Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Thread Starter
Submission of allegation- Part Seven
Complaint Three of a CASA employee being responsible for providing false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office.
A CASA Employee falsely and misleadingly led the Ombudsman to be of the opinion that I failed to inform CASA of what I was doing or that I missed some formal procedure or required notification and that is the basis for CASAs clearly false claim that they only became aware of my structure some time just prior to October 2018 when they unlawfully closed the business down. The suggestion by CASA
After discussion with the Ombudsman’s office, it has become abundantly clear that Mr Aleck, an employee of CASA has led the Ombudsman’s office to be of the view that CASA was not fully aware of my business structure, until just prior to October 2018, when CASA incorrectly decided that I was operating unlawfully, issued the notification, and closed my business down.
The Ombudsman’s Office suggested that I may have “failed to let everyone know within CASA”.
Whilst I accept that the Ombudsman did not mean literally that I had to advise everyone in CASA, the insinuation was that I had bypassed some procedure, or not advised someone within CASA of what I was doing i.e., that there was an omission on my behalf.
Quite simply. I was doing this for 6 years with full CASA formal approval. I met with CASA in mid-2016 to outline the proposal for expanding on the exact same structure that I had adopted for many years but this time doing it to a much higher standard and in accordance with the new upcoming regulations. Many thousands of pages of documentation, risk assessments, interviews, Significant Change applications etc were done, fees paid, and even a meeting with the second in charge of CASA. The truth is that I provided all information, and there is nothing that I believe I could have done to communicate my exact intentions i.e., to expand on what I was already doing.
If CASA have led the Ombudsman to believe that I missed some procedure, or some form was not completed, or I was deficient in any way at all in communicating fully and completely with CASA, then CASA should be able to clearly identify what step or procedure that I missed was.
This is important, not only for me, but for other business owners. If CASA close a business down and try to claim that a contributing factor is that the Owner was deficient in communicating the exact nature of his or her business, and that Business Owner maintains robustly that he did not miss any steps, procedures, notifications, communications, etc, CASA should be able to clearly what form or procedure was missed, and especially so when those CASA personnel are working side by side with the business owner in a full revalidation of the business two years prior. It is highly unlikely that bases would have been approved formally by CASA if a procedure had been missed.
I am fully satisfied that no steps, procedures, notifications or communications were missed. I met or exceeded every obligation that I had placed on me. The correct people were spoken to within CASA. I worked with the correct CASA employees. I submitted the correct documentation including all applications, Significant Change requests, met on site with the correct CASA employees, developed the manuals with CASA years earlier, paid all fees, etc etc
I accept that perhaps Mr Aleck as the Executive Manager of Legal, International, and regulatory Affairs did not know, although his department was responsible for the final approval of our revalidation issued 18 months before Mr Aleck claims that CASA first became aware. In my 25 years in the industry, I had never had any contact with Mr Aleck at all and would not be expected to have contact.
I absolutely cannot accept that CASA did not know, or that I missed some obligation or opportunity. If Mr Aleck claims that he was not aware then that is indicative of major deficiencies within CASA that need to be addressed, not a deficiency on my part.
Every correct contact was made with every person and department in CASA that I was required to communicate with. Mr Aleck is in Canberra and to the best of my knowledge had not even been to the Airport where our Head office was based. He has never been to any of my bases. I would not be expected to ever have any communication with him. Any communication with Mr Aleck on my structure would be an internal communication within CASA, after I complete all my procedures with the front-line staff i.e., my CASA Certificate Management Team (CMT)
My complaint is that CASA has mislead the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that I may have missed some notification, application, procedure, communication, documentation etc.
If CASA claim this to be the truth. Then CASA should be able to clearly identify what procedure was missed by me. If CASA now concur that every single procedure was attended to, and that there were absolutely no errors at all on my behalf, CASA should be able to explain at least, what I could have done to better inform CASA of my structure.
A response to this will assist me but is also important for the wider industry. A business owner must be confident in CASAs procedures. The reasonable expectation is that once a CASA approval has been issued to a person or a business, and that business has operated safely and compliantly for over a decade, that CASA has well and truly done their due diligence, and that is exactly the basis for the issue.
To come back many years later, reverse a previously issued approval, close businesses down and contend that those approvals were issued in error because the holder failed to properly notify the issuing authority all of the details is absurd, and more so if the authority is unable to identify what was missed or the procedures that were omitted.
A response to this is important because my compliant concerns CASA misleading and providing false information to the Ombudsman that I had failed or was deficient in some way in communicating the same structure that other flight training organisations had adopted throughout my 25 years in the industry. CASA should be able to identify those omissions clearly and concisely on my behalf, if in fact there were any.
My expected outcome from this complaint is that if CASA contend that I was deficient in any way in fully and formally communicating the exact structure that I had adopted for 6 years, then CASA should be able to identify that omission on my behalf. CASA should also be able to identify how I could have avoided this entire matter by explaining what I should have done better.
Conclusion
I trust that you can appreciate the significance of the Ombudsman’s Office being very clear on the outcome of these three complaints, but may I put the importance of truthful responses into context.
