Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Thread Starter
My suggested letter.
I appreciate that this may be a difficult read, and it is subject to more editing than I had hoped. The Office of the Deputy PM is aware that I am posting this at 9PM, on this forum. I will finalise this over the weekend and welcome your feedback, good or bad. Cheers. Glen25/04/22
To: Catherine, the Reviewing Officer from the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office
Mr. Ramzi Jabbour of the Office of the Deputy PM
Dear Catherine of the Ombudsman’s Office,
I am writing to ask you to place a hold on publishing your findings from the three-year investigation into my matter, until the Office of the Deputy PM has had an opportunity to meet with me over coming weeks.
If my understanding is correct from our telephone call. The Ombudsman’s Office initiated its own review of the investigation, and by taking that action, I forfeit any opportunity to initiate a review or respond to that investigation. An opportunity that would otherwise be available to me had the Ombudsman’s Office not initiated its own review. Hopefully you will appreciate my concerns.
I have raised allegations of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs previously to the Department of the Deputy PM and also before Parliament in the current Senate Inquiry into CASA, and that presentation can be accessed via the attached link. To date those allegations of misfeasance in public office have not been investigated. Mr Aleck is the individual responsible for providing you with all information. Mr Aleck was the sole decision maker regarding this matter. For complete clarity on this matter. I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck has provided substantially misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office. It is reasonable for me to assume that he has done so, to pervert the findings of your investigation. He would have been fully aware that he was providing misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office at the time he provided it. It was a conscious and considered decision. It was not an “error.”
From my interactions, there is no doubt this has been a challenging task for your Office. I believe those problems commenced immediately this matter was passed from the first Officer to the Second Officer. At that handover you will be aware that I was unable to discuss the matter with Officer Two at the handover stage. This was a critical point of the investigation. The reason provided to me was that the Ombudsman Office was unable to discuss the matter with me due to “COVID restrictions. It was a telephone call that I was requesting, and that ability for a one-on-one conversation should have been made available at the handover stage. It seems entirely unreasonable that I am unable to have a telephone call with the Ombudsman Office, and that COVID could possibly have created that requirement.
I do note however that irrespective of that, the matter was significantly interfered with by CASA providing clearly untruthful guidance to your Office. I had previously made allegations of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck in Parliament before the Senate and that presentation can be accessed later in this correspondence. I have submitted a small portion of my evidence. An example would be that Mr Aleck would have you believe that CASA was not aware of my business model, yet I have provided irrefutable evidence that in fact CASA was fully aware at least 2 ½ years before Mr Aleck would have you believe.
I have provided the contact details of two CASA employees, one current and one past employee who have an expert knowledge of this matter. Their testimony is essential to arriving at the truth, and the Ombudsman office has chosen not to avail themselves of that opportunity.
The Ombudsman’s Office advised me that they cannot investigate an allegation of misfeasance in public office against Mr Aleck the second most senior employee of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. If that is the Ombudsman’s Office position, then it seems unlikely that an investigation can actually be conducted into this matter.
My understanding was that the Ombudsman’s Office could investigate those matters, and that is why the complaint was submitted to your office in the first instance. If I quote directly from the Ombudsman’s Act.
3(6) For the purposes of this Act, action that is taken by an Officer of a prescribed authority shall be deemed to be taken by the Authority,
(a) If the officer takes, or purports to take, the action by virtue of his or her being an Officer of the authority, whether or not:
· The action is taken for in connexion with, or as incidental to, the performance of the functions of the prescribed authority; or
· The taking of the action is within the duties of the Officer; or
· If the officer takes, or purports to take, the action in the exercise powers or the performance of functions conferred on him or her by an enactment.
An officer is a person who is employed in the service of or is a member of the staff of a prescribed authority. CASA is a prescribed authority.
Irrespective of my understanding I must respect your position and I note your advice that an allegation of misfeasance in public office needs to be made to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner, and I concurrently with my submission to the office of the Deputy PM, I will lodge my allegations with the ICC.
The report will be substantive, and readers of that report will place significant weight on findings of the Ombudsman’s Office. I am fully satisfied that the gross technical errors have arisen as the result of disinformation provided by Mr Aleck could affect my ability to pursue this matter through litigation, and therefore ask for the delay in the release of that report.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Dear Mr XXXXXXXXX of the Deputy PMs Office,
As you are aware, I have been seeking the assistance of my local MP for the Seat of Chisholm, Ms. Gladys Liu for three years on this matter, and she has chosen to completely ignore those requests for assistance by me.
Thankyou for the telephone call, the other day. It was significant, and for the first time in the last few years, I am confident that I have reached the person that I should be dealing with. I have had the opportunity to do some research.
From that research, I have developed a high level of confidence. As you will appreciate, trust takes time and experience to develop, my sincere hope is that I can have both trust and confidence in you. The next month will be telling.
In that call, you asked me to provide a summary of my matter, and I directed you to two magazine articles written about this matter. I titled them “APTA before CASA action” and “CASA after CASA action”. Both written by Steve Hitchen of Australian Flying magazine. I hope you have had an opportunity to read them. The links are attached here for quick reference
This matter is extremely complicated, and to be frank I am not the best person to explain it to you, because the truth is that I do not understand why CASA closed my business down.
From your background you will appreciate the importance of clear and concise communications. The value of those communications increases significantly, if they are “well intentioned”.
In my opinion, the most efficient approach now, would be for you to make a request of Pip Spence, the CASA CEO. This matter is best explained by CASA. I think it reasonable that CASA explain their perspective and that I respond to that.
The matter could be expedited if CASA provided you with a response to the following 12 questions within 7 days. These are all matters that CASA could reply to, within those timelines, and the information would be readily available to CASA.. By limiting the responses to one page per question, this his will ensure that the responses are clear and concise.
Question One:
Considering that the Ministers own Statement of Expectations Statement of Expectations for the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the period 31 January 2022 to 30 June 2023 (legislation.gov.au) requires CASA to demonstrate “risk based and evidence driven decision making by CASA (including well documented safety cases)”, could CASA provide a one page summary of the supporting safety case for the action they took against me and my business.
Question Two
In a one page response can CASA clearly identify in clear and concise language the regulations that CASA claim Mr Buckley breached, and how he breached them. Could CASA also confirm that there is precedent to the way these rules were applied.
