Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Natural Justice, Separation of powers and Rule/Regulation by Opinion
After reading that Mr McHeyzer has apparently been promoted to a senior role in the Health Regulator (presumably AHPRA) led me to look up the Senate enquiry into said organisation in 2017. The submissions are eye-opening and bear startling similarities to Glen's case - here are just a selection:
"The fundamental doctrine of the separation of powers in the Commonwealth of Nations (the Westminster system, which includes Australia) must be operational in any real democracy. It appears that the joy of practicing as a health practitioner in Australia is now replaced by daily feelings of fear and angst amongst an increasing number of registrants. This impacts on the direct and indirect delivery of human services by both the public and private sectors.
The basic requirements of acting according to natural law are unfortunately sometimes absent or capricious within the current operational jurisprudence of the Australian Health Practitioners Regulatory Agency (AHPRA) (and many of predecessor boards and their delegates) – being the “judge, jury and executioner” by way of National Law and some repealed legislation."
"It is perceived that the current complaints mechanism is more concerned with the prosecution of practitioners than protecting patient safety through remediation of the issues that lead to the complaint."
"AHPRA is staffed by people that are implementing the National Law yet do not have legal qualifications. o There are health practitioners and lay people on the boards that are interpreting a National Law that has only just been developed, let alone tested. · The Medical Board seem to ‘make up the law as they go along’."
Sound familiar? If true, it must surely be a sad indictment of the "system" that the same fundamental complaints seem to crop up in completely different fields and professions - what is it about the Australian system of government that gives rise to such abuses of governance?
"The fundamental doctrine of the separation of powers in the Commonwealth of Nations (the Westminster system, which includes Australia) must be operational in any real democracy. It appears that the joy of practicing as a health practitioner in Australia is now replaced by daily feelings of fear and angst amongst an increasing number of registrants. This impacts on the direct and indirect delivery of human services by both the public and private sectors.
The basic requirements of acting according to natural law are unfortunately sometimes absent or capricious within the current operational jurisprudence of the Australian Health Practitioners Regulatory Agency (AHPRA) (and many of predecessor boards and their delegates) – being the “judge, jury and executioner” by way of National Law and some repealed legislation."
"It is perceived that the current complaints mechanism is more concerned with the prosecution of practitioners than protecting patient safety through remediation of the issues that lead to the complaint."
"AHPRA is staffed by people that are implementing the National Law yet do not have legal qualifications. o There are health practitioners and lay people on the boards that are interpreting a National Law that has only just been developed, let alone tested. · The Medical Board seem to ‘make up the law as they go along’."
Sound familiar? If true, it must surely be a sad indictment of the "system" that the same fundamental complaints seem to crop up in completely different fields and professions - what is it about the Australian system of government that gives rise to such abuses of governance?
After reading that Mr McHeyzer has apparently been promoted to a senior role in the Health Regulator (presumably AHPRA) led me to look up the Senate enquiry into said organisation in 2017. The submissions are eye-opening and bear startling similarities to Glen's case - here are just a selection:
"The fundamental doctrine of the separation of powers in the Commonwealth of Nations (the Westminster system, which includes Australia) must be operational in any real democracy. It appears that the joy of practicing as a health practitioner in Australia is now replaced by daily feelings of fear and angst amongst an increasing number of registrants. This impacts on the direct and indirect delivery of human services by both the public and private sectors.
The basic requirements of acting according to natural law are unfortunately sometimes absent or capricious within the current operational jurisprudence of the Australian Health Practitioners Regulatory Agency (AHPRA) (and many of predecessor boards and their delegates) – being the “judge, jury and executioner” by way of National Law and some repealed legislation."
"It is perceived that the current complaints mechanism is more concerned with the prosecution of practitioners than protecting patient safety through remediation of the issues that lead to the complaint."
"AHPRA is staffed by people that are implementing the National Law yet do not have legal qualifications. o There are health practitioners and lay people on the boards that are interpreting a National Law that has only just been developed, let alone tested. · The Medical Board seem to ‘make up the law as they go along’."
Sound familiar? If true, it must surely be a sad indictment of the "system" that the same fundamental complaints seem to crop up in completely different fields and professions - what is it about the Australian system of government that gives rise to such abuses of governance?
"The fundamental doctrine of the separation of powers in the Commonwealth of Nations (the Westminster system, which includes Australia) must be operational in any real democracy. It appears that the joy of practicing as a health practitioner in Australia is now replaced by daily feelings of fear and angst amongst an increasing number of registrants. This impacts on the direct and indirect delivery of human services by both the public and private sectors.
