Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Thread Starter
The need to report misfeasance
1. Introduction/The allegation
2. Misfeasance in Public Office
3. First Element-Holder of Public Office
4. Second Element-Exercising a Public Power that was an incident of that Office
5. Must the Public Officer owe the plaintiff a duty with respect to the exercise of power.
6. Third Element- The Exercise of Authority must be invalid or otherwise lacking lawful authority.
7. Fourth Element- The “Bad Faith” mental Element
8. Can the Commonwealth be vicariously liable for the misfeasance of its employees?
9. Commonwealth liability for ministerial misfeasance?
10. Importance of an early and vigorous assessment of an allegation of misfeasance.
11. Damages
12. Assisting Commonwealth Officers, other than Ministers
13. Assisting Commonwealth Ministers
14. Reducing the risk of misfeasance claims
15. The need to report misfeasance issues as significant claims
16. Preference for CASA to investigate this allegation.
17. Considerations of Mr Aleck remaining in the role.
18. Summary/conclusion
6. The need to report misfeasance issues as significant claims
You will be aware that an allegation of misfeasance in public office is classified as a “significant issue” that is to be reported to the Office of Legal Services Coordination (OLSC) of the Office of Attorney General in cases where the Government Department is classified as a “non-corporate Commonwealth Entity”. The Civil Aviation Act defines CASA as a “Body Corporate.” My understanding is that this matter does not need to be notified to that Department.
Can I respectfully request that you advise me if you choose to report this allegation to the Office of the Attorney General. My intention is to write to that Department seeking guidance on this matter if CASA is unable to accept a complaint of misfeasance in public office. Please note that I have sent a copy of this allegation to the Office of the Attorney General, as if CASA determine that they are not prepared to initiate an investigation into Mr Alecks misconduct, I will approach the attorney generals Department seeking guidance.
Guidance note 7 - Reporting and settlement of significant issues (ag.gov.au)
2. Misfeasance in Public Office
3. First Element-Holder of Public Office
4. Second Element-Exercising a Public Power that was an incident of that Office
5. Must the Public Officer owe the plaintiff a duty with respect to the exercise of power.
6. Third Element- The Exercise of Authority must be invalid or otherwise lacking lawful authority.
7. Fourth Element- The “Bad Faith” mental Element
8. Can the Commonwealth be vicariously liable for the misfeasance of its employees?
9. Commonwealth liability for ministerial misfeasance?
10. Importance of an early and vigorous assessment of an allegation of misfeasance.
11. Damages
12. Assisting Commonwealth Officers, other than Ministers
13. Assisting Commonwealth Ministers
14. Reducing the risk of misfeasance claims
15. The need to report misfeasance issues as significant claims
16. Preference for CASA to investigate this allegation.
17. Considerations of Mr Aleck remaining in the role.
18. Summary/conclusion
6. The need to report misfeasance issues as significant claims
You will be aware that an allegation of misfeasance in public office is classified as a “significant issue” that is to be reported to the Office of Legal Services Coordination (OLSC) of the Office of Attorney General in cases where the Government Department is classified as a “non-corporate Commonwealth Entity”. The Civil Aviation Act defines CASA as a “Body Corporate.” My understanding is that this matter does not need to be notified to that Department.
Can I respectfully request that you advise me if you choose to report this allegation to the Office of the Attorney General. My intention is to write to that Department seeking guidance on this matter if CASA is unable to accept a complaint of misfeasance in public office. Please note that I have sent a copy of this allegation to the Office of the Attorney General, as if CASA determine that they are not prepared to initiate an investigation into Mr Alecks misconduct, I will approach the attorney generals Department seeking guidance.
Guidance note 7 - Reporting and settlement of significant issues (ag.gov.au)
Thread Starter
Preference for CASA to initially investigate this allegation.
1. Introduction/The allegation
2. Misfeasance in Public Office
3. First Element-Holder of Public Office
4. Second Element-Exercising a Public Power that was an incident of that Office
5. Must the Public Officer owe the plaintiff a duty with respect to the exercise of power.
6. Third Element- The Exercise of Authority must be invalid or otherwise lacking lawful authority.
7. Fourth Element- The “Bad Faith” mental Element
8. Can the Commonwealth be vicariously liable for the misfeasance of its employees?
9. Commonwealth liability for ministerial misfeasance?
10. Importance of an early and vigorous assessment of an allegation of misfeasance.
11. Damages
12. Assisting Commonwealth Officers, other than Ministers
13. Assisting Commonwealth Ministers
14. Reducing the risk of misfeasance claims
15. The need to report misfeasance issues as significant claims
16. Preference for CASA to investigate this allegation.
17. Considerations of Mr Aleck remaining in the role.
18. Summary/conclusion
. Preference for CASA to initially investigate this allegation.