Question Three
Is the CASA CEO and Board, fully satisfied that in its dealings with Mr Buckley, Mr Aleck has acted in accordance with the following obligations.
· The Ministers Statement of Expectations of CASA Statement of Expectations for the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the period 31 January 2022 to 30 June 2023 (legislation.gov.au)
· The PGPA Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (legislation.gov.au)
· CASAs Regulatory Philosophy Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
· Administrative Law
· The Public Service Values and Code of Conduct APS Values, Code of Conduct and Employment Principles | Australian Public Service Commission (apsc.gov.au)
Question Four
The Ombudsman’s Office has formed the opinion that CASA obtained legal advice. Could you identify the date that Mr Aleck first sought any external and independent legal advice, and what that legal advice stated. Who did Mr Aleck consult with to arrive at his determination that Mr Buckley was operating illegally and subject to regulatory action.
Question Five
Was Mr Aleck compelled to make the decisions that he did. Was there a more proportional approach available to him, and why was that not taken. Could CASA also identify how I could have resolved this matter
Question Six
Mr Buckley claims that this entire matter could have been avoided by a well-intentioned 4-hour discussion, without even sending the notification of October 2018, and that it was not necessary to drag this matter out for 8 months. Can CASA clearly outline in one page why this matter was unable to be resolved.
Question Seven.
Mr Buckley claims that your notification of October 2018, prevented him taking on any new customers, and that CASA also contacted all existing customers and directed them to leave his business. You also placed a freeze on processing all administrative tasks for his business. This continued for 8 months, with those trading restrictions in place. At the 8-month mark, CASA determined that the business was unlawful and forced all remaining customers leave the organisation. Is it true that on multiple occasions I made CASA fully aware of the commercial impact of their action, and that information w
Question Eight
Considering that the CASA action led to significant commercial losses, Mr Buckley claims that CASA never at any stage provided him with a “decision letter”, despite his repeated requests. That “decision letter was essential if he was to approach the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Could CASA provide a copy of that decision letter, if any that was provided to Mr Buckley. If it was not provided, that appears to be a breach of administrative law. Can you explain this?
Question Nine
After Mr Buckley lost his business, he secured employment in the industry as a CASA approved Head of Operations. CASA wrote to his Employer and directed that his continuing employment was not tenable based on comments that he was making publicly
Question Ten.
In Parliament to the Senate, the previous CASA CEO, Mr Carmody stated that I had stalked and assaulted CASA employees. I claim that is a blatant untruth put to the Senate, and in the public domain to damage my reputation and reduce the credibility of my allegations of “misfeasance in public office” by Mr Carmody to damage my reputation and Could CASA provide any police reports, any internal OHS reports to support Mr Carmody’s allegation that
“Mr Buckley assaulted CASA employees”
“Mr Buckley stalked CASA employees”
Does CASA stand by those allegations. If so, can CASA identify why no police report was ever made.?
Question Eleven
You advised Mr Buckley that his flying school of ten years that operated EXACTLY the same as every other flying school in Australia,. Was now operating in breach of the regulations, specifically ………..
Could CASA clearly explain the decision making and how it is feasible that overnight, his school, Melbourne Flight Training was now in breach of the regulations, after 10 years of operations. Noting that their had been no change to any legislation, and by referring to the initial notification of October 2018, it was a regulation from 1988 that CASA used to initiate the action.
Question Twelve
Considering that Mr Buckley has raised allegations of misfeasance in public office. No investigation at all by CASA into the conduct of Mr Aleck.has occurred. For such substantive allegations to be raised in such a formal process i.e. before Senate, it seems highly suspect, and not in accordance with expectations on either Private industry or the Public service. Has any investigation into the conduct of Mr Aleck been made, and if not can CASA explain that lack of action.
What are my expected outcomes?
Expected outcome One
I am seeking an investigation initiated by Office of the Deputy PM into the conduct of Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs. I am confident that Mr Aleck will appreciate that opportunity to defend his professional reputation. “The truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like to be challenged.”
Expected outcome Two
· That I have the opportunity to submit a request for an “Act of Grace payment.” That request would have two components.
(a) Reimbursement for the commercial harm caused to staff, customers, suppliers, and businesses impacted with the exclusion of mine, by Mr Alecks decisions. The intention would be to put all affected Parties in the position that they were in before Mr Aleck made his determination that my business was unlawful, and as if those people and entities had never met Glen Buckley.
(b) Consideration of reimbursement also to me and my family for the harm caused to us.
Expected outcome Three
That the Office of the Deputy PM give CASA 7 days to respond, and that 7 days after that time, the Office of the Deputy PM provide me the opportunity for a two hour meeting. My preference would be that the CASA CEO or her nominee attend that meeting.
To: Catherine, the Reviewing Officer from the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office
Mr. Ramzi Jabbour of the Office of the Deputy PM
Dear Catherine of the Ombudsman’s Office,
I am writing to ask you to place a hold on publishing your findings from the three-year investigation into my matter, until the Office of the Deputy PM has had an opportunity to meet with me over coming weeks.
If my understanding is correct from our telephone call. The Ombudsman’s Office initiated its own review of the investigation, and by taking that action, I forfeit any opportunity to initiate a review or respond to that investigation. An opportunity that would otherwise be available to me had the Ombudsman’s Office not initiated its own review. Hopefully you will appreciate my concerns.
I have raised allegations of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs previously to the Department of the Deputy PM and also before Parliament in the current Senate Inquiry into CASA, and that presentation can be accessed via the attached link. To date those allegations of misfeasance in public office have not been investigated. Mr Aleck is the individual responsible for providing you with all information. Mr Aleck was the sole decision maker regarding this matter. For complete clarity on this matter. I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck has provided substantially misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office. It is reasonable for me to assume that he has done so, to pervert the findings of your investigation. He would have been fully aware that he was providing misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office at the time he provided it. It was a conscious and considered decision. It was not an “error.”
From my interactions, there is no doubt this has been a challenging task for your Office. I believe those problems commenced immediately this matter was passed from the first Officer to the Second Officer. At that handover you will be aware that I was unable to discuss the matter with Officer Two at the handover stage. This was a critical point of the investigation. The reason provided to me was that the Ombudsman Office was unable to discuss the matter with me due to “COVID restrictions. It was a telephone call that I was requesting, and that ability for a one-on-one conversation should have been made available at the handover stage. It seems entirely unreasonable that I am unable to have a telephone call with the Ombudsman Office, and that COVID could possibly have created that requirement.