The basic requirements of acting according to natural law are unfortunately sometimes absent or capricious within the current operational jurisprudence of the Australian Health Practitioners Regulatory Agency (AHPRA) (and many of predecessor boards and their delegates) – being the “judge, jury and executioner” by way of National Law and some repealed legislation."
"It is perceived that the current complaints mechanism is more concerned with the prosecution of practitioners than protecting patient safety through remediation of the issues that lead to the complaint."
"AHPRA is staffed by people that are implementing the National Law yet do not have legal qualifications. o There are health practitioners and lay people on the boards that are interpreting a National Law that has only just been developed, let alone tested. · The Medical Board seem to ‘make up the law as they go along’."
Sound familiar? If true, it must surely be a sad indictment of the "system" that the same fundamental complaints seem to crop up in completely different fields and professions - what is it about the Australian system of government that gives rise to such abuses of governance?
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are some individuals in these agencies that are highly competent, but as time goes by, sure enough these individuals reluctantly depart to find more meaningful work, further lowering the general competence level in the workplace they've just departed.
I've experienced this over and over in government agencies. It's no accident that government now spends record amounts of $$ on external consultants to get competent opinions on all manner of work.
Thread Starter
POST 1244- Letter to CASA Board. CASA misleading Ombudsman
12/10/20
Allegation that CASA Employees have misled the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office in Phase One of his Investigation.
Dear Mr. Anthony Mathews, Chairperson of the Board of CASA.
I am concerned that CASA Personnel have deliberately misled the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office. Most likely with the intention of affecting the outcome of the investigation currently being undertaken.
In your role as the Chairperson of the CASA Board, you are the person ultimately responsible for ensuring CASA performs its functions in a “proper, efficient and effective manner”. I am bringing this to your attention, and also the attention of the Ombudsman's Office. I am imploring you to act with integrity and truthfulness, while being mindful of your obligations whilst acting as the Chair of the CASA Board, being Australia's national safety regulator, and operating under the Australian Coat of Arms.
The misleading information that CASA has provided is substantive and fundamental to the integrity of the investigation and subsequent findings of that investigation. Should these misconceptions be carried into Phase Two of the investigation it is likely that the outcome may be perverted.
1. CASA has led the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office to be of the view that CASA did not, and had not, historically permitted Flight Training Organisations (FTOs) to partake in “Franchised Air Operator Certificates ( AOC) arrangements,” when this is clearly not truthful.
2. CASA has led the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that the “Aviation Ruling- Franchised AOC arrangements’, was intended for Flight Training Organisations. That is not truthful.
3. CASA has led the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office to believe that the legislative change introduced on 1 September 2014 was the date that the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) changed. It was on that date the issue of misalignment of the CAR and Aviation Ruling began. That is not truthful.
4. CASA has led the Commonwealth Ombudsman to believe that APTA had made an AOC application. That is not correct.
The truth is.
On Point 1.
On Point 2.
On point 3,
On point 4.
The purpose of this correspondence, and what I am expecting
Dear Mr. Mathews, Chairperson of the Board of CASA. Could I respectfully request that you clarify the following with the Commonwealth Ombudsman and myself, to ensure there is no misunderstanding as Phase Two commences?
Is the following statement truthful?
CASA had been aware of, approved, and on occasions encouraged franchised AOC arrangements for Flight Training Organisations, and that was the situation throughout the last 25 years in the aviation industry right up until the date that CASA reversed their approval of my business.
This request does not require an extensive response, and it could be as short as a "yes" or a "no'. I appreciate you may choose to issue a more lengthy statement, but please be assured, I will hold you to account against every word that you write.
I am advised that this matter would also be under consideration by the BARC. The BARC ensures integrity over the Boards conduct.
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/defaul...rangements.pdf
Can you please advise me of the members of the BARC, and am I permitted to contact them directly.
Thank you in anticipation of you clarifying the misunderstandings and ensuring the integrity of the information that CASA provides to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Allegation that CASA Employees have misled the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office in Phase One of his Investigation.
Dear Mr. Anthony Mathews, Chairperson of the Board of CASA.
I am concerned that CASA Personnel have deliberately misled the Commonwealth Ombudsman's office. Most likely with the intention of affecting the outcome of the investigation currently being undertaken.