I do have trust and confidence in your professionalism. My very strong preference is that the starting point for this allegation, must be within CASA, and I believe that would be the starting point of any well-intentioned process. The reason that I make this request is.
The Ombudsman has advised that the CASA ICC is the more appropriate body to receive a complaint of “misfeasance in public office”.
As part of this allegation is regarding Mr Aleck providing false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s investigation and the effectiveness of that disinformation, the ICC is the better forum. Understandably, the Ombudsman’s Office lacks the industry expertise, to be able to identify disinformation as readily as the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner. That is evidenced by the stark contrast between the determinations by the ICC that CASA was fully aware of the specific nature of my operation for a significant amount of time prior to October 2018, whilst the preliminary findings of the Ombudsman state that CASA became aware of the specific nature just prior to October 2018 when Mr Aleck falsely asserts that CASA first became aware of the specific nature of my organisation.
It seems only reasonable that the investigation initially be completed by the Employer. Whilst that does not mean other options are not available, it seems reasonable that the Employer should have the first option to investigate the conduct of the employee.
My allegation of misfeasance in public office is against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs. Mr Aleck is also the single point of contact with the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office. The Ombudsman Office advice that they engage with the single representative of the “Agency” being a sole point of contact, and in this case that is Mr Aleck. I have raised this matter previously, and at the highest levels. By submitting this complaint through the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner, unlike the Ombudsman’s Office you will b e able to access multiple sources of information to fact check
You have significant background information on this topic and could be considered a Subject Matter Expert (SME).
You can work in a timelier manner. The 30-day response times between the Ombudsman Office and CASA make this matter unnecessarily protracted. You will have the opportunity to dramatically reduce those lead times due to your ready access to multiple sources of information, unlike the Ombudsman’s Office. This matter has dragged on unnecessarily for four years because of the disinformation supplied by Mr Aleck. I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck is perverting the course of justice by delaying and misleading the Ombudsman’s investigation, so as to put me under constant long term stress as both a reprisal and to deny me procedural fairness.
Even if one accepts, as true, everything you've said about Dr A, Glen, I very much doubt whether the circumstances are an attempt to pervert or perversion of the course of justice. No judge is involved in your matter, no one is stopping you from getting one involved and - so far as I'm aware - no one involved has bull****ted to someone exercising judicial power in relation to your matter. (Ex-justice Marcus Einfeld was busted for perjury and perverting the course of justice, for making false statements under oath to the effect that someone else was driving the car when it was travelling 10km/h over the limit. The person he said had been driving at the time was in fact dead and buried years earlier. Big price to pay to try to avoid a $77 speeding fine...) The Commonwealth Ombudsman does not exercise judicial power. Nor does the CASA ICC.
Thread Starter
Considerations for Mr aleck remaining in the role
1. Introduction/The allegation
2. Misfeasance in Public Office
3. First Element-Holder of Public Office
4. Second Element-Exercising a Public Power that was an incident of that Office
5. Must the Public Officer owe the plaintiff a duty with respect to the exercise of power.
6. Third Element- The Exercise of Authority must be invalid or otherwise lacking lawful authority.
7. Fourth Element- The “Bad Faith” mental Element
8. Can the Commonwealth be vicariously liable for the misfeasance of its employees?
9. Commonwealth liability for ministerial misfeasance?
10. Importance of an early and vigorous assessment of an allegation of misfeasance.
11. Damages
12. Assisting Commonwealth Officers, other than Ministers
13. Assisting Commonwealth Ministers
14. Reducing the risk of misfeasance claims
15. The need to report misfeasance issues as significant claims
16. Preference for CASA to investigate this allegation.
17. Considerations of Mr Aleck remaining in the role.
18. Summary/conclusion
Considerations of Mr Aleck remaining in his role pending the results of an investigation.
I have submitted this complaint to the you in your role as the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC).
For transparency, this correspondence has a number of recipients that I have included, with the primary intended recipient being your, Office of the CASA ICC.