I do note however that irrespective of that, the matter was significantly interfered with by CASA providing clearly untruthful guidance to your Office. I had previously made allegations of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck in Parliament before the Senate and that presentation can be accessed later in this correspondence. I have submitted a small portion of my evidence. An example would be that Mr Aleck would have you believe that CASA was not aware of my business model, yet I have provided irrefutable evidence that in fact CASA was fully aware at least 2 ½ years before Mr Aleck would have you believe.
I have provided the contact details of two CASA employees, one current and one past employee who have an expert knowledge of this matter. Their testimony is essential to arriving at the truth, and the Ombudsman office has chosen not to avail themselves of that opportunity.
The Ombudsman’s Office advised me that they cannot investigate an allegation of misfeasance in public office against Mr Aleck the second most senior employee of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. If that is the Ombudsman’s Office position, then it seems unlikely that an investigation can actually be conducted into this matter.
My understanding was that the Ombudsman’s Office could investigate those matters, and that is why the complaint was submitted to your office in the first instance. If I quote directly from the Ombudsman’s Act.
3(6) For the purposes of this Act, action that is taken by an Officer of a prescribed authority shall be deemed to be taken by the Authority,
(a) If the officer takes, or purports to take, the action by virtue of his or her being an Officer of the authority, whether or not:
· The action is taken for in connexion with, or as incidental to, the performance of the functions of the prescribed authority; or
· The taking of the action is within the duties of the Officer; or
· If the officer takes, or purports to take, the action in the exercise powers or the performance of functions conferred on him or her by an enactment.
An officer is a person who is employed in the service of or is a member of the staff of a prescribed authority. CASA is a prescribed authority.
Irrespective of my understanding I must respect your position and I note your advice that an allegation of misfeasance in public office needs to be made to the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner, and I concurrently with my submission to the office of the Deputy PM, I will lodge my allegations with the ICC.
The report will be substantive, and readers of that report will place significant weight on findings of the Ombudsman’s Office. I am fully satisfied that the gross technical errors have arisen as the result of disinformation provided by Mr Aleck could affect my ability to pursue this matter through litigation, and therefore ask for the delay in the release of that report.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Dear Mr XXXXXXXXX of the Deputy PMs Office,
As you are aware, I have been seeking the assistance of my local MP for the Seat of Chisholm, Ms. Gladys Liu for three years on this matter, and she has chosen to completely ignore those requests for assistance by me.
Thankyou for the telephone call, the other day. It was significant, and for the first time in the last few years, I am confident that I have reached the person that I should be dealing with. I have had the opportunity to do some research.
From that research, I have developed a high level of confidence. As you will appreciate, trust takes time and experience to develop, my sincere hope is that I can have both trust and confidence in you. The next month will be telling.
In that call, you asked me to provide a summary of my matter, and I directed you to two magazine articles written about this matter. I titled them “APTA before CASA action” and “CASA after CASA action”. Both written by Steve Hitchen of Australian Flying magazine. I hope you have had an opportunity to read them. The links are attached here for quick reference
This matter is extremely complicated, and to be frank I am not the best person to explain it to you, because the truth is that I do not understand why CASA closed my business down.
From your background you will appreciate the importance of clear and concise communications. The value of those communications increases significantly, if they are “well intentioned”.
In my opinion, the most efficient approach now, would be for you to make a request of Pip Spence, the CASA CEO. This matter is best explained by CASA. I think it reasonable that CASA explain their perspective and that I respond to that.
The matter could be expedited if CASA provided you with a response to the following 12 questions within 7 days. These are all matters that CASA could reply to, within those timelines, and the information would be readily available to CASA.. By limiting the responses to one page per question, this his will ensure that the responses are clear and concise.
Question One:
Considering that the Ministers own Statement of Expectations Statement of Expectations for the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the period 31 January 2022 to 30 June 2023 (legislation.gov.au) requires CASA to demonstrate “risk based and evidence driven decision making by CASA (including well documented safety cases)”, could CASA provide a one page summary of the supporting safety case for the action they took against me and my business.
Question Two
In a one page response can CASA clearly identify in clear and concise language the regulations that CASA claim Mr Buckley breached, and how he breached them. Could CASA also confirm that there is precedent to the way these rules were applied.
Question Three
Is the CASA CEO and Board, fully satisfied that in its dealings with Mr Buckley, Mr Aleck has acted in accordance with the following obligations.
· The Ministers Statement of Expectations of CASA Statement of Expectations for the Board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for the period 31 January 2022 to 30 June 2023 (legislation.gov.au)
· The PGPA Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (legislation.gov.au)
· CASAs Regulatory Philosophy Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
· Administrative Law
· The Public Service Values and Code of Conduct APS Values, Code of Conduct and Employment Principles | Australian Public Service Commission (apsc.gov.au)
Question Four
The Ombudsman’s Office has formed the opinion that CASA obtained legal advice. Could you identify the date that Mr Aleck first sought any external and independent legal advice, and what that legal advice stated. Who did Mr Aleck consult with to arrive at his determination that Mr Buckley was operating illegally and subject to regulatory action.
Question Five
Was Mr Aleck compelled to make the decisions that he did. Was there a more proportional approach available to him, and why was that not taken. Could CASA also identify how I could have resolved this matter
Question Six
Mr Buckley claims that this entire matter could have been avoided by a well-intentioned 4-hour discussion, without even sending the notification of October 2018, and that it was not necessary to drag this matter out for 8 months. Can CASA clearly outline in one page why this matter was unable to be resolved.
Question Seven.
Mr Buckley claims that your notification of October 2018, prevented him taking on any new customers, and that CASA also contacted all existing customers and directed them to leave his business. You also placed a freeze on processing all administrative tasks for his business. This continued for 8 months, with those trading restrictions in place. At the 8-month mark, CASA determined that the business was unlawful and forced all remaining customers leave the organisation. Is it true that on multiple occasions I made CASA fully aware of the commercial impact of their action, and that information w
Question Eight
Considering that the CASA action led to significant commercial losses, Mr Buckley claims that CASA never at any stage provided him with a “decision letter”, despite his repeated requests. That “decision letter was essential if he was to approach the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Could CASA provide a copy of that decision letter, if any that was provided to Mr Buckley. If it was not provided, that appears to be a breach of administrative law. Can you explain this?