In your role as the Chairperson of the CASA Board, you are the person ultimately responsible for ensuring CASA performs its functions in a “proper, efficient and effective manner”. I am bringing this to your attention, and also the attention of the Ombudsman's Office. I am imploring you to act with integrity and truthfulness, while being mindful of your obligations whilst acting as the Chair of the CASA Board, being Australia's national safety regulator, and operating under the Australian Coat of Arms.
The misleading information that CASA has provided is substantive and fundamental to the integrity of the investigation and subsequent findings of that investigation. Should these misconceptions be carried into Phase Two of the investigation it is likely that the outcome may be perverted.
1. CASA has led the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office to be of the view that CASA did not, and had not, historically permitted Flight Training Organisations (FTOs) to partake in “Franchised Air Operator Certificates ( AOC) arrangements,” when this is clearly not truthful.
2. CASA has led the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that the “Aviation Ruling- Franchised AOC arrangements’, was intended for Flight Training Organisations. That is not truthful.
3. CASA has led the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office to believe that the legislative change introduced on 1 September 2014 was the date that the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) changed. It was on that date the issue of misalignment of the CAR and Aviation Ruling began. That is not truthful.
4. CASA has led the Commonwealth Ombudsman to believe that APTA had made an AOC application. That is not correct.
The truth is.
On Point 1.
- CASA did permit FTOs to operate under Franchised AOC arrangements throughout my 25 years of involvement in the flight training industry.
- This practice was permitted by CASA and continued up until the day CASA gave my organization notification that it was not permitted. and simultaneously placed restrictions on my business's ability to trade. This action was taken against my business only, and not others.
- CASA had approved a number of FTOs under Franchised AOC arrangements both prior to, and after the legislative change that CASA introduced on 1 September 2014.
- CASA approved FTOs to enter such arrangements well after the date of 1 September 2014. I know that from my own personal experience because CASA permitted an FTO called TVSA to operate under my AOC after the date of September 1st, 2014. Similarly, CASA permitted Latrobe Valley Aero Club to operate under the AOC of Bairnsdale Air Charter. There are many examples throughout Australia. I am informed that this practice also occurred in Mr. Craig Martins Region when he was a CASA Regional Manager. You will be able to confirm this directly with him in his current role as the current CASA Executive Manager of Regulatory Services and Surveillance.
- There was no change of law, there was only a change of "opinion" by Mr. Jonathan Aleck in his role as the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs. The first indication that Mr. Aleck had changed his mind was the notification made to my organization on 23/10/18. The change of opinion was applied to my business only, and not others. It came with no warning at all. It had no basis on any safety concerns. There was no legislative change, I was dealing with a change of “opinion” only, and I maintain that the change of opinion was not well-intentioned and had no basis in law or aviation safety.
On Point 2.
- The Aviation Ruling was released in 2006. On its release, CASA approached FTOs and advised them specifically, that the Aviation Ruling only applied to Charter Operators, and not to FTOs. I personally received that briefing from CASA as the business owner of a flying school. I have confirmed this with other FTOs, and that is clearly their recollection also. I can provide Statutory Declarations from those individuals if required. For CASA to suggest that their intention was that the Aviation Ruling applies to FTOs they are not being truthful. The truth is that it was not intended to apply to FTOs and that is the advice that CASA provided to the FTOs at the time of its release in 2006.
- The truth is that the Aviation Ruling was introduced many years ago when a Charter Operator in Melbourne was shut down by CASA and recommenced operations the next day under another Charter Operators AOC. The Aviation Ruling was written as a response to that occurrence in the Charter industry, and its intention and purpose were entirely different than the purposes CASA used it for in my case.
- After the introduction of the AOC, CASA did not permit Charter Organisations to operate under franchised AOCs, but importantly they did permit FTOs to operate under such arrangements. That further supports my contention that the wrong document is being used for the wrong sector of the industry i.e. charter v flying training
On point 3,
- CASA led the Ombudsman to believe that the date of September 1st, 2014, is the date that Aviation Ruling and the Civil Aviation Regulations (CARs) became misaligned. The truth is that on that day, the CAR and Aviation Ruling became more aligned. The Aviation Ruling clearly refers to Civil Aviation Regulation 206 (CAR 206) where it defines "commercial" purposes. On September 1st, 2014, CASA legally removed Flying training from CAR 206 with the intention to separate the distinct categories. The information provided to FTOs on the release of the Aviation Ruling i.e. that the ruling did not apply to them, was now finally reflected in the legislation as was CASAs intention.
