28/02/24
Dear Carina Garland, MP for the Chisholm Electorate.
My name is Glen Buckley, a lifelong resident of the Electorate of Chisholm. I appreciate that you are fully aware of my matter.
I do acknowledge that Minister King has directed you not to assist me in this matter, and from my personal experience as one of your Constituents in Chisholm, your adherence to the Ministers direction has been resolute. You have been a “loyal soldier”, I will say that. I am confident the Minister is aware of it and acknowledge it
Unfortunately, that comes at the expense of ethics and obligations, but “loyal: nevertheless.
A quality that no doubt will serve you well in your career.
This correspondence is directed to the Attorney General's Department, and I am seeking your assistance.
· I am requesting that your Office ensure that this correspondence is promptly forwarded through to the appropriate and responsible person within the Attorney General's Department for consideration, and advice on the action I should now take.
· I am requesting that your Office ensure that this correspondence is provided to Minister King and that she is fully aware of the contents of this correspondence.
· I am also requesting that you provide a copy of this correspondence to the Department of the Prime Minister. While I am not asking that the PM be made aware of this matter. I do expect that the correspondence has been received by his Office and a decision maker has assessed whether there needs to be an awareness of this matter with the PM.
If because of that direction by Minister King, not to assist me, or you are unwilling or unable to facilitate that distribution request could you please advise me, and I will seek alternative means to establish contact on this significant matter with those relevant persons. At this stage I am solely dependent on your assistance, I have not made any other attempts to reach those recipients by other means.
I believe that my request as a resident is a fair and reasonable request of you as my Member of Parliament for the Electorate of Chisholm, despite that direction from Minister King not to assist me.
I require no other assistance from your Office at this stage, apart from the confirmation that you distributed the correspondence to
· Attorney general
· Minister King
· Department of the PM
Respectfully Glen Buckley
____________________________________________________________ _____________________________
28/02/2024
To Office of the Attorney General-
I have asked my Local MP for the Electorate of Chisholm, Dr Carina Garland to ensure that this correspondence is received by the appropriate person within the Office of the AG, of these substantive allegations.
My name is Glen Buckley, I operated a flight training organisation for over a decade with bases at various locations across Australia. I operated a business model that was completely standard industry practice, although in October 2018 CASA reversed its Approval, advised I was subject to prosecution, and placed crippling trading restrictions on my business only, and not others.
A more detailed explanation is not required now as it is not crucial to the purpose of this correspondence.
The matter was the subject of a five-year investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.
I need to ensure that I achieve absolute clarity on the allegation that I am making in this correspondence. The following CASA Employees,
· Ms Pip Spence the CEO of CASA
· Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs
· Mr Jonathan Hanton- CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner. (ICC)
Have each been directly responsible for, or been complicit in, the provision of false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation. The provision of that false and misleading information was deliberate and was intended to influence the outcome of that investigation and cover up an allegation of misfeasance in public office by Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International Regulatory Affairs
I am a resident of the Electorate of Chisholm, and my MP is Carina Garland.
Dr. Carina Garland has written to my family advising that the Minister responsible for CASA, Minister King has advised that my MP, Dr Carina Garland is not permitted to assist me in this matter, and she has advised me of such. To say that the conduct of my Local MP, Dr, Carina Garland has been suboptimal would be an understatement.
I am fully satisfied that there is an attempted cover up of this matter, and I feel it essential to bring it promptly to the office of the Attorney General’s Office being the office responsible for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, being the Department that is relevant to these allegations.
I encourage the office of the AG to reach out directly to Ms Spence, the CASA CEO, to seek assurances from her that she is confident that she can refute these substantive allegations, and that CASA has not provided false and misleading information to the Ombudsman investigation. Obviously, that must be the AGs first step. i.e. to confirm the CASA CEOs resoluteness as to the truthfulness of information provided by herself and her Executive team.
I wish to proceed with this matter. These allegations are substantive. I have substantial supporting evidence, and I have sought professional involvement in the formulation of documentation that attends directly to my allegations of Misfeasance in Public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of legal, International and Regulatory Affairs That will be provided in due course.
In this correspondence, I am going to provide you with two sets of “Descriptors”.
One set of ‘descriptors”, is the clear truth and can be supported with an overwhelming body of evidence, including very senior ex CASA Employees. the other is false and misleading.