Question Nine
After Mr Buckley lost his business, he secured employment in the industry as a CASA approved Head of Operations. CASA wrote to his Employer and directed that his continuing employment was not tenable based on comments that he was making publicly
Question Ten.
In Parliament to the Senate, the previous CASA CEO, Mr Carmody stated that I had stalked and assaulted CASA employees. I claim that is a blatant untruth put to the Senate, and in the public domain to damage my reputation and reduce the credibility of my allegations of “misfeasance in public office” by Mr Carmody to damage my reputation and Could CASA provide any police reports, any internal OHS reports to support Mr Carmody’s allegation that
“Mr Buckley assaulted CASA employees”
“Mr Buckley stalked CASA employees”
Does CASA stand by those allegations. If so, can CASA identify why no police report was ever made.?
Question Eleven
You advised Mr Buckley that his flying school of ten years that operated EXACTLY the same as every other flying school in Australia,. Was now operating in breach of the regulations, specifically ………..
Could CASA clearly explain the decision making and how it is feasible that overnight, his school, Melbourne Flight Training was now in breach of the regulations, after 10 years of operations. Noting that their had been no change to any legislation, and by referring to the initial notification of October 2018, it was a regulation from 1988 that CASA used to initiate the action.
Question Twelve
Considering that Mr Buckley has raised allegations of misfeasance in public office. No investigation at all by CASA into the conduct of Mr Aleck.has occurred. For such substantive allegations to be raised in such a formal process i.e. before Senate, it seems highly suspect, and not in accordance with expectations on either Private industry or the Public service. Has any investigation into the conduct of Mr Aleck been made, and if not can CASA explain that lack of action.
What are my expected outcomes?
Expected outcome One
I am seeking an investigation initiated by Office of the Deputy PM into the conduct of Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs. I am confident that Mr Aleck will appreciate that opportunity to defend his professional reputation. “The truth does not mind being questioned. A lie does not like to be challenged.”
Expected outcome Two
· That I have the opportunity to submit a request for an “Act of Grace payment.” That request would have two components.
(a) Reimbursement for the commercial harm caused to staff, customers, suppliers, and businesses impacted with the exclusion of mine, by Mr Alecks decisions. The intention would be to put all affected Parties in the position that they were in before Mr Aleck made his determination that my business was unlawful, and as if those people and entities had never met Glen Buckley.
(b) Consideration of reimbursement also to me and my family for the harm caused to us.
Expected outcome Three
That the Office of the Deputy PM give CASA 7 days to respond, and that 7 days after that time, the Office of the Deputy PM provide me the opportunity for a two hour meeting. My preference would be that the CASA CEO or her nominee attend that meeting.
Question 7 is missing a bit at the end.
Watch the video. Especially the last few minutes on how these people react when challenged.
‘My guess CASA claims in private that you brought all this on yourself. You are being portrayed to the Ombudsman’s Office, Pip Spence and anyone else who will listen, as a vindictive psycho nutcase. You lost your business through your own stupidity. CASA and it’s well meaning staff did their absolute best to help you comply with regulations and keep your sinking ship afloat. Poor Doctor A. went out of his way to try to help and your baseless and vicious attacks on him are personally upsetting especially when you consider the help he gave. It’s a wonder the good doctor isn’t on stress leave…..
The DPM’s staff and all involved have been given that message and have accepted it. The Ombudsman’s report,according to what you have said and reading between the lines, sounds like an attempt to humor a child rather than a solid body of rational thought. You are the victim of a whispering campaign. Please be very, very careful not to say or do anything that could be construed as a threat to anyone or CASA will make their fake diagnosis stick.
‘’Stay civil and rational, good luck. My take on your letter: You ask for responses to 12 questions - they aren’t questions, they are allegations. You need to spell out in ONE SHORT Sentence in each, the impact on you of CASA action or inaction. We are all too close to the situation, your new contact may not know the implications of what was done to you and your business.
‘’eg question 1 add. My allegation is that CASA action were not risk based and evidence driven but was based on unknown and unauthorised personal motives that are are outside the scope of CASA Authority. - CASA has exceeded its authority.
question 5. This is tricky, it need a front end , “Assuming for one minute that APTA had broken regulations, which I dispute, …..
CASAs actions were draconian, disproportionate and increased the putative costs of remediation.
question 9: CASA drove you out of the aviation business and destroyed your livelihood.
‘My guess CASA claims in private that you brought all this on yourself. You are being portrayed to the Ombudsman’s Office, Pip Spence and anyone else who will listen, as a vindictive psycho nutcase. You lost your business through your own stupidity. CASA and it’s well meaning staff did their absolute best to help you comply with regulations and keep your sinking ship afloat. Poor Doctor A. went out of his way to try to help and your baseless and vicious attacks on him are personally upsetting especially when you consider the help he gave. It’s a wonder the good doctor isn’t on stress leave…..
The DPM’s staff and all involved have been given that message and have accepted it. The Ombudsman’s report,according to what you have said and reading between the lines, sounds like an attempt to humor a child rather than a solid body of rational thought. You are the victim of a whispering campaign. Please be very, very careful not to say or do anything that could be construed as a threat to anyone or CASA will make their fake diagnosis stick.
‘’Stay civil and rational, good luck. My take on your letter: You ask for responses to 12 questions - they aren’t questions, they are allegations. You need to spell out in ONE SHORT Sentence in each, the impact on you of CASA action or inaction. We are all too close to the situation, your new contact may not know the implications of what was done to you and your business.
‘’eg question 1 add. My allegation is that CASA action were not risk based and evidence driven but was based on unknown and unauthorised personal motives that are are outside the scope of CASA Authority. - CASA has exceeded its authority.
question 5. This is tricky, it need a front end , “Assuming for one minute that APTA had broken regulations, which I dispute, …..
CASAs actions were draconian, disproportionate and increased the putative costs of remediation.
question 9: CASA drove you out of the aviation business and destroyed your livelihood.
Last edited by Sunfish; 22nd Apr 2022 at 21:16.
Thread Starter
Sunfish
Thankyou Sunfish. I saw you had posted and was expecting a well intentioned lambasting about how they dont care, and wont listen. A very valuable contribution, and you have absolutely nailed it, regards how CASA have "managed" the situation. Cheers. Glen.
Thread Starter
Email to Gladys Liu, sent this morning
Dear Ms. Gladys Liu, elected MP for the Seat of Chisholm, and other recipients
I am a 56-year resident of this electorate, and I have contributed widely to the community during that time.