If CASA always permitted on every occasion, and had done since the inception of CASA, more than one flying school to operate under a single CASA authorisation, exactly as I did,
and;
If CASA was fully aware that I had adopted that exact CASA approved structure for at least 6 years,
and;
If CASA has no supporting safety case at all to support their decision to close my businesses.
and;
If CASA can identify no regulatory breach to support their decision to close my businesses
and;
If CASA claim that their regulatory approach is outcome based yet cannot identify any concerns against any quality outcomes at all to support their decision to close my business
and;
if CASA have shown a flagrant disregard for their own procedures and obligations under Administrative Law in their Enforcement Manual , and shown total disregard for their own Regulatory Philosophy Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
and;
if the Owner of the business closed down by CASA maintains that all of the harm caused by CASAs decision to close the business could have been avoided by a well intentioned 4 hour discussion, and CASA is unable to challenge that assertion.
and;
If you consider the enormity of the trauma caused to me and my family, not only financially but also the impact on our mental and physical health,
Then you will appreciate that responses to my complaints are essential in any determination by a third party such as the Ombudsman or some other forum. I look forward to hearing from you.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
A CASA Employee falsely and misleadingly led the Ombudsman to be of the opinion that I failed to inform CASA of what I was doing or that I missed some formal procedure or required notification and that is the basis for CASAs clearly false claim that they only became aware of my structure some time just prior to October 2018 when they unlawfully closed the business down. The suggestion by CASA
After discussion with the Ombudsman’s office, it has become abundantly clear that Mr Aleck, an employee of CASA has led the Ombudsman’s office to be of the view that CASA was not fully aware of my business structure, until just prior to October 2018, when CASA incorrectly decided that I was operating unlawfully, issued the notification, and closed my business down.
The Ombudsman’s Office suggested that I may have “failed to let everyone know within CASA”.
Whilst I accept that the Ombudsman did not mean literally that I had to advise everyone in CASA, the insinuation was that I had bypassed some procedure, or not advised someone within CASA of what I was doing i.e., that there was an omission on my behalf.
Quite simply. I was doing this for 6 years with full CASA formal approval. I met with CASA in mid-2016 to outline the proposal for expanding on the exact same structure that I had adopted for many years but this time doing it to a much higher standard and in accordance with the new upcoming regulations. Many thousands of pages of documentation, risk assessments, interviews, Significant Change applications etc were done, fees paid, and even a meeting with the second in charge of CASA. The truth is that I provided all information, and there is nothing that I believe I could have done to communicate my exact intentions i.e., to expand on what I was already doing.
If CASA have led the Ombudsman to believe that I missed some procedure, or some form was not completed, or I was deficient in any way at all in communicating fully and completely with CASA, then CASA should be able to clearly identify what step or procedure that I missed was.
This is important, not only for me, but for other business owners. If CASA close a business down and try to claim that a contributing factor is that the Owner was deficient in communicating the exact nature of his or her business, and that Business Owner maintains robustly that he did not miss any steps, procedures, notifications, communications, etc, CASA should be able to clearly what form or procedure was missed, and especially so when those CASA personnel are working side by side with the business owner in a full revalidation of the business two years prior. It is highly unlikely that bases would have been approved formally by CASA if a procedure had been missed.
I am fully satisfied that no steps, procedures, notifications or communications were missed. I met or exceeded every obligation that I had placed on me. The correct people were spoken to within CASA. I worked with the correct CASA employees. I submitted the correct documentation including all applications, Significant Change requests, met on site with the correct CASA employees, developed the manuals with CASA years earlier, paid all fees, etc etc
I accept that perhaps Mr Aleck as the Executive Manager of Legal, International, and regulatory Affairs did not know, although his department was responsible for the final approval of our revalidation issued 18 months before Mr Aleck claims that CASA first became aware. In my 25 years in the industry, I had never had any contact with Mr Aleck at all and would not be expected to have contact.
I absolutely cannot accept that CASA did not know, or that I missed some obligation or opportunity. If Mr Aleck claims that he was not aware then that is indicative of major deficiencies within CASA that need to be addressed, not a deficiency on my part.
Every correct contact was made with every person and department in CASA that I was required to communicate with. Mr Aleck is in Canberra and to the best of my knowledge had not even been to the Airport where our Head office was based. He has never been to any of my bases. I would not be expected to ever have any communication with him. Any communication with Mr Aleck on my structure would be an internal communication within CASA, after I complete all my procedures with the front-line staff i.e., my CASA Certificate Management Team (CMT)
My complaint is that CASA has mislead the Ombudsman’s Office to be of the view that I may have missed some notification, application, procedure, communication, documentation etc.
If CASA claim this to be the truth. Then CASA should be able to clearly identify what procedure was missed by me. If CASA now concur that every single procedure was attended to, and that there were absolutely no errors at all on my behalf, CASA should be able to explain at least, what I could have done to better inform CASA of my structure.
