Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Thread Starter
Complaint One Industry Complaints Commissioner
Dear Mr Hanton,
Please accept my Complaint against Flight Operations Inspector, Mr XXXX XXXXX.
There can be no doubt that "Temporary Locations" have been a procedure in existence throughout my 25 years experience in the Industry. If CASA claim to refute that statement i draw your attention that;
I have attached previous correspondence that should provide all the information that you require. As this is a relatively minor request, my hope is that it could be attended to promptly.
The Complaint
In the meeting in CASA Offices (November 2018), Mr XXXX XXXXX clearly stated in front of me and two of my staff that;
"ive had legal advice that Temporary Locations were not intended for flying schools"
That is not a truthful statement, and coming from a background in the flight training industry, i feel he would have been aware of it at the time he made the statement. I feel he made the false statement to support his intended outcome of bringing harm to me and my business.
Expected Outcome
Therefore can you please advise if
CASA did provide legal advice to him that Temporary Locations were not intended for flying schools, or if the statement he made is not truthful.
If Mr XXXXX stands by his assertion could you identify who it was within CASA that provided him the "legal advice".
If Mr XXXXX asserts that he did not make that statement, please advise if 3 Statutory Declarations by me and my staff would be of any assistance.
Thankyou for your prompt attention to this matter.
Please be aware that i have included Mr Anthony Mathews (CASA Board Chairman) in on this correspondence, and also the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. In doing so, my hope is that i can ensure transparency and accountability going forward.
Thankyou, Glen Buckley
Please accept my Complaint against Flight Operations Inspector, Mr XXXX XXXXX.
There can be no doubt that "Temporary Locations" have been a procedure in existence throughout my 25 years experience in the Industry. If CASA claim to refute that statement i draw your attention that;
- CASA actually wrote the procedures on all AOCs for flying schools until approximately 2017.
- CASA mentioned Temporary locations in their own guidance material.
- APTAs manuals had a Temporary locations procedure that was put into our manuals on the suggestion of CASA.
- Those procedures were put into our manuals, approved by CASA, and in fact CASA approved those procedures for a number of our bases.
- CASA actually audited us on those procedures.
I have attached previous correspondence that should provide all the information that you require. As this is a relatively minor request, my hope is that it could be attended to promptly.
The Complaint
In the meeting in CASA Offices (November 2018), Mr XXXX XXXXX clearly stated in front of me and two of my staff that;
"ive had legal advice that Temporary Locations were not intended for flying schools"
That is not a truthful statement, and coming from a background in the flight training industry, i feel he would have been aware of it at the time he made the statement. I feel he made the false statement to support his intended outcome of bringing harm to me and my business.
Expected Outcome
Therefore can you please advise if
CASA did provide legal advice to him that Temporary Locations were not intended for flying schools, or if the statement he made is not truthful.
If Mr XXXXX stands by his assertion could you identify who it was within CASA that provided him the "legal advice".
If Mr XXXXX asserts that he did not make that statement, please advise if 3 Statutory Declarations by me and my staff would be of any assistance.
Thankyou for your prompt attention to this matter.
Please be aware that i have included Mr Anthony Mathews (CASA Board Chairman) in on this correspondence, and also the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. In doing so, my hope is that i can ensure transparency and accountability going forward.
Thankyou, Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
Complaint Two Industry Complaints Commissioner
COMPLAINT TWO - DIRECT OPERATIONAL CONTROL – Submitted-26/02/20
Dear Mr Jonathan Hanton,
Please accept the lodgement of a formal complaint. Please not that I have included Mr Anthony Mathews the Chair of the CASA Board in on this email. I have also included the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Michael Mc Cormack as he is the Minister responsible for CASA.
Background
As you are aware there are three separate and distinct actions that CASA has done to bring harm to my ability to derive my livelihood in the industry. For clarity, and CASA does not dispute this fact, none of these actions were taken on the basis of any safety concerns. For that reason, I cannot understand why CASA adopted such an unnecessary and heavy-handed approach.
I would also point out that there were no legislative breaches.
The CASA actions had no basis on safety concerns, or no regulatory breaches. Admittedly, I had been critical of CASAs waste of hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds, and I had put my name to that criticism. I therefore believe that CASA actions were vindictive, vexatious, bullying and intimidating in nature. There is no legislative support of CASA actions.