As you are fully aware, I have made allegations against the Civil Aviation Safety Authorities second most senior employee, Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal International and Regulatory Affairs. It was an allegation of “misfeasance in public office.” It wasa made before the Senate and can be acceded from the 12:40:00 point on the recording. Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport - 20/11/2020 08:49:59 - Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au)
I have approached your office on several occasions over the last three years, and you have not been able to meet with me. Even though you have not provided me with a meeting, I have ensured that your Office is fully briefed by sending periodical updates.
Mr Jonathan Aleck was the sole decision maker within CASA that overnight changed CASAs “opinion” and determined that my business of more than a decade was now illegal, and placed restrictions on that businesses ability to trade.
It was a change of “opinion” by Mr Aleck, of a 1988 regulation. There were no allegations at all related to safety, operational control, or any quality outcomes. It was simply that I was operating in breach of that single regulation. For reasons that CASA would have to explain, of all the 300 flying schools in Australia it only applied to mine.
On my own legal advice and supported by the findings of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, Mr Aleck had no legal basis to make the decisions that he did. For complete clarity, His decision had no valid legal basis. Subsequently CASA sought external, and independent legal advice, and that also confirmed that CASA had no legal basis.
I had been highly critical of CASAs Regulatory reform program that was delivered a decade behind schedule, and many hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. I did gain some media attention of my views on this matter, and also on my views of the impact of the regultory change on the Australian Owned sector of the industry and most particularly in rural areas. In hindsight my views may have influenced Mr Alecks interactions with me, as he was the CASA Executive responsible for that regulatory program that I had been critical of in the media.
The consequences of Mr Jonathan Alecks change of opinion have been significant. Not only have I lost my two businesses, been forced out of the industry, lost my home, my savings,. My wife and I have total liquid assets of just under $6000. I have been bankrupted. Should my wife or I stop working due health or any other reason, we would be homeless. You can imagine the emotional trauma that this has bought to me and my family throughout this last three years.
As well as the financial and emotional trauma caused by this, staff lost jobs and entitlements, suppliers were left unpaid, customers had their training impacted, and businesses dependant on me were forced into closure. I carry this burden with me, every day. Please be assured that after three years it affects ones mental and physical health.
There has been no investigation at all into Mr Alecks conduct despite me raising these allegations at the highest level. The Ombudsman’s Office advises that they are unable to investigate my allegation of misfeasance in public office, and that I should now direct that allegation back to CASA. This matter has continued for over three years now, and with an upcoming election the time has come to resolve it.
The purpose of writing to you, is to seek a commitment from you, that if you are successful at the upcoming election, you will provide me with the opportunity to meet with your Office to seek assistance in pursuing:
I add that your Labor opponent at the upcoming election, Ms. Carina Garland has already met with me. I am confident that she will provide the assistance and support that I require, should she be successful at the upcoming election. I am hoping that you can match her commitment. As a Labor Candidate Ms Carina Garland obviously has strong views on ethics and integrity in Government and would be calling for an anti-corruption body, to be established to investigate allegations such as mine.
Thankyou for you consideration, and I await your response at the earliest opportunity,
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
I am a 56-year resident of this electorate, and I have contributed widely to the community during that time.
As you are fully aware, I have made allegations against the Civil Aviation Safety Authorities second most senior employee, Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal International and Regulatory Affairs. It was an allegation of “misfeasance in public office.” It wasa made before the Senate and can be acceded from the 12:40:00 point on the recording. Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport - 20/11/2020 08:49:59 - Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au)
I have approached your office on several occasions over the last three years, and you have not been able to meet with me. Even though you have not provided me with a meeting, I have ensured that your Office is fully briefed by sending periodical updates.
Mr Jonathan Aleck was the sole decision maker within CASA that overnight changed CASAs “opinion” and determined that my business of more than a decade was now illegal, and placed restrictions on that businesses ability to trade.
It was a change of “opinion” by Mr Aleck, of a 1988 regulation. There were no allegations at all related to safety, operational control, or any quality outcomes. It was simply that I was operating in breach of that single regulation. For reasons that CASA would have to explain, of all the 300 flying schools in Australia it only applied to mine.
On my own legal advice and supported by the findings of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, Mr Aleck had no legal basis to make the decisions that he did. For complete clarity, His decision had no valid legal basis. Subsequently CASA sought external, and independent legal advice, and that also confirmed that CASA had no legal basis.
I had been highly critical of CASAs Regulatory reform program that was delivered a decade behind schedule, and many hundreds of millions of dollars over budget. I did gain some media attention of my views on this matter, and also on my views of the impact of the regultory change on the Australian Owned sector of the industry and most particularly in rural areas. In hindsight my views may have influenced Mr Alecks interactions with me, as he was the CASA Executive responsible for that regulatory program that I had been critical of in the media.
The consequences of Mr Jonathan Alecks change of opinion have been significant. Not only have I lost my two businesses, been forced out of the industry, lost my home, my savings,. My wife and I have total liquid assets of just under $6000. I have been bankrupted. Should my wife or I stop working due health or any other reason, we would be homeless. You can imagine the emotional trauma that this has bought to me and my family throughout this last three years.
As well as the financial and emotional trauma caused by this, staff lost jobs and entitlements, suppliers were left unpaid, customers had their training impacted, and businesses dependant on me were forced into closure. I carry this burden with me, every day. Please be assured that after three years it affects ones mental and physical health.
There has been no investigation at all into Mr Alecks conduct despite me raising these allegations at the highest level. The Ombudsman’s Office advises that they are unable to investigate my allegation of misfeasance in public office, and that I should now direct that allegation back to CASA. This matter has continued for over three years now, and with an upcoming election the time has come to resolve it.
The purpose of writing to you, is to seek a commitment from you, that if you are successful at the upcoming election, you will provide me with the opportunity to meet with your Office to seek assistance in pursuing:
- An investigation specifically into my allegation of misfeasance in public office by Mr Jonathan Aleck. Based on the findings of that investigation, I would then be seeking.
- An Act of Grace Payment from the Government of the day for an amount of less than $2,000,000. I will provide a detailed breakdown. That would be used to reimburse all affected Parties i.e., staff, suppliers, and customers.