I need to ensure a wider awareness of this matter, and my substantive allegations, and most especially with the change of Government, and the associated higher expectations on ethics and integrity in the Government and Public Service, as result of that change of Government to a Labor Government.
For that reason, I have also included the Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the Honourable Catherine King MP, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Ms King is also the Local Member for Ballarat, with the Ballarat Aero Club being one of the schools impacted by this entire matter. I will be seeking a meeting with her Office to personally brief the Minister on my allegations against Mr Aleck. My preference being that Ms Spence, the CASA CEO, or her nominee/s, also attend that same meeting.
I have included my Local MP for the Electorate of Chisholm, The Honourable Ms. Garland MP for Chisholm. I am a 57-year resident of the Electorate, and I will be seeking the opportunity to meet with Ms Garland and seek her assistance in facilitating a meeting with the responsible Minister. I have previously submitted that request to Ms Garlands Office.
This section, as the title suggests is “considerations for Mr Aleck remaining in his role”. I fully appreciate that such a determination is outside the remit of the CASA ICC. Your Office does however have a direct report to the CASA Board. May I respectfully request that you ensure that the CASA Board has received this correspondence. That will provide the Board with the opportunity to act on this matter and determine the suitability of Mr Aleck remaining in the role, pending the results of an investigation.
Failing the CASA Board taking any action, I will be making my appeal direct to the Minister. In the first instance it is only fair that I provide CASA with the opportunity to consider that appropriateness or not if Mr Aleck were to remain in his position. As stated, I have included the Minister in this correspondence to assist in CASAs decision making and to provide background information to the Minister in anticipation of her Office facilitating a meeting.
The following link provides guidance that I have considered in formulating this list of considerations, with regard to Mr aleck remining in the role. Handling Misconduct - A human resource manager’s guide | Australian Public Service Commission (apsc.gov.au)
To the CASA Board.
As you are aware I have previously made allegations of Misfeasance in Public Office against Mr Aleck before the Senate Inquiry with that link being at the beginning of this correspondence.
My expectation was that the substantive nature of the allegations, the obvious harm caused, the seniority of the Executive, and the formal nature of the submitted allegation i.e. Senate Inquiry would have initiated some type of internal review within CASA. My understanding is that it has not.
My reasonable expectation, and no doubt the reasonable community expectation, is that an Employee cannot continue in his/her role if such substantive allegations have been formally made. I would have expected CASA to take some action when the allegations were raised by me in the Senate Inquiry two years ago.
My intention is not to cause any harm to Mr Aleck pending the outcome of any investigation. I am calling on the CASA Board to stand Mr Aleck aside from his operational role, pending the results of an investigation. I am making no suggestion to his remuneration during that period, in fact, the very nature of his entitlement to procedural fairness, but that is not my remit.
Rather than seeking to punish Mr Aleck, I believe an investigation will provide him with the opportunity to defend his conduct, and this process will protect the integrity of CASA and maintain public and industry confidence in the reputation of CASA. As Australia’s aviation safety regulator this must be an important consideration.
I have made requests over the last four years simply asking for the opportunity to meet at any location, at any time, with any two Members of the Board of CASA. I extend that same offer that I have for the last four years. To date, despite those multiple requests, no meeting has been offered
I continue to request that meeting with any two Members of the Board, and I will be seeking the assistance of my Local MP, Ms Garland, and the Minister, the Honourable Ms. King, if the Board refuses to meet with me. This is a complicated matter that is best attended to initially with an aural presentation. I anticipate that would take up to two hours, and I would invite the Chair of the Board to bring along any CASA personnel that she requires, and I anticipate that would include the person I have made allegations against, being Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regultory Affairs.
By making these substantive allegations, it may have an adverse effect on Mr Alecks’ ability to carry out his duties, and on the workplace in general. I appreciate that the CASA Board, and the CASA CEO in consultation with the Minister, will have to consider whether it is appropriate for Mr Aleck to remain in his role throughout the investigation. If my allegations are substantiated there is the potential for that misconduct to have an impact on the safety of aviation. Matters of safety and operational control are the reasons that I am calling for due consideration being made to Mr Aleck being stood aside from operational decision making.
In making that call, I have drawn on The Governments own considerations on these matters and they include.
· Any potential impact on aviation safety i.e., the safety and well-being of Members of the Public, if the conduct was to be proven. i.e., misconduct, and if Mr Aleck remained in his substantive and significant position within Civil Aviation Safety Authority during an investigation.