The CASA actions lead to the closure of a several well intentioned, safe and compliant businesses, of which mine was one of those.
Those three separate actions have cost me many millions of dollars and resulted in the loss of my business, and caused unacceptable harm to my parents, my wife, my children, other entities, suppliers and people depending on me for their livelihood.
Those were
1. CASA reversal of approval with no prior notice on APTA and the associated restrictions on my ability to trade, leading to the failure of the business. I point out that I had spent two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars designing APTA with significant involvement of CASA personnel as I attended to over 600 CASA stipulated requirements.
2. CASA introducing terminology called “direct operational control” and applied that to my business only, and not others.
3. The direction that my position as an employee of APTA was untenable from the Region Manager, Mr jason Mc Heyzer. He made that direction on the basis of “comments that I was making publicly”, which I assume to be on a pilots chat forum pprune https://www.pprune.org/australia-new...ss-v-casa.html
In this correspondence, I wish to concentrate on item 2, “direct operational control”.
I had a flying school that had been delivering industry leading levels of safety and compliance for over 15 years. That was the regular feedback that I received from CASA.
In June 2019, CASA Region Manager, Mr Jason Mc Heyzer introduced a new terminology that is not defined anywhere in CASA legislation. He called it “direct operational control”.
He directed that I was to transfer my customers and staff to a different entity under the control of the new owners of APTA. You will recall that I was forced to sell APTA under duress at 5% of its value because of restrictions on its ability to trade.
By directing me to transfer my flying school, MFT to another entity, this obviously moved my previous revenue streams to another business.
By denying me access to the revenue streams of my business of 15 years, that caused significant financial difficulties for me. I had transferred my revenue but was left “holding the bag” for the ongoing expenses of the business, with no capacity to pay those expenses.
An example of this is telephone systems with lease payments, photocopiers, vehicles, printers etc. I have two upcoming court cases regarding my inability to meet those contractual obligations, which as you will appreciate causes me significant stress and impacts on my family’s welfare.
Mr Craig Martin in his role as the CASA Executive Manager, Regulatory Services and Surveillance was aware of this action, and in an email dated 20/06/19 stated; “for the avoidance of doubt, this would allow flight training to be conducted by APTA employees only- not employees of affilaites”.
That direction is in my opinion unlawful and exists nowhere else in industry i.e. it is a specific requirement placed on me only. I have never heard of this requirement, and believe it has no legislative basis. I am yet again dealing with someone’s opinion rather than any legislative requirement.
Once I had complied with Mr Jason Mc Heyzers requirements, I wrote to Mr Craig Martin to confirm I had done so, and I include the contents of that email dated 22/08/20 below.
“Dear Craig,
As the owner of MFT, I can now confirm that I have complied with the CASA requirements.
All staff have been transferred to APTA, as have aircraft and other resources. Bank account access has been handed over, and APTA has “direct operational control.” In all financial aspects APTA has now taken over control in addition to responsibilities previously held by APTA i.e. safety and compliance.
I appreciate that CASA is preparing a comprehensive response, and I anxiously await that.
Can I ask that response specifically addresses these questions.
Is the CASA expectation that all MFT employees are terminated from employment i.e. all leave paid, long service entitlements etc, and they all commence new employment contracts with APTA. This question is being asked of me by the staff. My assumption is that MFT must cease their employment. Please let me know as soon as practical if I have misunderstood the requirement, as I will be proceeding on this basis, as it appears there is no other option.
I appreciate that you were not satisfied with the previous arrangement between APTA and members where the members shared the costs of operating, hence I have taken the required action above. Obviously with APTA taking over financial control in addition to safety and compliance, all revenue from my own business, MFT is now redirected to APTA, which obviously leaves me as the business owner without a business i.e. no revenue.
Can you outline, the acceptable process by which I can derive an income i.e. I believe the CASA proposal is that APTA pays me per flying hour that they do on MFTs or something along those lines. Im hoping that after 9 months, CASA has had the opportunity to consider these matters.