I add that your Labor opponent at the upcoming election, Ms. Carina Garland has already met with me. I am confident that she will provide the assistance and support that I require, should she be successful at the upcoming election. I am hoping that you can match her commitment. As a Labor Candidate Ms Carina Garland obviously has strong views on ethics and integrity in Government and would be calling for an anti-corruption body, to be established to investigate allegations such as mine.
Thankyou for you consideration, and I await your response at the earliest opportunity,
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Letter to Gladys Liu
A very fair offer from Glen Buckley. Glen is an inspiration to keep on for what’s right, and an example to us all.
He has a measured way of expression and is sticking to the facts of his case.
To be tenacious in these circumstances takes courage and we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact we all stand to benefit from any improvements that are achieved.
There will be beneficial ramifications for GA irrespective of any particular outcomes for Glen and his family in the short term.
Exactly what will ensue might not be obvious but his case is gaining political notoriety that is sure to be of influence in favour of GA in the future.
He has a measured way of expression and is sticking to the facts of his case.
To be tenacious in these circumstances takes courage and we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact we all stand to benefit from any improvements that are achieved.
There will be beneficial ramifications for GA irrespective of any particular outcomes for Glen and his family in the short term.
Exactly what will ensue might not be obvious but his case is gaining political notoriety that is sure to be of influence in favour of GA in the future.
A couple of points, on the run:
- the current Statement of Expectations is largely irrelevant to your circumstances - perhaps link to both the previous and current one? (Though I can't find a copy of the old one, but only searched briefly.)
- the APS Code of Conduct is not relevant to CASA (and I can't find a copy of CASA's Code of Conduct on its website, but only searched briefly).
Will try to comment more when I can digest.
(I doubt whether too many recipients will be reading your corro on ANZAC Day. Perhaps send at 9AM on 26 April?)
- the current Statement of Expectations is largely irrelevant to your circumstances - perhaps link to both the previous and current one? (Though I can't find a copy of the old one, but only searched briefly.)
- the APS Code of Conduct is not relevant to CASA (and I can't find a copy of CASA's Code of Conduct on its website, but only searched briefly).
Will try to comment more when I can digest.
(I doubt whether too many recipients will be reading your corro on ANZAC Day. Perhaps send at 9AM on 26 April?)
The Statement of Expectations
LB makes the point the the SoE has little relevance to Glen’s case.
Reading the SoE you will see that apart from the fact that it has little power, being this weak idea of a mechanism that’s not an instruction, but merely a hopeful wink and nod, it’s abundantly clear that it has more let outs than a large wire sieve.
Expectations, not Directions:-
“ Paragraph (a) — review its regulatory philosophy following industry consultation by the end of 2022.“
Industry consultation???….. For crying out loud why??? Is this joke??? Another inquiry??? Yes Minister, sure, we all want to dust off the ASSR and RRAT submissions, not to mention all the other forgotten useless inquiry excuses for doing nothing and do it all over again.
“ …to achieve appropriate mutual recognition and bilateral arrangements to support the recognition of Australian designs, innovation and certification in comparable jurisdictions, and minimise the red tape involved in moving between such jurisdictions …where possible,….”
Note ‘’appropriate” and “where possible.”
Not one “CASA shall…”, it’s all about “support, consult, investigate or examine.”
The SoE is shot through with such escape clauses.
The Minister has only set out some wobbly sign posts to desirable reforms that have been screaming necessities for years. Then the timing, not one real action this side of the election, apart from a (so far) temporary stop on the further alienation of irreplaceable airport property at MB.
I think BJ and the Coalition are a still better bet, but like war, politics is unpredictable. We, and Glen, battle on.
Reading the SoE you will see that apart from the fact that it has little power, being this weak idea of a mechanism that’s not an instruction, but merely a hopeful wink and nod, it’s abundantly clear that it has more let outs than a large wire sieve.
Expectations, not Directions:-
“ Paragraph (a) — review its regulatory philosophy following industry consultation by the end of 2022.“
Industry consultation???….. For crying out loud why??? Is this joke??? Another inquiry??? Yes Minister, sure, we all want to dust off the ASSR and RRAT submissions, not to mention all the other forgotten useless inquiry excuses for doing nothing and do it all over again.
“ …to achieve appropriate mutual recognition and bilateral arrangements to support the recognition of Australian designs, innovation and certification in comparable jurisdictions, and minimise the red tape involved in moving between such jurisdictions …where possible,….”
Note ‘’appropriate” and “where possible.”
Not one “CASA shall…”, it’s all about “support, consult, investigate or examine.”
The SoE is shot through with such escape clauses.
The Minister has only set out some wobbly sign posts to desirable reforms that have been screaming necessities for years. Then the timing, not one real action this side of the election, apart from a (so far) temporary stop on the further alienation of irreplaceable airport property at MB.
I think BJ and the Coalition are a still better bet, but like war, politics is unpredictable. We, and Glen, battle on.
The SOE is and always was just smoke and mirrors to fool people into believing the Minister has some substantial control over the performance of CASA’s functions and exercise of CASA’s powers. All you have to do is read it to work out that it’s practically meaningless.
Glen
Are you able to identify, with precision, the terms of “the decision” that you say Dr Aleck made?
On my reading of the email of 13 March 2019, Dr Aleck could argue that it was Mr White’s decision as to what he did or didn’t do about Dr Aleck’s team’s ‘input’. It was Mr White who wrote to you and Mr White who said he “agreed with” the ‘input’ from Dr Aleck’s team cut and pasted in the email to you. (I use the word ‘input’ because it is not clear who was advising and who was deciding. But that lack of clarity is the point. Dr Aleck is rarely silly enough to make any decision for which he could be held accountable. Try finding his name mentioned in any AAT or Federal Court decision made in the last couple of decades.)
And the genius of the content of the email is that it appears to give you a pathway to certification (on the basis of an interpretation of Parts 141 and 142 that isn’t supported by the words of those Parts - but that’s a mere bagatelle). But it was a practically impossible path.
Are you able to identify, with precision, the terms of “the decision” that you say Dr Aleck made?
On my reading of the email of 13 March 2019, Dr Aleck could argue that it was Mr White’s decision as to what he did or didn’t do about Dr Aleck’s team’s ‘input’. It was Mr White who wrote to you and Mr White who said he “agreed with” the ‘input’ from Dr Aleck’s team cut and pasted in the email to you. (I use the word ‘input’ because it is not clear who was advising and who was deciding. But that lack of clarity is the point. Dr Aleck is rarely silly enough to make any decision for which he could be held accountable. Try finding his name mentioned in any AAT or Federal Court decision made in the last couple of decades.)