· Potential for repetition of that behaviour that could potentially impact on other businesses and their employees. Noting that I have been contacted by many in industry that have been similarly impacted by the conduct of this same individual in the past. All have expressed a willingness to come forward and make a submission if the opportunity presented itself and provided the processes can be in place to avoid retribution from CASA.
· Public confidence in CASA. This matter has significant public attention with over 1,000,000 visits to the “thread” on PPRuNe. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums
· The risk that an investigation of the allegation may be compromised by the employee’s continued presence in the workplace. This has been a major concern of mine, and I have raised it in writing on numerous occasions. The Ombudsman’s Office does not interact with individual employees of CASA. It interacts with the individual that represents the agency. That person within CASA, is Mr Aleck, and there is an overwhelming body of evidence that demonstrates his propensity to provide false and misleading information to the Ombudsman’s Office.
· Any risk to the safety of any other employees and their work environment by way of bullying, intimidation, or any other negative behaviours.
· Whether an allegation of misfeasance in Public Office is determined to be a significant enough matter to stand the employee aside on full pay, on the assumption of innocence until an investigation can be completed.
· To what extent is the alleged behaviour within the control of the employee. i.e., was its wilful misconduct, as I am alleging that it most certainly is.
· Relationship between the alleged unlawful act and the employee’s employment.
· Any potential impact on any required security clearances, and access to classified information.
· The significance of the acts, and role of CASA i.e., the safety of aviation in Australia.
· Ability for the Employee to carry out duties safely and effectively during an investigation into their conduct.
· The Seniority of the personnel that allegations are made against and the respective expectations of them in their role.
· The vision for CASA under a new CEO/DAS, and a new Government with associated higher expectations of integrity in Government.
If the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner determines that he is unable to investigate an allegation of Misfeasance in Public Office, I intend to make a formal request that the Minister appoint someone who is independent and unbiased to conduct an investigation into the alleged misconduct of Mr Aleck. The purpose of that investigation would be to ascertain the lawfulness of the actions and decisions made by him.
I anticipate that this investigation would need to be conducted by a Subject Matter Expert (SME) with the required technical knowledge of the aviation industry, and preferably with experience in the pilot training industry specifically.
My hope is that an investigation would proceed with as little formality and as much expedition as proper consideration of this matter allows. This matter has continued for four years, and it is time now to bring both transparency and resolution to the process.
If my allegations are substantiated, it is reasonable to form the view that Mr Alecks conduct has the potential to impact on the safety of aviation. Any matter that has the potential to impact on the safety of aviation should be considered appropriately, and in timelines commensurate with matters of aviation safety.
I’m confident that the CASA Board will also appreciate the opportunity to bring good governance to the matter in as short a timeline as practical. I am confident that the CASA Board will support such a process. I have made that request of the Board for almost four years. A directive from the relevant Government Minister may expedite that process.
I appreciate that if I raise these allegations it will initiate a multistage process, with the initial stage being identifying behaviour that may amount to suspected misconduct, including receiving allegations of misconduct, followed by deciding how to handle the suspected misconduct, and considering whether it is necessary to suspend the employee and any review of that decision.
I am not making these claims vindictively or vexatiously and they are not without merit. I am someone directly impacted by the conduct of Mr Aleck. I also respect that if I am fully liable in law for my comments that I make, and I am aware of the ramifications if my allegations were found to be without merit.
Thread Starter
Correspondence from the CASA ICC
Post #2235 contains the correspondence that i sent. It is that correspondence that Mr Hanton is responding to.
Hi Glen
Given the nature of the allegations you made in your 2022 ICC complaint, I am emailing to let you know that I will be attending an upcoming meeting between CASA and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office.
As you’re aware, no review of your most recent ICC complaint has commenced. That was on the basis set out in my email of 16 August 2022 seeking further information where I noted that if the issues you have raised are still being considered by the Ombudsman in any form then an ICC review may be inappropriate or premature at this stage.
My offer to meet with you and any support person you wish to attend stands.
Regards
Jonathan Hanton
Hi Glen
Given the nature of the allegations you made in your 2022 ICC complaint, I am emailing to let you know that I will be attending an upcoming meeting between CASA and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office.
As you’re aware, no review of your most recent ICC complaint has commenced. That was on the basis set out in my email of 16 August 2022 seeking further information where I noted that if the issues you have raised are still being considered by the Ombudsman in any form then an ICC review may be inappropriate or premature at this stage.