A response to this will assist me but is also important for the wider industry. A business owner must be confident in CASAs procedures. The reasonable expectation is that once a CASA approval has been issued to a person or a business, and that business has operated safely and compliantly for over a decade, that CASA has well and truly done their due diligence, and that is exactly the basis for the issue.
To come back many years later, reverse a previously issued approval, close businesses down and contend that those approvals were issued in error because the holder failed to properly notify the issuing authority all of the details is absurd, and more so if the authority is unable to identify what was missed or the procedures that were omitted.
A response to this is important because my compliant concerns CASA misleading and providing false information to the Ombudsman that I had failed or was deficient in some way in communicating the same structure that other flight training organisations had adopted throughout my 25 years in the industry. CASA should be able to identify those omissions clearly and concisely on my behalf, if in fact there were any.
My expected outcome from this complaint is that if CASA contend that I was deficient in any way in fully and formally communicating the exact structure that I had adopted for 6 years, then CASA should be able to identify that omission on my behalf. CASA should also be able to identify how I could have avoided this entire matter by explaining what I should have done better.
Conclusion
I trust that you can appreciate the significance of the Ombudsman’s Office being very clear on the outcome of these three complaints, but may I put the importance of truthful responses into context.
If CASA always permitted on every occasion, and had done since the inception of CASA, more than one flying school to operate under a single CASA authorisation, exactly as I did,
and;
If CASA was fully aware that I had adopted that exact CASA approved structure for at least 6 years,
and;
If CASA has no supporting safety case at all to support their decision to close my businesses.
and;
If CASA can identify no regulatory breach to support their decision to close my businesses
and;
If CASA claim that their regulatory approach is outcome based yet cannot identify any concerns against any quality outcomes at all to support their decision to close my business
and;
if CASA have shown a flagrant disregard for their own procedures and obligations under Administrative Law in their Enforcement Manual , and shown total disregard for their own Regulatory Philosophy Our regulatory philosophy | Civil Aviation Safety Authority (casa.gov.au)
and;
if the Owner of the business closed down by CASA maintains that all of the harm caused by CASAs decision to close the business could have been avoided by a well intentioned 4 hour discussion, and CASA is unable to challenge that assertion.
and;
If you consider the enormity of the trauma caused to me and my family, not only financially but also the impact on our mental and physical health,
Then you will appreciate that responses to my complaints are essential in any determination by a third party such as the Ombudsman or some other forum. I look forward to hearing from you.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
Aerial Perspective Post #2224
Cheers Aerial perspective. I honestly have no idea who you are, but your comments are well received. Cheers. Glen
GlenB All cards on table. AerialPerspective Comment 2234
Glen, a tour de force of the whole sorry saga, I hope CASA answers in a positive and constructive manner with view to compensation. The CASA CEO should lead because that is her job and if there was ever a case that demands action this is it.
AerialPerspective comments on the negative side of our political landscape and in general will get no argument from many people but ask ourselves a a question.
How do we improve if not through individual effort within the democratic institutions that we’ve inherited?
AerialPerspective comments on the negative side of our political landscape and in general will get no argument from many people but ask ourselves a a question.
How do we improve if not through individual effort within the democratic institutions that we’ve inherited?
Sandy:
Sadly no. If "they" can discover one statement by Glen that is capable of being construed to his disadvantage, eg. an error in dates, something that might look like a threat, etc. they will take it and weave a story around it that portrays Glen as a malcontent nutcase who refuses to take "no" for an answer and can be safely ignored.
Unfortunately such sad cases do exist and regularly pester officials about imagined grievances and conspiracies**. I would imagine that Glen has already been labelled as such.
As I have written more than once, Glens complaint would have ended up on Dr. A's desk and he would be writing the letters for the DAS and Board to sign together with the brief to them explaining the situation as Dr. A sees it and asking for their signatures.
Neither the Board nor DAS will know anything about Buckley except what was written in the brief and they will follow the departmental advice contained therein to the letter.
** For example, I was once asked to deal with a nut who kept at the Premiere about a nuclear power plant for Victoria. Since no municipality would permit such a power plant, his solution was to build it on a barge to be anchored in the river Yarra. He complained to the Premiere (Kennett) that he had everything lined up to proceed except that BHP refused to manufacture 200 mm armor plate that he calculated he needed for his barge - they were part of a conspiracy against him and would we help? I forget how I fobbed him off, I think I asked him for details of his patents or something.
Glen, a tour de force of the whole sorry saga, I hope CASA answers in a positive and constructive manner with view to compensation. The CASA CEO should lead because that is her job and if there was ever a case that demands action this is it.
Unfortunately such sad cases do exist and regularly pester officials about imagined grievances and conspiracies**. I would imagine that Glen has already been labelled as such.
As I have written more than once, Glens complaint would have ended up on Dr. A's desk and he would be writing the letters for the DAS and Board to sign together with the brief to them explaining the situation as Dr. A sees it and asking for their signatures.
Neither the Board nor DAS will know anything about Buckley except what was written in the brief and they will follow the departmental advice contained therein to the letter.