And the genius of the content of the email is that it appears to give you a pathway to certification (on the basis of an interpretation of Parts 141 and 142 that isn’t supported by the words of those Parts - but that’s a mere bagatelle). But it was a practically impossible path.
Thread Starter
Lead Balloon 2 of 2
Lead Balloon,
Apologies in that previous post. The notification is posted above, although in the incorrect order. My first time with an inline attachment.
This really is the issue. CASA never issued any formal decision letter. They simply advised that the concept was unlawful. Apparently a breach of the Aviation Ruling which CASA has since withdrawn, and an allegation of a breach of the Civil Aviation Act.
CASA had previously approved a number of bases under the "significant change" procedure i.e. MFT, AVIA and LTF. It was when we went to add on the new members that CASA advised of the regulatory breach.
After fighting the issue for 8 months, CASA stood by their original decision that it was illegal, and forced all pre-approved customers i.e. MFT, AVIA, and LTF to leave, and refused to process the applications for new Members.
I approached the AAT, but because CASA had not issued a decision letter, technically no decision had been made, and there was no decision that I could appeal.
I appreciate thats a bit brief, but Im about to head out and off air tomorrow. I will be monitoring and address any follow up queries late tomorrow night or first thing Monday morning.
Apologies in that previous post. The notification is posted above, although in the incorrect order. My first time with an inline attachment.
This really is the issue. CASA never issued any formal decision letter. They simply advised that the concept was unlawful. Apparently a breach of the Aviation Ruling which CASA has since withdrawn, and an allegation of a breach of the Civil Aviation Act.
CASA had previously approved a number of bases under the "significant change" procedure i.e. MFT, AVIA and LTF. It was when we went to add on the new members that CASA advised of the regulatory breach.
After fighting the issue for 8 months, CASA stood by their original decision that it was illegal, and forced all pre-approved customers i.e. MFT, AVIA, and LTF to leave, and refused to process the applications for new Members.
I approached the AAT, but because CASA had not issued a decision letter, technically no decision had been made, and there was no decision that I could appeal.
I appreciate thats a bit brief, but Im about to head out and off air tomorrow. I will be monitoring and address any follow up queries late tomorrow night or first thing Monday morning.
Pathways to P141/142 and caretaker mode
It should not be forgotten that, according to John King (USA flying school specialist and paid consultant to CASA), in letter to Dick Smith, that about 70% of USA pilots are trained outside the Part 141/142 system by independent instructors.
In addition, instructors do not need any medical certification to teach post solo students.
Also Mike Smith advised that to achieve P141/142 is a simple and low cost procedure with the FAA template. In complete contrast to the months and years of complex and hugely expensive negotiations with CASA leading more often to those applications giving up in disgust having lost $thousands in application fees.
Caretaker mode does not preclude Minister Joyce from taking action, judgement is advised but there’s no legal basis to alter or prevent the business of government. Better if the Opposition Is consulted but again depending on the creation of commitment to an incoming government. Political parties have no mention in our Constitution.
Avenues exist for Minister Joyce to call CASA to account about it’s treatment of Glen Buckley right now before the election irrespective of caretaker conventions.
In addition, instructors do not need any medical certification to teach post solo students.
Also Mike Smith advised that to achieve P141/142 is a simple and low cost procedure with the FAA template. In complete contrast to the months and years of complex and hugely expensive negotiations with CASA leading more often to those applications giving up in disgust having lost $thousands in application fees.
Caretaker mode does not preclude Minister Joyce from taking action, judgement is advised but there’s no legal basis to alter or prevent the business of government. Better if the Opposition Is consulted but again depending on the creation of commitment to an incoming government. Political parties have no mention in our Constitution.
Avenues exist for Minister Joyce to call CASA to account about it’s treatment of Glen Buckley right now before the election irrespective of caretaker conventions.
It should not be forgotten that, according to John King (USA flying school specialist and paid consultant to CASA), in letter to Dick Smith, that about 70% of USA pilots are trained outside the Part 141/142 system by independent instructors.
In addition, instructors do not need any medical certification to teach post solo students.
In addition, instructors do not need any medical certification to teach post solo students.
Lead Balloon,
Apologies in that previous post. The notification is posted above, although in the incorrect order. My first time with an inline attachment.
This really is the issue. CASA never issued any formal decision letter. They simply advised that the concept was unlawful. Apparently a breach of the Aviation Ruling which CASA has since withdrawn, and an allegation of a breach of the Civil Aviation Act.
CASA had previously approved a number of bases under the "significant change" procedure i.e. MFT, AVIA and LTF. It was when we went to add on the new members that CASA advised of the regulatory breach.
After fighting the issue for 8 months, CASA stood by their original decision that it was illegal, and forced all pre-approved customers i.e. MFT, AVIA, and LTF to leave, and refused to process the applications for new Members.
I approached the AAT, but because CASA had not issued a decision letter, technically no decision had been made, and there was no decision that I could appeal.
I appreciate thats a bit brief, but Im about to head out and off air tomorrow. I will be monitoring and address any follow up queries late tomorrow night or first thing Monday morning.
Apologies in that previous post. The notification is posted above, although in the incorrect order. My first time with an inline attachment.
This really is the issue. CASA never issued any formal decision letter. They simply advised that the concept was unlawful. Apparently a breach of the Aviation Ruling which CASA has since withdrawn, and an allegation of a breach of the Civil Aviation Act.
CASA had previously approved a number of bases under the "significant change" procedure i.e. MFT, AVIA and LTF. It was when we went to add on the new members that CASA advised of the regulatory breach.
After fighting the issue for 8 months, CASA stood by their original decision that it was illegal, and forced all pre-approved customers i.e. MFT, AVIA, and LTF to leave, and refused to process the applications for new Members.
I approached the AAT, but because CASA had not issued a decision letter, technically no decision had been made, and there was no decision that I could appeal.
I appreciate thats a bit brief, but Im about to head out and off air tomorrow. I will be monitoring and address any follow up queries late tomorrow night or first thing Monday morning.
[Y]ou maintain complete control over your business. Your business maintains its identity and individuality. Your administration function and procedures remain completely your own, independent of the Alliance.