I will comply with any requirement you stipulate. My family has been derived from any income for almost two months, and I want to get this resolved as soon as can be achieved, but I appreciate that it must be compliant with CASA legislation. For clarity, please outline in the new “direct operational control” model, my business MFT is able to derive its income.
Respectfully, Glen.
P.S. Can I call on you to respond as soon as practical so I can move forward, cheers”
Unfortunately, Mr Craig Martin chose not to respond as is often the case when dealing with him. Frequent follow up requests were also ignored, and I have attached that in support of my contentions.
My complaint
Does the direction to transfer my staff and students to a different entity have any basis in law?
If so can you state the relevant legislation?
Why does CASA apply that requirement to Glen Buckley but not to any other aviation organisation in Australia?
Expected Outcome
Clear and concise responses to the complaints I have raised.
Thanking you in anticipation of a response. The attachments clearly show I have tried repeatedly to resolve this with Mr Graeme Crawford, Mr Craig Martin, and Mr Jason Mc Heyzer. Their failure to respond raises concerns about their ethics, intentions, and the lawfulness of their directions.
Your response will assist me to identify if the decisions and administrative actions are lawful. It will also assist me to get a response to previous requests that CASA has not responded to in a meaningful or timely manner.
Dear Mr Jonathan Hanton,
Please accept the lodgement of a formal complaint. Please not that I have included Mr Anthony Mathews the Chair of the CASA Board in on this email. I have also included the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Michael Mc Cormack as he is the Minister responsible for CASA.
Background
As you are aware there are three separate and distinct actions that CASA has done to bring harm to my ability to derive my livelihood in the industry. For clarity, and CASA does not dispute this fact, none of these actions were taken on the basis of any safety concerns. For that reason, I cannot understand why CASA adopted such an unnecessary and heavy-handed approach.
I would also point out that there were no legislative breaches.
The CASA actions had no basis on safety concerns, or no regulatory breaches. Admittedly, I had been critical of CASAs waste of hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds, and I had put my name to that criticism. I therefore believe that CASA actions were vindictive, vexatious, bullying and intimidating in nature. There is no legislative support of CASA actions.
The CASA actions lead to the closure of a several well intentioned, safe and compliant businesses, of which mine was one of those.
Those three separate actions have cost me many millions of dollars and resulted in the loss of my business, and caused unacceptable harm to my parents, my wife, my children, other entities, suppliers and people depending on me for their livelihood.
Those were
1. CASA reversal of approval with no prior notice on APTA and the associated restrictions on my ability to trade, leading to the failure of the business. I point out that I had spent two years and hundreds of thousands of dollars designing APTA with significant involvement of CASA personnel as I attended to over 600 CASA stipulated requirements.
2. CASA introducing terminology called “direct operational control” and applied that to my business only, and not others.
3. The direction that my position as an employee of APTA was untenable from the Region Manager, Mr jason Mc Heyzer. He made that direction on the basis of “comments that I was making publicly”, which I assume to be on a pilots chat forum pprune https://www.pprune.org/australia-new...ss-v-casa.html
In this correspondence, I wish to concentrate on item 2, “direct operational control”.
I had a flying school that had been delivering industry leading levels of safety and compliance for over 15 years. That was the regular feedback that I received from CASA.
In June 2019, CASA Region Manager, Mr Jason Mc Heyzer introduced a new terminology that is not defined anywhere in CASA legislation. He called it “direct operational control”.
He directed that I was to transfer my customers and staff to a different entity under the control of the new owners of APTA. You will recall that I was forced to sell APTA under duress at 5% of its value because of restrictions on its ability to trade.
By directing me to transfer my flying school, MFT to another entity, this obviously moved my previous revenue streams to another business.
By denying me access to the revenue streams of my business of 15 years, that caused significant financial difficulties for me. I had transferred my revenue but was left “holding the bag” for the ongoing expenses of the business, with no capacity to pay those expenses.
An example of this is telephone systems with lease payments, photocopiers, vehicles, printers etc. I have two upcoming court cases regarding my inability to meet those contractual obligations, which as you will appreciate causes me significant stress and impacts on my family’s welfare.
Mr Craig Martin in his role as the CASA Executive Manager, Regulatory Services and Surveillance was aware of this action, and in an email dated 20/06/19 stated; “for the avoidance of doubt, this would allow flight training to be conducted by APTA employees only- not employees of affilaites”.