My offer to meet with you and any support person you wish to attend stands.
Regards
Jonathan Hanton
Thread Starter
Damages
Please note that i will add more tomorrow morning to this section. Cheers. Glen.
1. Introduction/The allegation
2. Misfeasance in Public Office
3. First Element-Holder of Public Office
4. Second Element-Exercising a Public Power that was an incident of that Office
5. Must the Public Officer owe the plaintiff a duty with respect to the exercise of power.
6. Third Element- The Exercise of Authority must be invalid or otherwise lacking lawful authority.
7. Fourth Element- The “Bad Faith” mental Element
8. Can the Commonwealth be vicariously liable for the misfeasance of its employees?
9. Commonwealth liability for ministerial misfeasance?
10. Importance of an early and vigorous assessment of an allegation of misfeasance.
11. Damages
12. Assisting Commonwealth Officers, other than Ministers
13. Assisting Commonwealth Ministers
14. Reducing the risk of misfeasance claims
15. The need to report misfeasance issues as significant claims
16. Preference for CASA to investigate this allegation.
17. Considerations of Mr Aleck remaining in the role.
18. Summary/conclusion
DAMAGES
It is important that I convey what it is that CASA did that caused so much harm,
Limited surety of operations
CASA issued a number of short-term interim approvals to operate on the entire business. This applied to all bases that CASA had previously formally approved.
These “interim approvals to operate created significant organisational instability
These “interim approvals to operate” were as little as a minute-by-minute approval, but never longer than 90 days. This continued on for 8 months.
Initially CASAs argument was that my entire structure was illegal and needed to be dismantled.
In the initial notification sent by CASA in October 2018, the last paragraph states that "……. within 7 days, whereupon CASA will make a final determination”. As the business owner that terminology left me in little doubt that my business of more than a decade, only has 7 days surety of operations. That surety of operations expired 7 days later on 30/10/18. I had absolutely no prior indication from any one in CASA including my newly allocated CASA Certificate Management Team (CMT), that there were any concerns at all. I was shocked and devastated. It was more bizarre because CASA already held the contracts that they were calling for. Initially CASA denied this, but then after I showed irrefutable evidence that the contracts had been provided to CASA on multiple occasions over previous years, CASA reluctantly concurred.
I think this point is significant. Once CASA realised that they already held the contracts, and that the “oversight” was in fact CASAs oversight, the trading restrictions should have been immediately lifted, had good faith prevailed.
On the expiry of that approval on 23/10/19, my business was permitted to continue to operate on a minute-by-minute verbal approval. Still there were no allegations of and safety concerns or regulatory breaches. After operating for three months on a minute-by-minute approval, CASA issued another interim approval to operate.
On 25/01/19 CASA provided a letter to me stating "CASA could consider interim arrangements to allow the APTA business model to continue in the short term up to three months “(CASA underlining). The key words here being “could” and “up to three months”.
There was absolutely no doubt in my mind that CASAs intention was to shut down the entire operation, as they eventually went on to do anyway.
On 12/02/19 provide further correspondence dated permitting me to continue operations for up to three months until 13/05/19.
Approximately one week before the interim approval to operate expired, CASA issued another notice for interim approval to operate. On 03/05/19 I receive correspondence permitting an extension to our operations until 01/07/19. Another short-term approval to operate. This was to be the last interim approval issued prior to CASA shutting down the business and forcing all customers to leave.
Shortly after CASA issued the final interim approval to operate, the CEO of CASA at the time, Mr Carmody writes to me on 6th June 2018 and at the end of that correspondence states, “ To be absolutely clear, if CASA does not have the evidence we require i.e. contracts in hand by 1st July 2019, we will have no choice but to consider what further action we may need to take in relation to the flight training operations in which APTA and its affiliates are engaging.
Shortly afterwards, Mr Aleck stood by his initial decision, determined the structure unlawful, and forced all customers to leave, effectively shutting down the business.
There were never any safety allegations raised by CASA. CASA never identified any deficiencies at all against any quality outcomes. CASA never alleged that we breached any of our fully approved procedures in our CASA approved Exposition (operations manual).
This entire issue was simply some wording in our commercial contracts. CASA never suggested any changes to any of our policies or procedures, they simply wanted some additional wording in the commercial contracts
Implications of “interim approvals to operate”
Consider the implications of these short-term interim approvals on any organisation in any industry.