The aviation-related operational activities of the ‘Alliance’ ‘members’ had to be authorised either by a certificate held each of the ‘members’ or a certificate held by APTA. There is no ‘half pregnant’ here. If those activities were going to be authorised by APTA’s certificate, APTA had to have complete control over and responsibility for them. That can be achieved through contracts between APTA and the Alliance members, and Parts 141 and 142 accommodate that as a means by which to demonstrate that control and means of discharging that responsibility.
When APTA was granted approvals to conduct flying training activities at different ‘bases’, it was still only APTA which was authorised to conduct those activities at those different ‘bases’ and those approvals were given on the basis of an assessment of APTA’s level of control over and means by which APTA would discharge its responsibilities arising from those activities. If CASA had gone to one of those locations and found that, for example, flying training aircraft were being utilised without required maintenance having been carried out, CASA would have taken action against APTA.
I’ll use the ‘one University; different campuses’ analogy again. If the University has no control over the academic standards and teaching activities of those campuses, they’re not really part of the university. Sure: Each campus can organise its own library facilities and photocopier maintenance and paper supplies, but the University has to have ultimate control over what and how things are taught and tested, and demonstrate how the responsibility for the maintenance of academic and teaching standards will be and is being discharged.
The problem with running a flying school business is that financial viability affects the business’s capacity to pay for things like aircraft maintenance. CASA has power to assess the financial viability of certificate holders. CASA was entitled to know, for example, how APTA was going to demonstrate the financial viability of and the means by which a ‘member’ was going to ensure that required aircraft maintenance could be paid for, despite what APTA said on its website about each member maintaining ‘complete control’ over its own ‘business’. CASA is entitled to know how APTA was going to monitor whether aircraft used by ‘Alliance’ ‘members’ for flying training under the authority of APTA’s certificate were being maintained properly.
CASA ‘rulings’ are just its opinion. But the kinds concepts and distinctions I’ve set out above are ‘Operator Certification 101’.
You must get crystal clear, in your own mind, what APTA meant by what it said on its website. If, for example, APTA was merely trying to draw a distinction between e.g. a ‘member’ buying and maintaining and feeding a photocopier and organising the cleaning of toilets and taking bookings for flying training - ‘administration function and procedures’ - on the hand, and aviation-related operational matters on the other, with ‘Alliance’ ‘members’ having complete control and autonomy only over the former and APTA having complete control over and responsibility for the latter, then that in my view wasn’t made very clear on APTA’s website. But you have to get it clear in your mind, first, otherwise you can’t write crystal clear stuff about it.
(Of course, as has already been said, the whole regulatory rigmarole is typical CASA over-kill. Bring on independent instructors.)
Safety USA v Australia
Tossbag makes the point with a heartfelt sarcastic statement.
“And yet, the safety outcomes are so horrendously worse in the US. (Sarcasm)”
For those who haven’t much to do with safety comparisons between the USA and Oz there’s no hard and fast variation as far as I know. Otherwise I’ve heard from respected sources that the record in the USA is better, in spite of a much less friendly flying environment in terms of weather and geography.
Then there’s all those USA trained pilots that fly regularly in our airspace.
Knowing how superior is our flying training, world beating** I heard on radio news one morning some 20 years ago, from a CASA media release (choking on Weeties), I think CASA should ban those non Part 141/142 trained pilots USA from tainting our pure and safe skies.
Let’s call for this necessary reform, in the interests of safety and conforming with the Government’s Act stating that Safety has the highest priority.
Wouldn’t this be all neat and tidy in the style of CASA’s legal department ? (real serious no joke)
** Competency based training!!!
“And yet, the safety outcomes are so horrendously worse in the US. (Sarcasm)”
For those who haven’t much to do with safety comparisons between the USA and Oz there’s no hard and fast variation as far as I know. Otherwise I’ve heard from respected sources that the record in the USA is better, in spite of a much less friendly flying environment in terms of weather and geography.
Then there’s all those USA trained pilots that fly regularly in our airspace.
Knowing how superior is our flying training, world beating** I heard on radio news one morning some 20 years ago, from a CASA media release (choking on Weeties), I think CASA should ban those non Part 141/142 trained pilots USA from tainting our pure and safe skies.
Let’s call for this necessary reform, in the interests of safety and conforming with the Government’s Act stating that Safety has the highest priority.
Wouldn’t this be all neat and tidy in the style of CASA’s legal department ? (real serious no joke)
** Competency based training!!!
Thread Starter
I need your help again.
Later tonight i will publish some correspondence that i have taken feedback on. My intention is to ask you to forward it on to your local member. The topic is relevant, as it relates to the issue of Governance of Government Departments and the need for an anti corruption commission. Something the Labor Part, Greens, and every Independent politician feel is needed. I could forward this on myself, but it carries significantly more weight if it comes from a constituent. Cheers. Glen
Hi Glen, Celia Hammond is the (Liberal) Federal Member for Curtin, here in WA. I'm happy to forward your correspondence to her office as a local constituent. My email address is [email protected]
Cheers.
Cheers.
An anti corruption body
I support Glen in his battle for justice but with respect disagree with the notion of yet another independent taxpayer funded and experimental arm of the legal system which cuts across the the hard fought and tried means of the British system. The CASA is an example of an independent Commonwealth body outside of Ministerial control, a monumental failure by any measure.
I fully understand the frustration that precipitates looking around for a solution but unfortunately in the attempt to graft on some form of the European inquisitorial system is fraught with trouble.
Quite apart from the inherent problems of an ICAC type body, this move to such a solution reduces the responsibility of the police and MPs to investigate and uncover wrongdoing. Legal matters are defined in very ordered ways, meanings such as that for ‘corruption’ are not as wide as political measures of happenings so perceptions vary.
We should call for MPs to to look after the problems that individual constituents face from government instrumentalities. If they fix one problem for one person likely the bureaucrats will think twice in further dealings with the populace.
I fully understand the frustration that precipitates looking around for a solution but unfortunately in the attempt to graft on some form of the European inquisitorial system is fraught with trouble.
Quite apart from the inherent problems of an ICAC type body, this move to such a solution reduces the responsibility of the police and MPs to investigate and uncover wrongdoing. Legal matters are defined in very ordered ways, meanings such as that for ‘corruption’ are not as wide as political measures of happenings so perceptions vary.
We should call for MPs to to look after the problems that individual constituents face from government instrumentalities. If they fix one problem for one person likely the bureaucrats will think twice in further dealings with the populace.