That direction is in my opinion unlawful and exists nowhere else in industry i.e. it is a specific requirement placed on me only. I have never heard of this requirement, and believe it has no legislative basis. I am yet again dealing with someone’s opinion rather than any legislative requirement.
Once I had complied with Mr Jason Mc Heyzers requirements, I wrote to Mr Craig Martin to confirm I had done so, and I include the contents of that email dated 22/08/20 below.
“Dear Craig,
As the owner of MFT, I can now confirm that I have complied with the CASA requirements.
All staff have been transferred to APTA, as have aircraft and other resources. Bank account access has been handed over, and APTA has “direct operational control.” In all financial aspects APTA has now taken over control in addition to responsibilities previously held by APTA i.e. safety and compliance.
I appreciate that CASA is preparing a comprehensive response, and I anxiously await that.
Can I ask that response specifically addresses these questions.
Is the CASA expectation that all MFT employees are terminated from employment i.e. all leave paid, long service entitlements etc, and they all commence new employment contracts with APTA. This question is being asked of me by the staff. My assumption is that MFT must cease their employment. Please let me know as soon as practical if I have misunderstood the requirement, as I will be proceeding on this basis, as it appears there is no other option.
I appreciate that you were not satisfied with the previous arrangement between APTA and members where the members shared the costs of operating, hence I have taken the required action above. Obviously with APTA taking over financial control in addition to safety and compliance, all revenue from my own business, MFT is now redirected to APTA, which obviously leaves me as the business owner without a business i.e. no revenue.
Can you outline, the acceptable process by which I can derive an income i.e. I believe the CASA proposal is that APTA pays me per flying hour that they do on MFTs or something along those lines. Im hoping that after 9 months, CASA has had the opportunity to consider these matters.
I will comply with any requirement you stipulate. My family has been derived from any income for almost two months, and I want to get this resolved as soon as can be achieved, but I appreciate that it must be compliant with CASA legislation. For clarity, please outline in the new “direct operational control” model, my business MFT is able to derive its income.
Respectfully, Glen.
P.S. Can I call on you to respond as soon as practical so I can move forward, cheers”
Unfortunately, Mr Craig Martin chose not to respond as is often the case when dealing with him. Frequent follow up requests were also ignored, and I have attached that in support of my contentions.
My complaint
Does the direction to transfer my staff and students to a different entity have any basis in law?
If so can you state the relevant legislation?
Why does CASA apply that requirement to Glen Buckley but not to any other aviation organisation in Australia?
Expected Outcome
Clear and concise responses to the complaints I have raised.
Thanking you in anticipation of a response. The attachments clearly show I have tried repeatedly to resolve this with Mr Graeme Crawford, Mr Craig Martin, and Mr Jason Mc Heyzer. Their failure to respond raises concerns about their ethics, intentions, and the lawfulness of their directions.
Your response will assist me to identify if the decisions and administrative actions are lawful. It will also assist me to get a response to previous requests that CASA has not responded to in a meaningful or timely manner.
Thread Starter
Complaint Three- Industry Complaints Commissioner
COMPLAINT THREE- Breaches of Administrative Law, Procedural Fairness/Natural Justice
To; The Honourable Mr Michael McCormack, Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, being the Minister responsible for CASA.
To Mr Anthony Mathews, the Chairperson of the Board of CASA, responsible for good governance within CASA, and a person who this matter has previously been raised with.
To Mr Jonathan Hanton, the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner, the person that I am submitting this complaint to.
Dear Mr Michael Mc Cormack, I am submitting this complaint to your Department, as well as the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner, and on this matter, I am expecting an acknowledgement that it has been received by your office. I am respectfully requesting that you make a direction to CASA that they release the attached redacted notes to me. I am of the opinion that these notes were created maliciously to bring harm to me and my business. I believe I can name the author of these notes to support my contention that a Flight Operations Inspector within CASA is acting vindictively and abusing his power. By releasing those notes to me, I will have the opportunity that I should be afforded as per the CASA Enforcement manual, and the obligations placed on CASA in the Enforcement Manual (Appendix 2), and under Administrative Law.