Organisational instability and impact on employees.
The most immediate impact was the impact on employees. I had an experienced team of highly professional employees, many who had been with me for many years, and in a number of cases more than ten years. Immediately every single one of them now has concerns about their ongoing job security. Despite their professionalism and loyalty to me and the business, like any employee in any industry, they will have concerns. It would be expected that they would be pursuing other options, to ensure their continuing employment. They are distracted from their work, insecure and concerned. They work in a highly regulated environment, and CASA has determined that the business is suddenly unlawful and operating on a minute by minute CASA approval. I do not need to attend to this in detail, as the ramifications are obvious. Had the “interim approval” not been placed on the business there would be no issue at all amongst the employees.
Impact on existing students who were currently undergoing training.
Consider the students that are enrolled in a course of pilot training, typically of 18 months as they work towards the issue of their Diploma in Aviation through the flight training school, which is also a Registered Training Organisation (RTO 22508). Without any prior notice at all their education provider has been declared an unauthorised operation by CASA and will likely be subject to regulatory action. Furthermore, that school has only 7 days surety of operations. The students is now forced to find another flight training provider and leave their current flight training provider. Despite my pleas to the students, I respect and understand their concerns. The natural assumption is that there must be significant safety concerns or regulatory breaches if CASA has taken this prompt and substantive action. That is not the case, I was dealing only with a change of opinion by someone within CASA. Irrespective, the school has only 7 days certainty, they have no option. The students are compelled to transfer to another school. Students intending to travel from overseas, put their plans on hold, and understandably search for an alternative Registered Training Organisation. As the matter dragged on for many months, those students that initially elected to remain with the school drift away as the matter seems increasingly unlikely to be resolved. The students incur additional costs as they transfer and have their training interrupted. Many must undergo additional training to learn a new aircraft type at a new education provider, incurring significant additional costs, often running into many thousands of dollars. As you will appreciate this also caused enormous stress and anxiety for me. I had personally dealt with each and every one of these students, and now with no prior warning it appeared that I was not going to be able to meet my promises and commitments to them. Despite me using my savings and funds from the sale of my home, I was sadly unable to reimburse all students.
Impact on the bases preparing to open, and the reasons why significant investment was required by those respective organisations.
In this matter I refer specifically to two bases that were perhaps most impacted. Those bases were our APTA-Whitestar Aviation in Ballina and APTA-Simjet base in Brisbane.
Whitestar was a new facility that was to open in Ballina and bring a unique capability to this fast-growing regional area by joining APTA. We intended to open with a staff of 4 pilots, with rapid growth anticipated. We had secured an impressive state of the art facility and aircraft, and a team of highly capable and experienced instructors, with our Senior Base Pilot on site being an ex CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) with expertise gained in CASA,in safety and regulatory compliance. This was also the same individual that had developed APTAs industry leading Flight School Management System (FSM) that we used. This System was one of the only products designed here in Australia for the Australian Regulatory environment. Other operators traditionally used an overseas designed product and had to make it fit the Australian Regulatory environment. The FSM system was designed here in Australia specifically for APTA to ensure the highest levels of operational control could be maintained. You will recall that to further ensure CASA was satisfied with the high levels of operational control being maintained, we were the first flight training organisation in Australia to provide CASA full internet access 24/7 from anywhere in Australia to our full FSM system. This gave CASA real time access to every aspect of all flight operations including student training records, syllabi, pilot fatigue management system, maintenance status and predictive maintenance, all internal staff communications, safety department, etc.
This provided CASA a unique opportunity to audit our systems 24/7 from anywhere in Australia, to supplement the CASA practice of less than one audit per year of an industry standard, largely paper based system that needed to be audited on site. By having the designer of the FSM system as our Senior Base Pilot at the Ballina base, it provided a unique opportunity to implement a continuous improvement program to ensure our systems could remain at the forefront of the industry. His experience as an ex-CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) was invaluable. The Flight School Management system was industry leading and designed specifically for our operation.
The loss of this school to APTA as a result of the notification by CASA that the application would be rejected, and the base forced into closure was devastating news for the staff at the base as so much time, money and commitment had been put into fully preparing for the CASA inspection. APTA had also incurred significant expenses in sending an APTA team of 6 personnel to Ballina for 4 days to ensure we were fully satisfied that we had full operational control, and that all personnel were fully inducted into APTA procedures. A full audit of the facility and safety training were also completed.