** For example, I was once asked to deal with a nut who kept at the Premiere about a nuclear power plant for Victoria. Since no municipality would permit such a power plant, his solution was to build it on a barge to be anchored in the river Yarra. He complained to the Premiere (Kennett) that he had everything lined up to proceed except that BHP refused to manufacture 200 mm armor plate that he calculated he needed for his barge - they were part of a conspiracy against him and would we help? I forget how I fobbed him off, I think I asked him for details of his patents or something.
What the CASA Board knows
Quote Sunfish:-
“Neither the Board nor DAS will know anything about Buckley except what was written in the brief and they will follow the departmental advice contained therein to the letter.”
With respect that might be likely but maybe they do have some additional knowledge and it’s a prospect that we should endeavour to build upon. There would be few, if any, more prominent cases of bureaucratic incompetence and completely unjustifiable action against an individual.
In particular the declaration of “not a fit and proper person” and preventing Glen to work in GA would have to be the lowest act of all.
“Neither the Board nor DAS will know anything about Buckley except what was written in the brief and they will follow the departmental advice contained therein to the letter.”
With respect that might be likely but maybe they do have some additional knowledge and it’s a prospect that we should endeavour to build upon. There would be few, if any, more prominent cases of bureaucratic incompetence and completely unjustifiable action against an individual.
In particular the declaration of “not a fit and proper person” and preventing Glen to work in GA would have to be the lowest act of all.
No, I think the lowest act was Carmody’s accusation, under parliamentary privilege, that Glen had stalked and assaulted CASA staff. So far as I am aware - Glen will correct me if I’m wrong - Glen has not been charged with or questioned by police about either allegation.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote Sunfish:-
“Neither the Board nor DAS will know anything about Buckley except what was written in the brief and they will follow the departmental advice contained therein to the letter.”
With respect that might be likely but maybe they do have some additional knowledge and it’s a prospect that we should endeavour to build upon. There would be few, if any, more prominent cases of bureaucratic incompetence and completely unjustifiable action against an individual.
In particular the declaration of “not a fit and proper person” and preventing Glen to work in GA would have to be the lowest act of all.
“Neither the Board nor DAS will know anything about Buckley except what was written in the brief and they will follow the departmental advice contained therein to the letter.”
With respect that might be likely but maybe they do have some additional knowledge and it’s a prospect that we should endeavour to build upon. There would be few, if any, more prominent cases of bureaucratic incompetence and completely unjustifiable action against an individual.
In particular the declaration of “not a fit and proper person” and preventing Glen to work in GA would have to be the lowest act of all.
Glen, a tour de force of the whole sorry saga, I hope CASA answers in a positive and constructive manner with view to compensation. The CASA CEO should lead because that is her job and if there was ever a case that demands action this is it.
AerialPerspective comments on the negative side of our political landscape and in general will get no argument from many people but ask ourselves a a question.
How do we improve if not through individual effort within the democratic institutions that we’ve inherited?
AerialPerspective comments on the negative side of our political landscape and in general will get no argument from many people but ask ourselves a a question.
How do we improve if not through individual effort within the democratic institutions that we’ve inherited?
Although it's on the nose at present, there are some aspects of the US system that should be implemented along with other measures we develop ourselves, such as providing a clearer separation of the elements of the executive, without changing the system too much. The head of state should be a bit more than a rubber stamp. The eventual transition to a republic may well provide an opportunity to 'tack on' some simple but effective restraints on the parliamentary executive - off the top of my head, perhaps the ability of the HoS to refer contentious legislation to a constitutional committee made up of three justices of the High Court, to ensure it's constitutionality. Such a small measure would, by its existence, probably put pressure on parliament not to pass badly drafted and over-the-top legislation and would likely be used invoked rarely. Such a thing would provide an effective restraint on executive overreach and involve the three branches of government checking each other's power, similar to the way the US system is 'supposed' to work.
Certainly, a broad-based anti-corruption body at the Commonwealth level is the first step, with the ability to look backward.
I think in the vein of what you stated, that the election of the teals, additional greens and even more ALP members and the rejection of people who opposed the 'Federal ICAC' concept, made me very proud that the people still have the ability to instigate change in this country.
And although I have zero respect for the man himself, I applaud Morrison's concession speech. No one is all bad and his introductory line that (words to the effect) ".... while there are still many votes to be counted, the country needs certainty and accordingly I have spoken to Mr Albanese and congratulated him on his historic victory..."
I think that was probably ScoMo's finest ever speech and it, along with the election, showed we are not so far down the track as other Western nations when it comes to democracy being in jeopardy. But we need to reform anyway.
However, if we ever bump into each other, as I trust you, I will reveal who I am LOL.
Just hang in there and don't give up. You are on the right side of history, CASA is not.
I know it's little comfort but there is that old saying, spoken by Martin Luther King Jr I believe (although maybe not originating from him) "The arc of time is long, but ultimately it bends toward justice".
