspondence to the Law institute of Victoria, asking them to provide me with some guidance on this matter. I am fully satrisfied that Senior Members of the CASA Executive have acted unlawfully and demonstrated misconduct. That misconduct is considered and deliberate.
The reasonable expectation of the Community, and particularly considering the Department that they are employed by, and the Senior positions that they hold is that an investigation would be conducted in short time frames, so as to minimise the impact on CASA and
Going forward.
As the Labor Party is the Party of “ethics”, my hope is that Minister King will change her position and permit you to assist me as a lifelong constituent of your Electorate, and with your best endeavours.
If, however, the Minister continues to direct you not to assist me in this matter, I will be compelled to continue pursuing this matter. I am not the first person to raise these allegations against Mr Jonathan Aleck, and many have offered to come forward and support my allegations.
Three generations of my family have been residents of the electorate. My intention is to commence a petition within the Electorate of Chisholm.
I will seek the signatures of 2000 constituents of your Electorate being the Seat of Chisholm. I have been an active member of the Community and believe that I can have significant “reach” within the Electorate. I am satisfied that I can promptly obtain 2000 signatures from within the Electorate of Chisholm.
A copy of that petition will be provided to you and distributed to those above listed Independent MPs and Senators and the constituents of their respective Electorates calling on that Representative to temporarily divert some of their resources from a matter that initially may not seem to affect that Electorate.
This is however significant matter of national interest, and aviation safety. My allegation is one of corruption within CASA.
That petition will be addressed to the listed Recipients, calling on them for assistance in this matter.
My preference being very clearly that my local MP pursue this matter with their best endeavours, but if they refuse to do so, you will appreciate that I am compelled to pursue other avenues.
Thank you for consideration of this matter. I apologise for the lengthy nature of the correspondence, but these are substantial matters, and they need to be comprehensively considered.
I look forward to a response earliest opportunity.
Respectfully
Glen Buckley and his family
(four generations of Chisholm constituents)