Simjetwas a business that would have bought a unique capability to the APTA with its high-end Simulation facility that would allow Airline standard training up to and including the Boeing 737. The resources and expertise that Simjet bought to APTA was world leading and at the cutting edge of the industry. It would have attracted significant international opportunities. The Senior Base Pilot that was to be our senior person on site at the base was an ex-RAAF pilot and Airline Pilot, with a passion for the role of advanced flight simulators in flight training and safety training, including Crew Resource Management (CRM) and Multi Crew Co-operation (MCC) training.
The intention being that by adding this substantive capability to the final stages of training, we would attract International Students to commence the initial year of training in our Regional APTA bases. The opportunities to attract large volumes of International Pilot Training were very real. No other organisation in Australia would have had the capability that APTA now had. The potential for growth in APTA and particularly in regional areas would have been significant. The significant group capability that would have existed was unrivalled in Australia. APTA a fully Australian owned venture could now compete against the large foreign owned companies in Australia, that now delivered more than 50% of Australias flight training. We could now approach AUSTRADE to assist us in developing opportunities in export markets for pilot training with foreign airlines.
Both our APTA-Ballina and APTA Brisbane bases and Whitestar found the burdensome legislative requirements, and associated costs too onerous and could not “go it alone”. By joining APTA they also had access to the largest funded safety department of any flying school in Australia. They could focus on delivering quality training and APTA would manage their safety, regulatory compliance, continuous improvement, syllabi development, whilst accepting full responsibility as the Authorisation Holder, in accordance with APTAs CASA approved procedures.
Importantly, the CASA requirement was that all bases are fully setup with facilities, staff, aircraft, and required support services i.e., classrooms, internet, phone systems etc, prior to CASA conducting the inspection of the base, and deciding whether to approve that base or not. The respective investment in these bases was significant as you can imagine. The rejection of these bases by CASA was a major blow for the people involved.
Both the APTA Brisbane and APTA Ballina bases made this investment with the following considerations in mind when electing to join APTA.
1. APTA (previously known as MFT) had over a decade’s experience doing exactly this i.e., providing Air Operator Certificate (AOC) coverage to multiple operators which had been fully sanctioned by CASA.
2. APTA had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars and worked side by side with 10 CASA personnel over a two-year period, to redesign APTA to improve all systems and procedures to ensure they were industry leading and met CASA requirements. I have obtained the checklist that CASA used under Freedom of Information, and this matter cannot be in dispute. More than 600 CASA stipulated requirements were attended to, as we worked with CASA to develop our manuals.
3. CASA had fully revalidated APTA in April 2017 in what was referred to by CASA as “the transition”, and fully approved APTA in April 2017 to keep doing what it had already been doing for over a decade. This system was fully CASA approved. Every single procedure had been overhauled, redesigned, and CASA approved. There was no reason that either of these new bases could have anticipated that CASA would reject their application.
4. CASA had already approved multiple bases under the APTA system, so it was reasonable for these new bases to assume that they would also be approved. Obviously, the systems and procedures that APTA had designed in conjunction with CASA, met all CASA requirements, and those requirements had been met.
5. CASA records will demonstrate that the Company had an industry leading record of safety and regulatory compliance achieved over more than a decade of operations. The brand names of MFT and APTA and the quality of the personnel associated with those businesses provided assurance of the “good intent”.
6. CASA personnel had in fact recommended operators to join APTA, and those operators have confirmed that. This CASA recommendation further assured the bases that APTA provided a CASA accepted system.
7. The APTA model had been operating for 6 months after its CASA reapproval in April 2017. In November 2017, APTA had undergone the highest-level audit that CASA conduct, being a Level 1 audit. No concerns about APTAs structure were raised because of that Level 1 audit.
Suppliers
Any owner of a flying school will tell you how tight the margins are in running a flight training organisation. There are significant fixed costs involved. Cash flow is critical. Quite simply there is not enough “fat” for things to go wrong. Once the restrictions were placed on the business, and cashflow dried up it became increasingly difficult to operate. Up until the restrictions placed on APTA by CASA in October 2018, the business had a decade of impeccable payment terms with its Suppliers, and a reputation in the industry as a “good payer”. The business had a good relationship with all its Suppliers, all of whom I also considered friends.
Every one of those Suppliers stood behind me, and provided me with generous trading terms, in anticipation of this matter being promptly resolved, as it should have been. No one could have anticipated the matter would drag on for 8 months until the business could no longer trade.