The CASA CEO and Board will be acutely aware of who Glen is and what the current status of his complaint is. CASA may be all and powerful, but they exist as a barrier between industry and the Minister. A protective cocoon if you will. However Glen has shone a spotlight on several Ministers by going public about CASA and not letting go - speaking on radio, speaking in the media, writing to many politicians etc. It hasn’t gone unnoticed by numerous testicle deficient ministers. And the proof of that is by way of several scalps that have already been sacrificed by CASA - Crawford, Martin, McHeyzer, all rolled/pressured to leave. And if rumour is to be believed, Aleck was also strongly encouraged to retire. Frau Spence is slowly picking them all off one at a time. But all for naught as Glen is all about justice and I imagine that an apology and adequate compensation is the only thing that will make Glen go away.
Adequate is up to Glen but if it were me, adequate would be nothing less than a) the apology; and b) compensation sufficient to restore Glen's life to what it was, e.g. house owned in similar price category to what he had, settlement of any payments Glen feels he should meet despite any legal obviation of same via bankruptcy and sufficient funds to REALLY satisfy the degree of pain, suffering and stress that has been caused by this whole affair.
Which is why Glen needs to keep going and not give up. Eventually, it will become apparent that more political damage is likely than financial if they just admit they were wrong and adequately compensate Glen.
Adequate is up to Glen but if it were me, adequate would be nothing less than a) the apology; and b) compensation sufficient to restore Glen's life to what it was, e.g. house owned in similar price category to what he had, settlement of any payments Glen feels he should meet despite any legal obviation of same via bankruptcy and sufficient funds to REALLY satisfy the degree of pain, suffering and stress that has been caused by this whole affair.
Adequate is up to Glen but if it were me, adequate would be nothing less than a) the apology; and b) compensation sufficient to restore Glen's life to what it was, e.g. house owned in similar price category to what he had, settlement of any payments Glen feels he should meet despite any legal obviation of same via bankruptcy and sufficient funds to REALLY satisfy the degree of pain, suffering and stress that has been caused by this whole affair.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Victoria
Age: 59
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course don't give up Glen, but from out here in the grandstand it does look like CASA is choosing to ignore you rather than act. I believe CASA disbanded the inspector teams approach and is now totally divided internally under a new system of even more silos, more heartache for us here in the industry. Getting a response now is hopeless, no one seems to know what is going on, where anything is at. They introduced something called guidance group, don't bother, they ignore your question and it take a ridiculous amount of time to get an answer anyway, little point at all. We need to see CASA inspectors on the ground, we need them out here working with us. I have always found the grass roots CASA guys great, they know their stuff and most are really helpful, its the no idea management they keep employing rather than using those who know how it really works. Glens experience and that of far too many must mean something to someone, surely CASA cant just continue to go off on its own and just ignore everything going on, nothing works, open your eye's CASA. Sort this mess with Glen, there may be errors on both side but at least take ownership for your own errors, fix it, everyone has had enough, none more than Glen himself.
They introduced something called guidance group, don't bother, they ignore your question and it take a ridiculous amount of time to get an answer anyway, little point at all.
I liken it to the Wizard of Oz, where there's this big impressive facade, but the self-styled wizard turns out to be a pathetic egotist who is all talk! I think most inspectors try to do their best but they're probably just as much at the mercy of the above-mentioned dysfunctional system as anyone else.
Thread Starter
The ICC got back to me regarding my complaints lodged in recent posts
I submitted the complaint to the ICC of CASA providing false and misleading information.
Within 24 hours he had contacted me by phone.
The ICC will come to Melbourne to meet with me in August at a date to be confirmed.
About to take the whining dogs for a walk but intend to post later today with my written response to the ICC.
Cheers. Glen
Within 24 hours he had contacted me by phone.
The ICC will come to Melbourne to meet with me in August at a date to be confirmed.
About to take the whining dogs for a walk but intend to post later today with my written response to the ICC.
Cheers. Glen
Speedy reply.
Glen, glad to hear that you have a response. We hope for consciousness and decency on the part of the CASA leadership, including the Board.
Thread Starter
Letter to CEO of CASA- misleading Senate
Sending this at 9am tomorrow.Allegation of false and misleading information being provided to the Senate, and request for CASA to correct that false and misleading information.
31/07/22
Dear Ms. Pip Spence, CEO of CASA.
For clarity, this correspondence relates to false and misleading information being provided to the Senate.
It is not related to my allegations of CASA providing false and misleading information to the Ombudsman which is the subject of the CASA Industry Complaint Commissioner investigation, and an entirely separate matter.
I have included my Local MP for the Electorate of Chisholm, as I anticipate seeking her assistance on these matters. I have provided her office with a copy of my previous allegations of false and misleading information provided to the Ombudsman Investigation, and I have also included this correspondence on the separate matter of false and misleading information being provided to the Senate.
As you are aware CASA closed my two businesses and subsequently directed my Employer that my” continuing employment was no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”. These are the matters are currently being investigated by the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office.
In this correspondence I refer to the allegation made by the CASA CEO at the time, Mr. Shane Carmody.
Mr Carmody made the allegation that I had “stalked and assaulted CASA staff”. An allegation made to the Senators in Senate on 20/11/20.