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/defaul...f/009rfull.pdf
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Dear Mr Anthony Mathews, I am expecting an acknowledgement that you have read this complaint. You will then have the opportunity to intervene if you feel personnel have not conducted themselves professionally, and in accordance with their obligations.
Dear Mr Jonathan Hanton, I am expecting a prompt investigation of this matter, and a response.
Background
Me and my family have been left destitute as result of the action CASA took against my business. It has significantly impacted on my family’s welfare. It has impacted on my wife, who has now worked for 5 straight months with only one day off. My daughter, who will be unable to continue with her double degree at a Regional University. My youngest son who will not be able to complete his final year of High School, on my older son who has used his savings for his home deposit to support his family, and on my parents who diverted over $250,000 into my business to ensure that I could avoid making any of my highly valued and professional staff redundant during the relentless attack that CASA undertook against me and my business, over a period of 8 months until I was forced to sell the business under duress to ensure that I could meet my obligations to my staff and suppliers.
This issue is wider than my own business because several other Australian owned small businesses were also forced into closure by CASA misconduct, directly related to this matter.
CASA took significant action against my business that was not based on safety concerns, and there were no regulatory breaches. You are aware that I am of the opinion CASA action was vindictive and vexatious, and that there was an associated “cover-up” that extended through to Board Level within CASA, hence I have appealed to the Deputy Prime Minister for his direct intervention.
The Complaint
CASA conducted an audit at our Latrobe Valley Base on 3rd September 2018. CASA denies an audit was conducted. It was identified to me as an audit by the Region Manager in the presence of the Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance.
I note that CASA changed its mind at a later time and re-defined it as an “assessment”
Then with no prior warning on October 3rd, I received notification that my entire operation would potentially be shut down at any time after 7 days.
On November 20th 2018, I received an email from the CASA Region Manager stating “the assessment of the Latrobe Valley Aero Club was used as the basis of seeking legal advice……..”
It cannot be disputed that the Latrobe Valley audit/assessment was the catalyst for the problems that would follow, including the restrictions on my ability to trade, leading to the loss of that business, and the closure of a number of other Australian owned small businesses.
I submitted a complaint to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner, and in his “Outcome of the ICC review he stated; “ Theres no record of the documents I would expect to see if a level 2 audit had been commenced in CASAs Sky Sentinel surveillance data base…..”
Irrespective of the ICCs findings I made a Freedom of Information request for those findings, which were provided to me and are attached. These 9 pages are completely redacted, and obviously of no value to me.
You will appreciate that if an assessment/audit is conducted on an organisation and those findings are used as the basis of a CASA legal decision to shut down my operation it would seem entirely fair that I am provided with those results, in order to provide me the opportunity to respond.
I feel that no determination should be made by CASA unless I have had the right to respond, and my response is considered by CASA in arriving at their determination.
In fact I feel that CASA have obligations placed on them under Administrative Law/ Procedural Fairness, and Natural Justice.
I have also included some extracts from CASAs Enforcement manual, below and I draw your attention to Appendix 2 of the manual (link provided above)
· “PREFACE As a Commonwealth government authority, CASA must ensure that its decision- making processes are effective, fair, timely, transparent, consistent, properly documented and otherwise in accordance with the requirements of the law. At the same time, we are committed to ensuring that all of our actions are consistent with the principles reflected in our Regulatory Philosophy.”
· “Further to the Minister’s Statement, in September 2015 CASA published its Regulatory Philosophy to guide and direct CASA’s approach to the performance of its regulatory functions and the exercise of its regulatory powers. The ten principles that comprise CASA’s Regulatory Philosophy are set out below.
CASA is committed to maintaining the trust and respect of the aviation community.
Mindful of the primacy of air safety, CASA takes account of all relevant considerations, including cost.
CASA takes risk-based approaches to regulatory action and decision-making.
CASA performs its functions consistently with Australia's international obligations.
CASA approaches its regulatory functions consultatively and collaboratively.
CASA communicates fully and meaningfully with all relevant stakeholders.
CASA fairly balances the need for consistency with the need for flexibility.
CASA embraces and employs rational 'just culture' principles in its regulatory and related actions.
CASA demonstrates proportionality and discretion in regulatory decision-making and exercises its powers in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice.