On point 4.
- To clarify a misunderstanding in the Phase One report by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. There was no new AOC application. The business received its AOC in 2005, and it is the only AOC. CASA had fully approved several Operators to become Members of APTA, it was an application to CASA to add on additional bases to the existing AOC. CASA had previously approved almost identical applications by my Organisation. I had received positive feedback from CASA on those applications, so had no reason to doubt
- The CASA trading restrictions were placed on my AOC that was operating safely and compliantly, and with no prior warning. There was only ever one AOC of which APTA had full operational control. The AOCs were not being distributed, the entities came under the APTA AOC with Aviation Reference Number (ARN) 759217, with me holding full accountability.
The purpose of this correspondence, and what I am expecting
Dear Mr. Mathews, Chairperson of the Board of CASA. Could I respectfully request that you clarify the following with the Commonwealth Ombudsman and myself, to ensure there is no misunderstanding as Phase Two commences?
Is the following statement truthful?
CASA had been aware of, approved, and on occasions encouraged franchised AOC arrangements for Flight Training Organisations, and that was the situation throughout the last 25 years in the aviation industry right up until the date that CASA reversed their approval of my business.
This request does not require an extensive response, and it could be as short as a "yes" or a "no'. I appreciate you may choose to issue a more lengthy statement, but please be assured, I will hold you to account against every word that you write.
I am advised that this matter would also be under consideration by the BARC. The BARC ensures integrity over the Boards conduct.
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/defaul...rangements.pdf
Can you please advise me of the members of the BARC, and am I permitted to contact them directly.
Thank you in anticipation of you clarifying the misunderstandings and ensuring the integrity of the information that CASA provides to the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
Senior Leadership- Released under Freedom of Information
I received some advice that i should make a request under Freedom of Information to obtain the Australian Public Service CASA Employee Census. It was distributed to 838 CASA Employees with 737 responding (88% response rate).
I have attached a couple of pages that raised questions about CASA Senior Leadership. The responses are quite informative, but to be honest, don't really surprise me.
Only 58% of respondents thought their direct Senior Leadership was of high quality. (18% less than other medium-sized agencies)
Only 37% of respondents thought their Senior Executive overall was of high quality (26% less than other medium-sized agencies)
Only 32% of respondents thought that the Senior Executive work as a team. (15% less than other medium-sized agencies)
It certainly highlights the dissatisfaction within CASA with the Senior Executive.
One would have thought those results alone would raise alarm with the Ministers Department, and compel him to instigate change of Australias national aviation safety regulator, CASA.
I have attached a couple of pages that raised questions about CASA Senior Leadership. The responses are quite informative, but to be honest, don't really surprise me.
Only 58% of respondents thought their direct Senior Leadership was of high quality. (18% less than other medium-sized agencies)
Only 37% of respondents thought their Senior Executive overall was of high quality (26% less than other medium-sized agencies)
Only 32% of respondents thought that the Senior Executive work as a team. (15% less than other medium-sized agencies)
It certainly highlights the dissatisfaction within CASA with the Senior Executive.
One would have thought those results alone would raise alarm with the Ministers Department, and compel him to instigate change of Australias national aviation safety regulator, CASA.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glen, these surveys are standard practise within most organisations. They undertake them because they are told to do it. It’s a tick and flick exercise. Regardless of whether the results show that the Organization is a dysfunctional train wreck or a robust well loved party house, it’s all for naught. The Minister doesn’t care and neither does the Board or anyone else at the EM level. There has been previous annual surveys and there will be more to come in the future and they are about as useful as a dog with 6 testicles. The EM up to the Ministers level are too busy counting their salaries, reviewing their superannuation entitlements and looking for the next opportunity to dive into the taxpayer trough. You have to remember that you are dealing with an Organization with a history of being a tyrannical bully with no regard for due process, fairness or justice. So why would they care about what the minions in the place think?
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The variances from the results of the surveys in comparator agencies are telling, and not in a good way particularly for CASA’s senior ‘leadership’.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed. And ‘leadership’ is a bold world to use when describing CASA heirachy, but I guess it’s the only politically correct management term the spin doctors could source. Fair enough.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These staff surveys are standard practice, but yes, the CASA scores are worse than the APS average.