Allegations that I absolutely refute, in fact the first time I had any awareness that I had stalked, and assaulted CASA staff was when Mr. Carmody raised it on that day, in that forum with the protection of Parliamentary Privilege.
You may well choose to listen to the Presentation in its entirety if you have not previously had the opportunity.
· My presentation commencing from the 12:40:30 mark to 13:21:00
· Mr. Carmody, CASA CEO presentation commencing from the 13:21:00 to 14:03:00 mark.
There are some particular excerpts in those presentations that I would draw your attention to, that are particularly salient to this matter
13:26:35 Mr. Carmody states that allegations that he has misled the Ombudsman Office are “offensive.”
13:26:50, Mr. Carmody the CASA CEO at the time then makes a second statement asserting his integrity where he makes the following statement, “I object strongly and personally to allegations that I have misled the committee. I have not and I stand by my record”
Mr. Carmody has now advised the Committee that he has not mislead the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Inquiry, and then reaffirmed his integrity by advising that he has also not misled the Senate Committee.
Then at the 13; 28:30 mark, less than two minutes later after Mr. Carmody has given those assurances, he continues on and does exactly what he said he doesn’t do.
He knowingly misleads the Senate Committee and very clearly states to the Senate Committee that I have “stalked and assaulted CASA employees”.
The recordings can be accessed here:
Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport - 20/11/2020 08:49:59 - Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au)
Whilst wanting to keep this correspondence as professional as practical, it truly is like a scene from Yes Minister. The Head of a Government Department states that he would not mislead the Committee, and then proceeds to go ahead and do exactly that i.e. mislead the Committee.
I cannot possibly present this in any other way, other than to call it a blatant lie presented to the Senate for the purposes of damaging my reputation under the protection of Parliamentary Privilege.
I need to be very clear on this.
The first time that I ever became aware of this allegation that I had stalked and assaulted CASA staff was on that day before Senate when Mr. Carmody raised those allegations.
As you will appreciate both stalking and assault are some of the more serious criminal offences that can be committed, with potential prison sentences.
For complete clarity, I never stalked or assaulted any individual in my entire life whether they be a CASA employee or not. Never.
I totally reject those allegations of assaulting and stalking CASA staff.
The purpose of this correspondence.
I acknowledge that there has been a change of CASA CEO, and that these false and misleading statements were made by the previous CEO, before Senate and are in no way attributed to you.
Had I assaulted or stalked CASA employees, as you would be fully aware, there would be some sort of supporting evidence by way of:
· CASA would have filed a police report.
· CASA would have supporting internal communications on the matter.
· The police would have most likely contacted me for a statement with a view to laying charges.
· CASA would have OHS documentation supporting those allegations.
· Witness statements, security surveillance.
· Some medical record of the person assaulted (assuming it was physical)
· Some correspondence on this matter from CASA advising me that I had assaulted and stalked CASA employees.
CASA has none of this supporting evidence, and I know that to be the case because I made a Freedom of Information request for any supporting information that CASA held. CASA was unable to provide anything at all in support of either the allegation of stalking or assault. I was not surprised by that outcome, because I knew it to be a false and misleading statement made to the Senate immediately Mr. Carmody made that statement.
That is not to say that I am not animated and passionate at times, and I do recall one occasion many years ago when I hit my fist on a desk harder than intended to the surprise of attendees, one of them a CASA employee.
This is something entirely different. This is an allegation that I stalked and assaulted CASA employees. These are serious criminal matters with potential terms of imprisonment.
Ms Spence, please understand that I am not seeking any compensation or claim about that false and misleading statement, and you have my word on that, and in writing.
I am simply asking that if you, in your role as the CASA CEO are aware that CASA has provided false and misleading information, it is incumbent upon you to publicly correct those false and misleading statements.
My expectation is that CASA will release a short statement to acknowledge the false and misleading nature of CASAs previous false assertion to the Senate, and very clearly identify that no CASA employee has ever been assaulted or stalked by Glen Buckley. Ever.
If CASA are not prepared to act truthfully on this matter, and CASA maintain that I stalked and assaulted CASA employees, I ask only that CASA advise me of the date. At this stage I have no requirement for any other information other than the dates of either the stalking or assault. Obviously, such serious offences would have occurred on a particular date or a number of different dates.
I have no intention to get into a discussion at this stage as to which offence occurred on what day, and to the nature or the severity of the offence. I can appreciate that CASA may be reluctant to go into that level of detail at this stage. I reiterate, I am only asking that CASA nominate the date/s of the alleged offences.
It does seem entirely reasonable that the person that the allegations were made against is at least made aware of the date that the alleged stalking and/or assaults of CASA employees occurred.
Thankyou for considering my request, and I look forward to your response against this matter only, and whether CASA is prepared to correct this wrong, or if it is a matter I need to seek assistance from my new Labor MP for Chisholm, Ms Carina Garland.
Yours respectfully
Glen Buckley
31/07/22
Dear Ms. Pip Spence, CEO of CASA.
For clarity, this correspondence relates to false and misleading information being provided to the Senate.