CASA has a legitimate, but limited, role in pursuing punitive action for breaches of the civil aviation legislation.”
· “2.4.1 Natural Justice and Accountability Enforcement decisions must be: Fair and follow due process Transparent to those involved Subject to appropriate internal and external review”.
Expected Outcome of the ICC review.
On the day of the audit, CASA advised that they only noted minor anomalies with one of our “inhouse exams”, yet they secretly created many pages of notes that I was not provided with, or given the opportunity to respond to.
CASA took action based on those notes that resulted in the loss of a multi million dollar business, left my family destitute, and resulted in the closure of a number of Australian owned businesses.
By doing so, was I denied my rights under Administrative Law?
Did CASA comply with its own Regulatory Philosophy?
Did CASA comply with the Ministers Statement of Expectations?
Thankyou for your consideration of my complaint
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
To; The Honourable Mr Michael McCormack, Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, being the Minister responsible for CASA.
To Mr Anthony Mathews, the Chairperson of the Board of CASA, responsible for good governance within CASA, and a person who this matter has previously been raised with.
To Mr Jonathan Hanton, the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner, the person that I am submitting this complaint to.
Dear Mr Michael Mc Cormack, I am submitting this complaint to your Department, as well as the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner, and on this matter, I am expecting an acknowledgement that it has been received by your office. I am respectfully requesting that you make a direction to CASA that they release the attached redacted notes to me. I am of the opinion that these notes were created maliciously to bring harm to me and my business. I believe I can name the author of these notes to support my contention that a Flight Operations Inspector within CASA is acting vindictively and abusing his power. By releasing those notes to me, I will have the opportunity that I should be afforded as per the CASA Enforcement manual, and the obligations placed on CASA in the Enforcement Manual (Appendix 2), and under Administrative Law.
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/defaul...f/009rfull.pdf
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Dear Mr Anthony Mathews, I am expecting an acknowledgement that you have read this complaint. You will then have the opportunity to intervene if you feel personnel have not conducted themselves professionally, and in accordance with their obligations.
Dear Mr Jonathan Hanton, I am expecting a prompt investigation of this matter, and a response.
Background
Me and my family have been left destitute as result of the action CASA took against my business. It has significantly impacted on my family’s welfare. It has impacted on my wife, who has now worked for 5 straight months with only one day off. My daughter, who will be unable to continue with her double degree at a Regional University. My youngest son who will not be able to complete his final year of High School, on my older son who has used his savings for his home deposit to support his family, and on my parents who diverted over $250,000 into my business to ensure that I could avoid making any of my highly valued and professional staff redundant during the relentless attack that CASA undertook against me and my business, over a period of 8 months until I was forced to sell the business under duress to ensure that I could meet my obligations to my staff and suppliers.
This issue is wider than my own business because several other Australian owned small businesses were also forced into closure by CASA misconduct, directly related to this matter.
CASA took significant action against my business that was not based on safety concerns, and there were no regulatory breaches. You are aware that I am of the opinion CASA action was vindictive and vexatious, and that there was an associated “cover-up” that extended through to Board Level within CASA, hence I have appealed to the Deputy Prime Minister for his direct intervention.
The Complaint
CASA conducted an audit at our Latrobe Valley Base on 3rd September 2018. CASA denies an audit was conducted. It was identified to me as an audit by the Region Manager in the presence of the Executive Manager Regulatory Services and Surveillance.
I note that CASA changed its mind at a later time and re-defined it as an “assessment”
Then with no prior warning on October 3rd, I received notification that my entire operation would potentially be shut down at any time after 7 days.
On November 20th 2018, I received an email from the CASA Region Manager stating “the assessment of the Latrobe Valley Aero Club was used as the basis of seeking legal advice……..”
It cannot be disputed that the Latrobe Valley audit/assessment was the catalyst for the problems that would follow, including the restrictions on my ability to trade, leading to the loss of that business, and the closure of a number of other Australian owned small businesses.
I submitted a complaint to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner, and in his “Outcome of the ICC review he stated; “ Theres no record of the documents I would expect to see if a level 2 audit had been commenced in CASAs Sky Sentinel surveillance data base…..”