Hardly a surprising outcome when a large number of technical experts have left, leaving a greater proportion of incompetent office ‘clerks’ behind:
https://members.professionalsaustral...in_Crisis.aspx
Hardly a surprising outcome when a large number of technical experts have left, leaving a greater proportion of incompetent office ‘clerks’ behind:
https://members.professionalsaustral...in_Crisis.aspx
Leadership is a trait that rarely exists within the modern workplace. CASA is a typical example, but with the added power of dragging its subjects - the aviation industry, in whichever direction it decides to go (which is usually the wrong one!!).
Today's "leaders" are much more about self interest & climbing the ladder than motivating people to follow their direction & that is evident across the board - politics, government departments (like CASA) & business in general. My current workplace is no different, but then again whatever goes on in my workplace doesn't have a flow on effect on the aviation industry...
VH-MLE
Today's "leaders" are much more about self interest & climbing the ladder than motivating people to follow their direction & that is evident across the board - politics, government departments (like CASA) & business in general. My current workplace is no different, but then again whatever goes on in my workplace doesn't have a flow on effect on the aviation industry...
VH-MLE
Thread Starter
Allegation Mr Carmody mislead Senator Susan McDonald in Estimates
21/10/20
Dear Senator McDonald,
My name is Glen Buckley. Firstly I would like to convey my appreciation to you for raising my matter in the RRAT Estimates meetings currently underway. I have attached the link and refer specifically to Mr. Carmody's responses provided from 6:30 onwards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WNd...ature=youtu.be
I am fully satisfied that Mr. Shane Carmody, the CEO of CASA has deliberately misled you when providing his response to your questions. He leads you to believe that the only complaint I had was regarding a case of defamation. Mr. Carrmody knows that is not the truth, and his response was intended to deflect you. It was deliberate, calculated, and was not truthful.
He is fully aware that I have made a claim for compensation on behalf of me, my staff, customers, and Suppliers.
He is aware that I have raised allegations of vindictive and vexatious conduct, in clear breach of CASA stipulated procedures. The allegations were substantial and if upheld those personnel would not be able to remain in the employ of CASA. They have clearly breached the requirements of Administrative Law, Natural Justice, and Procedural Fairness, as well as CASAs, own Regulatory Philosophy, and obligations placed on CASA by the Minister's Statement of Expectations and the PGPA Act.
Mr. Carmody further leads you to believe that I raised allegations against only one individual in CASA and he is fully aware that I have raised allegations of misconduct against Mr. Aleck, Mr. Crawford, and Mr. Martin, as well as two other individuals, although they have since left the employ of CASA. Some of those remaining with CASA sat opposite you in the Chamber yesterday.
Mr. Carmody leads you to believe that the ICC reports to the Board. Whilst that is technically correct, Mr Carmody sits on that Board. Therefore there is effectively a line between Mr. Carmody as the Board Member and CEO of CASA.
Mr. Carmody was fully aware that a Commonwealth Ombudsman's Investigation is underway into my matter and is divided into two phases. He was aware that the Ombudsman has finalized Phase One of his investigation and has found CASA erred and that CASAs error could have caused "detriment" to occur. Phase Two continues. That will investigate the restrictions placed on my ability to trade, and the direction from the CASA Region Manager to my Employer that my continuing employment was untenable. Mr. Carmody is aware that after that CASA direction to my Employer I spent 8 months unemployed and have now been forced out of the industry. I have been left destitute.
Mr. Carmody is fully aware that the findings in Phase One of the Ombudsman's findings subject CASA to the likelihood of a class action based on the economic damage caused to so many.
Mr. Carmody is aware that I allege CASA provided misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and that I have submitted evidence in support of that claim. That misleading information provided by CASA to the Ombudsman was clearly not truthful and was designed to impact Phase Two of his investigation. I have called on the Chair of the CASA Board Mr. Anthony Mathews to act with integrity, and come forward with the truth. I am awaiting his decision.
Mr. Carmody is fully aware that I allege the conduct of those personnel has resulted in the closure of several businesses. He is aware that those business owners have lost their business and associated investment. He is aware that dozens of employees lost their employment as a result of misconduct by CASA personnel. He is aware that the conduct of these individuals has impacted on me financially and impacted on my mental and physical well being as well as bringing, and bought unacceptable reputational damage. He is aware that many millions of dollars damage has been bought to approximately 30 entities as a result of the conduct of Messrs, Aleck, Martin, and Crawford.