It is not related to my allegations of CASA providing false and misleading information to the Ombudsman which is the subject of the CASA Industry Complaint Commissioner investigation, and an entirely separate matter.
I have included my Local MP for the Electorate of Chisholm, as I anticipate seeking her assistance on these matters. I have provided her office with a copy of my previous allegations of false and misleading information provided to the Ombudsman Investigation, and I have also included this correspondence on the separate matter of false and misleading information being provided to the Senate.
As you are aware CASA closed my two businesses and subsequently directed my Employer that my” continuing employment was no longer tenable based on comments that I was making publicly”. These are the matters are currently being investigated by the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office.
In this correspondence I refer to the allegation made by the CASA CEO at the time, Mr. Shane Carmody.
Mr Carmody made the allegation that I had “stalked and assaulted CASA staff”. An allegation made to the Senators in Senate on 20/11/20.
Allegations that I absolutely refute, in fact the first time I had any awareness that I had stalked, and assaulted CASA staff was when Mr. Carmody raised it on that day, in that forum with the protection of Parliamentary Privilege.
You may well choose to listen to the Presentation in its entirety if you have not previously had the opportunity.
· My presentation commencing from the 12:40:30 mark to 13:21:00
· Mr. Carmody, CASA CEO presentation commencing from the 13:21:00 to 14:03:00 mark.
There are some particular excerpts in those presentations that I would draw your attention to, that are particularly salient to this matter
13:26:35 Mr. Carmody states that allegations that he has misled the Ombudsman Office are “offensive.”
13:26:50, Mr. Carmody the CASA CEO at the time then makes a second statement asserting his integrity where he makes the following statement, “I object strongly and personally to allegations that I have misled the committee. I have not and I stand by my record”
Mr. Carmody has now advised the Committee that he has not mislead the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Inquiry, and then reaffirmed his integrity by advising that he has also not misled the Senate Committee.
Then at the 13; 28:30 mark, less than two minutes later after Mr. Carmody has given those assurances, he continues on and does exactly what he said he doesn’t do.
He knowingly misleads the Senate Committee and very clearly states to the Senate Committee that I have “stalked and assaulted CASA employees”.
The recordings can be accessed here:
Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport - 20/11/2020 08:49:59 - Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au)
Whilst wanting to keep this correspondence as professional as practical, it truly is like a scene from Yes Minister. The Head of a Government Department states that he would not mislead the Committee, and then proceeds to go ahead and do exactly that i.e. mislead the Committee.
I cannot possibly present this in any other way, other than to call it a blatant lie presented to the Senate for the purposes of damaging my reputation under the protection of Parliamentary Privilege.
I need to be very clear on this.
The first time that I ever became aware of this allegation that I had stalked and assaulted CASA staff was on that day before Senate when Mr. Carmody raised those allegations.
As you will appreciate both stalking and assault are some of the more serious criminal offences that can be committed, with potential prison sentences.
For complete clarity, I never stalked or assaulted any individual in my entire life whether they be a CASA employee or not. Never.
I totally reject those allegations of assaulting and stalking CASA staff.
The purpose of this correspondence.
I acknowledge that there has been a change of CASA CEO, and that these false and misleading statements were made by the previous CEO, before Senate and are in no way attributed to you.
Had I assaulted or stalked CASA employees, as you would be fully aware, there would be some sort of supporting evidence by way of:
· CASA would have filed a police report.
· CASA would have supporting internal communications on the matter.
· The police would have most likely contacted me for a statement with a view to laying charges.
· CASA would have OHS documentation supporting those allegations.
· Witness statements, security surveillance.
· Some medical record of the person assaulted (assuming it was physical)
· Some correspondence on this matter from CASA advising me that I had assaulted and stalked CASA employees.
CASA has none of this supporting evidence, and I know that to be the case because I made a Freedom of Information request for any supporting information that CASA held. CASA was unable to provide anything at all in support of either the allegation of stalking or assault. I was not surprised by that outcome, because I knew it to be a false and misleading statement made to the Senate immediately Mr. Carmody made that statement.
That is not to say that I am not animated and passionate at times, and I do recall one occasion many years ago when I hit my fist on a desk harder than intended to the surprise of attendees, one of them a CASA employee.
This is something entirely different. This is an allegation that I stalked and assaulted CASA employees. These are serious criminal matters with potential terms of imprisonment.
Ms Spence, please understand that I am not seeking any compensation or claim about that false and misleading statement, and you have my word on that, and in writing.
I am simply asking that if you, in your role as the CASA CEO are aware that CASA has provided false and misleading information, it is incumbent upon you to publicly correct those false and misleading statements.
My expectation is that CASA will release a short statement to acknowledge the false and misleading nature of CASAs previous false assertion to the Senate, and very clearly identify that no CASA employee has ever been assaulted or stalked by Glen Buckley. Ever.
If CASA are not prepared to act truthfully on this matter, and CASA maintain that I stalked and assaulted CASA employees, I ask only that CASA advise me of the date. At this stage I have no requirement for any other information other than the dates of either the stalking or assault. Obviously, such serious offences would have occurred on a particular date or a number of different dates.