I am calling on you to present these two sets of descriptors to the investigating officer from within the Ombudsman’s Office
If the Ombudsman has formed the view that the “Group A descriptors” are the more accurate set of descriptors for the structure that I adopted in my Business, then I am fully satisfied that the Ombudsman has been misled by those individuals and must insist that this matter be pursued.
Group A Descriptors.
· A “new” organisational structure was adopted by Glen Buckley
· An “unusual” organisational structure was adopted by Glen Buckley
· A “structure” that CASA had not dealt with before was adopted by Glen Buckley
Or,
Group B Descriptors
· Glen Buckley adopted a well “established” structure that had been completely standard industry practice for most medium to larger flying schools and approved by CASA on hundreds of occasions over many decades, as it was with his Organisation until October 2018.
· For over a decade Glen Buckley had adopted “completely normal” organisational structure that was commonplace throughout the industry but only after a formal CASA process. It fully complied with all legislation.
· Glen Buckley adopted an organisational structure that was, and importantly continues to be, a completely standard and CASA approved structure. This structure had been accepted and approved by CASA on literally hundreds of occasions over previous decades and continues to be.
This approach facilitates a prompt and efficient means by which an initial assessment can be made. It could effectively be determined of a single phone call between the two Agencies.
If the Ombudsman Office has formed the view that the Descriptors in “A” are more of an accurate representation of the situation, then I am fully satisfied that the named senior CASA Executives have deliberately provided misleading information to the Ombudsman Office, and they have successfully perverted or influenced that investigation.
This rather simplified initial approach will promptly verify the two diverse representations and leave no doubt at all that one Party is providing false and misleading information. This approach requires no technical background or understanding and is intended to very clearly and concisely identify that there are two very opposite “versions”. Somebody is being deceptive and should be held to account for that deceptiveness. In information obtained by me under FOI, the Ombudsman has clearly identified a tendency within CASA to be somewhat less than forthcoming, as would be expected when trying to cover up misconduct.
This really is a black and white matter that would be immediately resolved with a single phone call to someone with expertise on this matter within CASA. That person would have to be someone other than the three named individuals who have clearly and undeniably demonstrated a propensity to provide false and misleading information. Alternatively, I can make half a dozen ex CASA employees almost immediately available to you.
It is not a matter that should be unresolved after 5 years. The only way that this could remain unresolved is that the Ombudsman office is either unable to resolve this basic fact or is unwilling to resolve this basic fact.
I point out that throughout the five-year investigation the two narratives provided by myself, and CASA were so opposed to each other. It would have been immediately obvious at the onset of the investigation that one party was providing false and misleading information.
Turning a blind eye only encourages the continuation of such conduct. The Robodebt Inquiry identified these deficiencies within the Ombudsman Office, they continue, and must be addressed. i.e. accepting the Agencies “word” rather than seeking “evidence’
That is at least the starting point of an initial consideration. My intention is to follow up with shorter correspondence on several topics. In that correspondence you will simply need to ask the Ombudsman which of the descriptors more accurately represent the view that the Ombudsman has formed.
It is staggering that after 5 years the Ombudsman wrote to me advising that they were still unable to make a determination on this issue. A staggering inability. On one hand you have Glen Buckley advising that the structure I used was commonplace throughout the industry, and CASA advising that was not the case and they had never permitted it.
My allegation of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs would depend very much on me being able to demonstrate that I was targeted by Mr Aleck.
An indicator of being targeted would be if Mr Aleck specifically targeted me. I appreciate the “convenience” that comes with the Ombudsman being unable to decide as to whether the structure I adopted was new and unusual, or if was completely standard CASA approved practice for over 30 years. With most medium to larger schools adopting the same structure.
It is however such a staggering inability, that one is compelled to consider that by avoiding a determination on this matter, a level of “protection” is being afforded to Mr Aleck that the public would not reasonably expect from the Ombudsman’s Office.
I also make the point that I have made Australia’s two leading Subject matter experts available to bring almost immediate clarity to this matter. Those two individuals are both ex-CASA Employees from the most senior of positions, who have offered to come forward and tell the truth on this matter.
The refusal by the Ombudsman to accept that offer only reinforces my view that Mr Aleck is being “protected”, and that the Ombudsman is pursuing the more “convenient” path.
I must make note at this stage that the Ombudsman Office has not sought evidence in situations where evidence is available and could potentially have brought harm to the agency and I will attend specifically to those allegations in similar manner in separate correspondence at a later stage. I have put signific work into this document and intend to have it finalised within 30 days.