Irrespective of the ICCs findings I made a Freedom of Information request for those findings, which were provided to me and are attached. These 9 pages are completely redacted, and obviously of no value to me.
You will appreciate that if an assessment/audit is conducted on an organisation and those findings are used as the basis of a CASA legal decision to shut down my operation it would seem entirely fair that I am provided with those results, in order to provide me the opportunity to respond.
I feel that no determination should be made by CASA unless I have had the right to respond, and my response is considered by CASA in arriving at their determination.
In fact I feel that CASA have obligations placed on them under Administrative Law/ Procedural Fairness, and Natural Justice.
I have also included some extracts from CASAs Enforcement manual, below and I draw your attention to Appendix 2 of the manual (link provided above)
· “PREFACE As a Commonwealth government authority, CASA must ensure that its decision- making processes are effective, fair, timely, transparent, consistent, properly documented and otherwise in accordance with the requirements of the law. At the same time, we are committed to ensuring that all of our actions are consistent with the principles reflected in our Regulatory Philosophy.”
· “Further to the Minister’s Statement, in September 2015 CASA published its Regulatory Philosophy to guide and direct CASA’s approach to the performance of its regulatory functions and the exercise of its regulatory powers. The ten principles that comprise CASA’s Regulatory Philosophy are set out below.
CASA is committed to maintaining the trust and respect of the aviation community.
Mindful of the primacy of air safety, CASA takes account of all relevant considerations, including cost.
CASA takes risk-based approaches to regulatory action and decision-making.
CASA performs its functions consistently with Australia's international obligations.
CASA approaches its regulatory functions consultatively and collaboratively.
CASA communicates fully and meaningfully with all relevant stakeholders.
CASA fairly balances the need for consistency with the need for flexibility.
CASA embraces and employs rational 'just culture' principles in its regulatory and related actions.
CASA demonstrates proportionality and discretion in regulatory decision-making and exercises its powers in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice.
CASA has a legitimate, but limited, role in pursuing punitive action for breaches of the civil aviation legislation.”
· “2.4.1 Natural Justice and Accountability Enforcement decisions must be: Fair and follow due process Transparent to those involved Subject to appropriate internal and external review”.
Expected Outcome of the ICC review.
On the day of the audit, CASA advised that they only noted minor anomalies with one of our “inhouse exams”, yet they secretly created many pages of notes that I was not provided with, or given the opportunity to respond to.
CASA took action based on those notes that resulted in the loss of a multi million dollar business, left my family destitute, and resulted in the closure of a number of Australian owned businesses.
By doing so, was I denied my rights under Administrative Law?
Did CASA comply with its own Regulatory Philosophy?
Did CASA comply with the Ministers Statement of Expectations?
Thankyou for your consideration of my complaint
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
Lots more to come
Havick, there is a lot more to come, trust me. There will be 15 complaints submitted in total, one a day. Ive been dealing with these fiends for over twelve months now. It is a disgusting coverup extending all the way to the Chairman of the Board, Mr Anthony Mathews. I intend to include the Deputy Prime Minister in on every complaint. If he chooses not to intervene, he will be complicit as well. I now know that i have the media following and this will be exposed. This is an organisation with absolutely no ethics at the highest level. The organisation contains so many capable, professional and well intentioned people, but the leadership is dangerous and disgusting.
It will be interesting to see the results of the Industry Complaints Commissioner. A difficult position to be in, when you are on the CASA payroll.
Its too late for me and my family. The purpose is to encourage government intervention to ensure no other small business owner is subjected to the conduct exhibited by Dr Aleck and Graeme Crawford. To iniate a change of the CASA board, and have Mr Carmodys capability as a CEO exposed.
That just got me off a few Christmas card lists.
Next will be an appeal to the National Party as a whole and a direct appeal to the Prime Minister with well supported evidence
It will be interesting to see the results of the Industry Complaints Commissioner. A difficult position to be in, when you are on the CASA payroll.
Its too late for me and my family. The purpose is to encourage government intervention to ensure no other small business owner is subjected to the conduct exhibited by Dr Aleck and Graeme Crawford. To iniate a change of the CASA board, and have Mr Carmodys capability as a CEO exposed.
That just got me off a few Christmas card lists.