Thank you for the opportunity you have presented. My hope is that Mr. Carmody can act in a well intentioned and truthful manner, put aside any other temptations, and bring clarity to this matter.
Thank you for your support. Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Dear Senator McDonald,
My name is Glen Buckley. Firstly I would like to convey my appreciation to you for raising my matter in the RRAT Estimates meetings currently underway. I have attached the link and refer specifically to Mr. Carmody's responses provided from 6:30 onwards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WNd...ature=youtu.be
I am fully satisfied that Mr. Shane Carmody, the CEO of CASA has deliberately misled you when providing his response to your questions. He leads you to believe that the only complaint I had was regarding a case of defamation. Mr. Carrmody knows that is not the truth, and his response was intended to deflect you. It was deliberate, calculated, and was not truthful.
He is fully aware that I have made a claim for compensation on behalf of me, my staff, customers, and Suppliers.
He is aware that I have raised allegations of vindictive and vexatious conduct, in clear breach of CASA stipulated procedures. The allegations were substantial and if upheld those personnel would not be able to remain in the employ of CASA. They have clearly breached the requirements of Administrative Law, Natural Justice, and Procedural Fairness, as well as CASAs, own Regulatory Philosophy, and obligations placed on CASA by the Minister's Statement of Expectations and the PGPA Act.
Mr. Carmody further leads you to believe that I raised allegations against only one individual in CASA and he is fully aware that I have raised allegations of misconduct against Mr. Aleck, Mr. Crawford, and Mr. Martin, as well as two other individuals, although they have since left the employ of CASA. Some of those remaining with CASA sat opposite you in the Chamber yesterday.
Mr. Carmody leads you to believe that the ICC reports to the Board. Whilst that is technically correct, Mr Carmody sits on that Board. Therefore there is effectively a line between Mr. Carmody as the Board Member and CEO of CASA.
Mr. Carmody was fully aware that a Commonwealth Ombudsman's Investigation is underway into my matter and is divided into two phases. He was aware that the Ombudsman has finalized Phase One of his investigation and has found CASA erred and that CASAs error could have caused "detriment" to occur. Phase Two continues. That will investigate the restrictions placed on my ability to trade, and the direction from the CASA Region Manager to my Employer that my continuing employment was untenable. Mr. Carmody is aware that after that CASA direction to my Employer I spent 8 months unemployed and have now been forced out of the industry. I have been left destitute.
Mr. Carmody is fully aware that the findings in Phase One of the Ombudsman's findings subject CASA to the likelihood of a class action based on the economic damage caused to so many.
Mr. Carmody is aware that I allege CASA provided misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and that I have submitted evidence in support of that claim. That misleading information provided by CASA to the Ombudsman was clearly not truthful and was designed to impact Phase Two of his investigation. I have called on the Chair of the CASA Board Mr. Anthony Mathews to act with integrity, and come forward with the truth. I am awaiting his decision.
Mr. Carmody is fully aware that I allege the conduct of those personnel has resulted in the closure of several businesses. He is aware that those business owners have lost their business and associated investment. He is aware that dozens of employees lost their employment as a result of misconduct by CASA personnel. He is aware that the conduct of these individuals has impacted on me financially and impacted on my mental and physical well being as well as bringing, and bought unacceptable reputational damage. He is aware that many millions of dollars damage has been bought to approximately 30 entities as a result of the conduct of Messrs, Aleck, Martin, and Crawford.
Thank you for the opportunity you have presented. My hope is that Mr. Carmody can act in a well intentioned and truthful manner, put aside any other temptations, and bring clarity to this matter.
Thank you for your support. Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
A response already
I have already received an email from Senator Susan McDonald asking for my telephone number. I have provided that and look forward to the opportunity to chat to her
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
21/10/20
Dear Senator McDonald,
My name is Glen Buckley. Firstly I would like to convey my appreciation to you for raising my matter in the RRAT Estimates meetings currently underway. I have attached the link and refer specifically to Mr. Carmody's responses provided from 6:30 onwards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WNd...ature=youtu.be
I am fully satisfied that Mr. Shane Carmody, the CEO of CASA has deliberately misled you when providing his response to your questions. He leads you to believe that the only complaint I had was regarding a case of defamation. Mr. Carrmody knows that is not the truth, and his response was intended to deflect you. It was deliberate, calculated, and was not truthful.
He is fully aware that I have made a claim for compensation on behalf of me, my staff, customers, and Suppliers.