For your further consideration, and considering that I had operated that Business with the same structure for over decade and Ms Spence claims that the structure was “new” or “unusual” which it most certainly was not, then Ms Spence should be able to clearly identify.
Specifically
1. What was it specifically that was “new” about the structure I adopted for over a decade?
2. What was it specifically that was “unusual” about the structure that I adopted for over a decade?
3. What date was it specifically that something changed in the structure after 2006,that made it become either “new” or unusual”?
These are three questions that CASA resolutely attends to, despite my best efforts.
The purpose of this correspondence is to request that the AG has established contact with the Ombudsman Office to identify if the named individuals have led the Ombudsman Office to form the view that the Group A descriptors are a more accurate representation from their investigation than the Group B descriptors.
“New” and “unusual” are both “descriptors” used by Ms Spence in correspondence with the Ombudsman Office, that I obtained under FOI, and those descriptors are false and have been used to mislead.
My business model was not new or unusual. It had existed for over a decade with the identical structure. That was a structure that was completely standard industry practice and continues to be to this day. I was targeted by Mr Aleck based on existing acrimony between us.
I appreciate the substantive native of that allegation i.e. misfeasance in public office but I absolutely stand by it, and I am fully prepared to be held fully accountable if it was found that my allegations were vindictive or vexatious.
Ms Spence, the CASA CEO should be able to clearly identify specifically what it is that was “new” about my business structure. I am totally unaware of what it was that was “new”. A failure to specifically identify what was new with reference to legislation or supporting evidence, must surely raise doubts ads to the integrity of Ms. Spence. CASA steadfastly refuses to identify this to me, despite my requests. I am using the word “new” because under FOI I have identified that Ms Spence uses and accepts that terminology in correspondence with the Ombudsman office The terminology “new” is clearly false and misleading.
Ms Spence should be able to identify the specific change to my business structure and the date of that change. What was the change that suddenly made my business become “unusual” and leave me subject to prosecution? I am concerned that CASA refuses to identify this to me. In correspondence obtained by me under FOI, Ms Spence uses and accepts the terminology “unusual” for something that is not at all “unusual” and is in fact completely normal standard industry practice with CASA approval on every occasion. Ms Spence should clearly be able to identify the specific feature that made my Organisation “unusual”.
Any inability or reluctance to directly respond to those questions will clearly demonstrate the lack of “good intent”. They are the very basis that CASA used to force the closure of my business.
Thank you for your consideration of what is a most substantive allegation. If three CASA Executives were found to have provided false and misleading information to an Ombudsman investigation, it is a substantive matter, potentially with impacts on the safety of aviation.
Thankyou in anticipation of your careful consideration of these allegations. I hope that they will be considered with an approach of a better and safer aviation industry and that the AG Office has the willingness and ability to confront this matter.
If I can leave one final thought, should this matter proceed to litigation which appears to be CASAs preferred course of action. CASA will be compelled to act as a model litigant. One of those obligations upon CASA as a model litigant is that I should not be required to prove something that CASA already know to be true.
You will understand the difficulty that I have in proceeding with this matter if CASA chooses to mislead an Ombudsman investigation and is successful in that, it prevents me from seeking justice as it is likely that pattern would continue.
I am providing the link to a presentation I made on this matter to the Senate on 20/11/20 where I directly raised allegations of misfeasance in public office against Mr Aleck. The other named individuals departed CASA shortly after.
I also attach a link to Pprune being a discrete pilots forum. The link will take you to the front page, my topic Glen Buckley and small business V CASA can be promptly identified. You will note that there are well over 1,000,000 views and thousands of comments almost entirely supportive. A staggering level of support from industry on such a discrete forum.
https://www.pprune.org/pacific-gener...-questions-91/
I have also attached a link to the GoFund Me page that was established to support me. I have placed a pause on this pending the outcome of my current attempts to bring ethics and integrity to this matter. The “comments” attached to donations are revealing.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/glen-buckley-v-casa
I eagerly anticipate advise from the AG on how to proceed with this matter.
If I may leave the AG with one final consideration in support of my allegation of misfeasance in public office. Ms Spence should be able to provide a plausible answer as to why this matter could not have been fully resolved by a single meeting of less thah 4 hours. Why did it drag out for over 8 months with no resolution, and crippling trading restrictions in place for 8 months with the matter no further to resolution.
I have attached two articles from the Australian flying magazine that provide a good initial read. These are titled APTA before CASA action and APTA after CASA action
Respectfully
Glen Buckley