Next will be an appeal to the National Party as a whole and a direct appeal to the Prime Minister with well supported evidence
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: ACT
Age: 68
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glen - Your loss of your business is indeed unfortunate. I understand how your pursuit of justice is all-consuming but you're wasting your time repeatedly composing letters to the personnel involved. Your bombardment of letters make it too easy for the recipients to fob you off. Your only avenue of redress is to pursue the matter legally. There is action under the AD(JR) Act that you can also take but for some reason you (and your legal counsel) seem to have ignored this avenue. Strongly suggest you change tack.
I must say I agree, I haven’t gone back through all the messages but what did they say?
Glen - you have to get people OUTSIDE the Board to take notice - just sending more stuff to them won't do it - a legal action for example WILL get attention and will be hard for the Board to fob off.
The only court Glen can afford is the big one - the court of public opinion. That will get the politicians galvanised immediately. The law courts will get you nothing. Casa have deep pockets and will drag it out.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Glen,
I’m sure you’ve probably been in contact with Senator Susan McDonald as I think she would be the only politician worth talking to.
https://www.theleader.com.au/story/6...ety-authority/
I’m sure you’ve probably been in contact with Senator Susan McDonald as I think she would be the only politician worth talking to.
https://www.theleader.com.au/story/6...ety-authority/
Glen - Your loss of your business is indeed unfortunate. I understand how your pursuit of justice is all-consuming but you're wasting your time repeatedly composing letters to the personnel involved. Your bombardment of letters make it too easy for the recipients to fob you off. Your only avenue of redress is to pursue the matter legally. There is action under the AD(JR) Act that you can also take but for some reason you (and your legal counsel) seem to have ignored this avenue. Strongly suggest you change tack.
I draw your attention to a certain mining billionaire and part time politician with bottomless pockets who simply was able to outspend and outlast his less wealthy targets in the legal system.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: ACT
Age: 68
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glen, got your PM but it appears you did not get mine in reply. In short, read the AD(JR) Act 1977 and lodge requests under s 13 with CASA for a statement of reasons in respect of each action/decision you're unhappy with. CASA must provide considered responses within 28 days.
What, precisely, is the administrative decision in respect of which Glen is entitled to reasons under the ADJR Act?
A decision to reallocate CMTs is not an administrative decision to which the ADJR Act is subject. Someone in CASA deciding to interpret a rule differently than someone else in CASA interprets it is not a decision to which the ADJR Act is subject. Someone in CASA deciding to tell someone they can’t employ Glen is not a decision to which the ADJR Act applies.
Glen has to apply for some certificate or licence or approval that CASA can grant him and be refused it. That’s a decision to which the ADJR Act applies.
A decision to reallocate CMTs is not an administrative decision to which the ADJR Act is subject. Someone in CASA deciding to interpret a rule differently than someone else in CASA interprets it is not a decision to which the ADJR Act is subject. Someone in CASA deciding to tell someone they can’t employ Glen is not a decision to which the ADJR Act applies.
Glen has to apply for some certificate or licence or approval that CASA can grant him and be refused it. That’s a decision to which the ADJR Act applies.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What, precisely, is the administrative decision in respect of which Glen is entitled to reasons under the ADJR Act?
A decision to reallocate CMTs is not an administrative decision to which the ADJR Act is subject. Someone in CASA deciding to interpret a rule differently than someone else in CASA interprets it is not a decision to which the ADJR Act is subject. Someone in CASA deciding to tell someone they can’t employ Glen is not a decision to which the ADJR Act applies.
Glen has to apply for some certificate or licence or approval that CASA can grant him and be refused it. That’s a decision to which the ADJR Act applies.
A decision to reallocate CMTs is not an administrative decision to which the ADJR Act is subject. Someone in CASA deciding to interpret a rule differently than someone else in CASA interprets it is not a decision to which the ADJR Act is subject. Someone in CASA deciding to tell someone they can’t employ Glen is not a decision to which the ADJR Act applies.
Glen has to apply for some certificate or licence or approval that CASA can grant him and be refused it. That’s a decision to which the ADJR Act applies.
It will take a smart legal team and a lot of money to outwit, outlast and outplay one Jonathan Aleck.