He is aware that I have raised allegations of vindictive and vexatious conduct, in clear breach of CASA stipulated procedures. The allegations were substantial and if upheld those personnel would not be able to remain in the employ of CASA. They have clearly breached the requirements of Administrative Law, Natural Justice, and Procedural Fairness, as well as CASAs, own Regulatory Philosophy, and obligations placed on CASA by the Minister's Statement of Expectations and the PGPA Act.
Mr. Carmody further leads you to believe that I raised allegations against only one individual in CASA and he is fully aware that I have raised allegations of misconduct against Mr. Aleck, Mr. Crawford, and Mr. Martin, as well as two other individuals, although they have since left the employ of CASA. Some of those remaining with CASA sat opposite you in the Chamber yesterday.
Mr. Carmody leads you to believe that the ICC reports to the Board. Whilst that is technically correct, Mr Carmody sits on that Board. Therefore there is effectively a line between Mr. Carmody as the Board Member and CEO of CASA.
Mr. Carmody was fully aware that a Commonwealth Ombudsman's Investigation is underway into my matter and is divided into two phases. He was aware that the Ombudsman has finalized Phase One of his investigation and has found CASA erred and that CASAs error could have caused "detriment" to occur. Phase Two continues. That will investigate the restrictions placed on my ability to trade, and the direction from the CASA Region Manager to my Employer that my continuing employment was untenable. Mr. Carmody is aware that after that CASA direction to my Employer I spent 8 months unemployed and have now been forced out of the industry. I have been left destitute.
Mr. Carmody is fully aware that the findings in Phase One of the Ombudsman's findings subject CASA to the likelihood of a class action based on the economic damage caused to so many.
Mr. Carmody is aware that I allege CASA provided misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and that I have submitted evidence in support of that claim. That misleading information provided by CASA to the Ombudsman was clearly not truthful and was designed to impact Phase Two of his investigation. I have called on the Chair of the CASA Board Mr. Anthony Mathews to act with integrity, and come forward with the truth. I am awaiting his decision.
Mr. Carmody is fully aware that I allege the conduct of those personnel has resulted in the closure of several businesses. He is aware that those business owners have lost their business and associated investment. He is aware that dozens of employees lost their employment as a result of misconduct by CASA personnel. He is aware that the conduct of these individuals has impacted on me financially and impacted on my mental and physical well being as well as bringing, and bought unacceptable reputational damage. He is aware that many millions of dollars damage has been bought to approximately 30 entities as a result of the conduct of Messrs, Aleck, Martin, and Crawford.
Thank you for the opportunity you have presented. My hope is that Mr. Carmody can act in a well intentioned and truthful manner, put aside any other temptations, and bring clarity to this matter.
Thank you for your support. Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Dear Senator McDonald,
My name is Glen Buckley. Firstly I would like to convey my appreciation to you for raising my matter in the RRAT Estimates meetings currently underway. I have attached the link and refer specifically to Mr. Carmody's responses provided from 6:30 onwards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WNd...ature=youtu.be
I am fully satisfied that Mr. Shane Carmody, the CEO of CASA has deliberately misled you when providing his response to your questions. He leads you to believe that the only complaint I had was regarding a case of defamation. Mr. Carrmody knows that is not the truth, and his response was intended to deflect you. It was deliberate, calculated, and was not truthful.
He is fully aware that I have made a claim for compensation on behalf of me, my staff, customers, and Suppliers.
He is aware that I have raised allegations of vindictive and vexatious conduct, in clear breach of CASA stipulated procedures. The allegations were substantial and if upheld those personnel would not be able to remain in the employ of CASA. They have clearly breached the requirements of Administrative Law, Natural Justice, and Procedural Fairness, as well as CASAs, own Regulatory Philosophy, and obligations placed on CASA by the Minister's Statement of Expectations and the PGPA Act.
Mr. Carmody further leads you to believe that I raised allegations against only one individual in CASA and he is fully aware that I have raised allegations of misconduct against Mr. Aleck, Mr. Crawford, and Mr. Martin, as well as two other individuals, although they have since left the employ of CASA. Some of those remaining with CASA sat opposite you in the Chamber yesterday.
Mr. Carmody leads you to believe that the ICC reports to the Board. Whilst that is technically correct, Mr Carmody sits on that Board. Therefore there is effectively a line between Mr. Carmody as the Board Member and CEO of CASA.