I have no intention to get into a discussion at this stage as to which offence occurred on what day, and to the nature or the severity of the offence. I can appreciate that CASA may be reluctant to go into that level of detail at this stage. I reiterate, I am only asking that CASA nominate the date/s of the alleged offences.
It does seem entirely reasonable that the person that the allegations were made against is at least made aware of the date that the alleged stalking and/or assaults of CASA employees occurred.
Thankyou for considering my request, and I look forward to your response against this matter only, and whether CASA is prepared to correct this wrong, or if it is a matter I need to seek assistance from my new Labor MP for Chisholm, Ms Carina Garland.
Yours respectfully
Glen Buckley
Last edited by glenb; 31st Jul 2022 at 22:58.
Hi Glen, good to see you're making some progress. Not sure if it's relevant, but there's a few small typos in the above that you may want to fix to ensure they can't come back at you with allegations of incorrect statements or whatever:
- As you are aware CASA closed my twobusiness businesses
- There are some particularexcepts excerpts in those presentations that I would draw your attention to,
- 13:26:35 where Mr Carmody states that allegations that he hasmislead misled the Ombudsman Office ... (a couple of other times after that where 'mislead' is used instead of 'misled', referring to the past tense of 'mislead').
Good luck.
- As you are aware CASA closed my two
- There are some particular
- 13:26:35 where Mr Carmody states that allegations that he has
Good luck.
Thread Starter
AOTW
AOTW, thanks for the pickups, cheers.The correspondence above has been sent, and the response will most likely be predictable, but at least its on record. Increasingly, i intend to involve Ms. Pip Spence in this to ensure that she is fully aware of all facts. After all, she is the accountable person.
Thread Starter
follow up to ICC regarding meeting
01/08/22
Dear Mr Hanton,
Thank you for acknowledging receipt of my complaint of CASA providing false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s office, and for the follow up telephone call. I appreciate your gesture that you will travel to Melbourne in August to discuss the complaints in further detail.
I would like to put a proposal to you.
We have a new Local MP in the electorate of Chisholm. Ms Garland maintains an office in my local electorate, which is slightly over 30 minutes from Melbourne Airport, and obviously an Office in Canberra. I have had the opportunity to meet briefly with Ms Garland on this matter, and she advised that she would be prepared to assist me on this matter, and she has had a discussion with Senator Glen Sterle on my matter.
At our meeting, am I permitted to bring a “support person” along, and could the support person that I nominate be my local Member, Ms Carina Garland? At this stage, I have not approached her with the request, but will do so shortly.
If Ms Garland is able to support me on this matter, I would ask that her office liaises directly with you to allocate a suitable day and time, at either her Canberra or Melbourne Office, as suits both you and her.
I could easily make myself available on any day at any location that you both decide most appropriate.
Thank you for your consideration,
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Dear Mr Hanton,
Thank you for acknowledging receipt of my complaint of CASA providing false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s office, and for the follow up telephone call. I appreciate your gesture that you will travel to Melbourne in August to discuss the complaints in further detail.
I would like to put a proposal to you.
We have a new Local MP in the electorate of Chisholm. Ms Garland maintains an office in my local electorate, which is slightly over 30 minutes from Melbourne Airport, and obviously an Office in Canberra. I have had the opportunity to meet briefly with Ms Garland on this matter, and she advised that she would be prepared to assist me on this matter, and she has had a discussion with Senator Glen Sterle on my matter.
At our meeting, am I permitted to bring a “support person” along, and could the support person that I nominate be my local Member, Ms Carina Garland? At this stage, I have not approached her with the request, but will do so shortly.
If Ms Garland is able to support me on this matter, I would ask that her office liaises directly with you to allocate a suitable day and time, at either her Canberra or Melbourne Office, as suits both you and her.
I could easily make myself available on any day at any location that you both decide most appropriate.
Thank you for your consideration,
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
The response from the ICC to my previous post
Within three hours of sending that correspondence i received this response. I note the promptness of the response suggests good intent, and supports the integrity of the office. Anyway, here it is. I suggest that things are going to get a bit more political going forward, because I will wait as long as is required to have Ms Garland as my support person, even if extends the time lines.
I will hold of my response for 48 hours. im open to suggestions either on here or my email [email protected]
Hi Glen
Thanks for your email.
In response to your question and proposal, I can confirm that you are welcome to invite a support person. This can be whoever you would like to attend.
Reviewing your complaints, ahead of our meeting it would be helpful if you could provide the outcomes or conclusions of the Ombudsman reviews you say were informed by incorrect information provided by CASA.
Thanks
Jonathan
I will hold of my response for 48 hours. im open to suggestions either on here or my email [email protected]
Hi Glen
Thanks for your email.
In response to your question and proposal, I can confirm that you are welcome to invite a support person. This can be whoever you would like to attend.
Reviewing your complaints, ahead of our meeting it would be helpful if you could provide the outcomes or conclusions of the Ombudsman reviews you say were informed by incorrect information provided by CASA.
Thanks
Jonathan
Last edited by glenb; 1st Aug 2022 at 21:21.