Torres
That is not what Mr Smith asked, nor was it the cause of his action. "Entitlement to a decision" is not relevent in respect to whether Mr Smith was entitled to a timely response to his letter.
- On 10th January 2008 Mr Smith wrote to the CASA CEO requesting a dispensation and received no response.
- On 23 January 2008 he wrote to CASA Team Leader – Flying Operations requesting an approval and again received no response.
- On 23 May 2008 Mr Smith's lawyer wrote to CASA CEO requesting a response to Mr Smith's original application letter.
The nature of Mr Smith's request is irrelevent.
You are spot on. Forget the technical legal issues raised by Creampuff. Dick, like anyone else, was entitled to a timely response. And whether you like him or not, Dick at least has been the only head of the Authority that had a real vision for where the organisation should be headed
Unfortunately, there is no accountability on the part of the current CASA CEO and his senior managers. And anyway, it is probably a bit hard to answer correspondence when you don't actually front up to work.
Interesting that at the last Senate Estimates Mr Byron excused himself and left early because he was taking a holiday - which was more important than sticking around to answer questions from those pesky Senators (even though he knew well in advance, as do all public servants, when Estimates occur. Funny, he did the same thing when the Lockhart river accident occurred). That same day the Senate announced an inquiry into CASA focusing on the Byron years. A coincidence? Or do you think they have finally had enough of this unaccountable CEO?