Mr. Carmody was fully aware that a Commonwealth Ombudsman's Investigation is underway into my matter and is divided into two phases. He was aware that the Ombudsman has finalized Phase One of his investigation and has found CASA erred and that CASAs error could have caused "detriment" to occur. Phase Two continues. That will investigate the restrictions placed on my ability to trade, and the direction from the CASA Region Manager to my Employer that my continuing employment was untenable. Mr. Carmody is aware that after that CASA direction to my Employer I spent 8 months unemployed and have now been forced out of the industry. I have been left destitute.
Mr. Carmody is fully aware that the findings in Phase One of the Ombudsman's findings subject CASA to the likelihood of a class action based on the economic damage caused to so many.
Mr. Carmody is aware that I allege CASA provided misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and that I have submitted evidence in support of that claim. That misleading information provided by CASA to the Ombudsman was clearly not truthful and was designed to impact Phase Two of his investigation. I have called on the Chair of the CASA Board Mr. Anthony Mathews to act with integrity, and come forward with the truth. I am awaiting his decision.
Mr. Carmody is fully aware that I allege the conduct of those personnel has resulted in the closure of several businesses. He is aware that those business owners have lost their business and associated investment. He is aware that dozens of employees lost their employment as a result of misconduct by CASA personnel. He is aware that the conduct of these individuals has impacted on me financially and impacted on my mental and physical well being as well as bringing, and bought unacceptable reputational damage. He is aware that many millions of dollars damage has been bought to approximately 30 entities as a result of the conduct of Messrs, Aleck, Martin, and Crawford.
Thank you for the opportunity you have presented. My hope is that Mr. Carmody can act in a well intentioned and truthful manner, put aside any other temptations, and bring clarity to this matter.
Thank you for your support. Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Either way Glen, you are a damn legend.Never stop fighting.
Thread Starter
Contacted by Senator Susan McDonalds Office
I have had a discussion with Senator McDonald's office. Whilst I am unable to discuss the contents. I have no doubt that she is acting in a well-intentioned manner, and has heard my allegation regarding Mr. Carmody misleading her. I will be able to reveal more in 21 days. Cheers. Glen
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Victoria
Age: 59
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I received some advice that i should make a request under Freedom of Information to obtain the Australian Public Service CASA Employee Census. It was distributed to 838 CASA Employees with 737 responding (88% response rate).
I have attached a couple of pages that raised questions about CASA Senior Leadership. The responses are quite informative, but to be honest, don't really surprise me.
Only 58% of respondents thought their direct Senior Leadership was of high quality. (18% less than other medium-sized agencies)
Only 37% of respondents thought their Senior Executive overall was of high quality (26% less than other medium-sized agencies)
Only 32% of respondents thought that the Senior Executive work as a team. (15% less than other medium-sized agencies)
It certainly highlights the dissatisfaction within CASA with the Senior Executive.
One would have thought those results alone would raise alarm with the Ministers Department, and compel him to instigate change of Australias national aviation safety regulator, CASA.
I have attached a couple of pages that raised questions about CASA Senior Leadership. The responses are quite informative, but to be honest, don't really surprise me.
Only 58% of respondents thought their direct Senior Leadership was of high quality. (18% less than other medium-sized agencies)
Only 37% of respondents thought their Senior Executive overall was of high quality (26% less than other medium-sized agencies)
Only 32% of respondents thought that the Senior Executive work as a team. (15% less than other medium-sized agencies)
It certainly highlights the dissatisfaction within CASA with the Senior Executive.
One would have thought those results alone would raise alarm with the Ministers Department, and compel him to instigate change of Australias national aviation safety regulator, CASA.
Keep digging. I hear inspector numbers of pilots and engineers have halved in a short term. Lits leave none replaced. Word is on the street that moral is poor as and staff are bullied. There are a couple of reports on regulators, the one on the New Zealand authority is really damning, bullying, abuse, same for FAA, sounds like ours is the same. Probably need to fix the rot first.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Sandgroper
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/pid.pdf
Read the first part of this document.. spells it out... so CASA trying to run people out of money:
""pecuniary interest" is an interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person or another person with whom the person is associated as provided in section 183."
Read the first part of this document.. spells it out... so CASA trying to run people out of money:
""pecuniary interest" is an interest that a person has in a matter because of a reasonable likelihood or expectation of appreciable financial gain or loss to the person or another person with whom the person is associated as provided in section 183."