Throughout the first six months I held some hope that the matter would be resolved, I could have the restrictions lifted, and would have some hope of returning to business as usual and finalise my increasing debts to the Suppliers.
On early April almost 6 months after this started, I began to realise that this matter was never going to be resolved. CASA had already contacted all of my customers, advised them that were operating unlawfully, and was forcing them to leave APTA.
By now Suppliers had become frustrated with me. For 6 months I had been assuring them that a return to Business as usual was imminent. Their support to date had been exceptional, and I am still highly appreciative of that support. However, CASA never lifted the restrictions. The suppliers couldn’t understand why I could resolve this. The business ceased trading.
After I had given APTA away, I wrote to all Suppliers on 20/08/19, and copy of that correspondence is below
“To All Suppliers of MFT. 20/08/19
I am in a very difficult situation.
CASA placed several restrictions on my parent company, APTA and its ability to conduct business in October of 2018. This lead to the sale of APTA recently, and it’s now under new ownership.
Importantly, at no stage was the CASA action based on any allegations of safety concerns. Also, at no stage have there been any allegations of regulatory breaches that CASA has been prepared to substantiate.
The fact is, there have been no regulatory or safety breaches. None!
CASA actions,
· Reduced our “surety of operations”, to never more than 90 days into the future.
· Prevented me marketing · Prevented me enrolling new customers
· Prevented me renewing approvals as they expired.
· Prevented me adding new approvals.
In October 2018, I identified to CASA that those restrictions on my business, would cost me at least $10,000 per week, to sustain operations until the CASA imposed restrictions were lifted.
Over the last 9 months, I have had to call on MFT to financially support APTA operations, as I had several other operators also depending on APTA for their own continuing operations. It was anticipated that CASA would resolve their confusion in a matter of weeks. I could not possibly have imagined it would continue for over 9 months, and still be unresolved. Those restrictions on my ability to trade have continued throughout the last 9 months, as has the associated stress on both me and the business. I now find myself in the current situation.
CASA has insisted on something they call “direct operational control” and this has required me to transfer all MFT operations to APTA, with the associated income going to APTA (under new ownership) and not to MFT (which I still own). This makes resolution of my current situation almost impossible, but I have called on CASA to define, “direct operational control”. Once I have that defined, it may be possible that MFT can continue, and I can derive revenue from MFT. At this stage there is much uncertainty.
Moving forward
The reality is that I have exhausted everything in fighting with CASA to maintain APTA. I have been left with nothing. No home, no business, no savings and no job, so I cannot promise an easy resolution.
I can assure you, there is not a higher level of shame, guilt and embarrassment that a human being can have, than to owe money, to friends and people that have supported him. I do not have a solution to put to you at this stage. I have no intention of running away or hiding from my responsibilities. I will be working for as long as it takes in an endeavour to ensure that every one of you is paid 100%. No haggling, and no discounting. It is a big call, and that is why I need your input.
As suppliers you have the right to act against me and have me declared bankrupt. I respect that, and can accept, and understand that stance. To be frank, to be declared bankrupt, and go and start a simpler life and concentrate on looking after my family is the easier path, and in the interests of my health, probably the sensible path.But I will head down the path of resolution, and as the saying goes. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
I want to meet face to face wherever possible and call on those engagements to be respectful. I appreciate that several people are seriously affected, and not just myself. With the restructure in APTA, I don’t have the admin support that I had previously, and as you will appreciate, I have a lot going on. If you have an invoice for MFT, or are a staff member with an entitlement, could you please resend it through to a new email that I have created; [email protected] With the significant change of personnel in the office I need to collate this information accurately in the one spot.
Could I also call for a meeting at 4PM on Friday 30th August. I will advise a venue, but it will be at Moorabbin Airport. If someone cannot attend on site, please let me know, and I will arrange video-conference facilities. Please RSVP by text 0418772013, if you can attend. I will provide light refreshments (bread and water is all I can promise at this stage, but will swing past Aldi for any cakes approaching their "best before")
At that meeting I would like to:
· Stand in front of you;
· Introduce you to each other;
· Assess priority suppliers. i.e. I would call on bigger businesses to help me prioritise any individuals or smaller businesses for payment ahead of them wherever practical;
· Place several options to you for consideration;
· Have a robust, truthful and well-intentioned respectful discussion.
I genuinely want to get money where it belongs (the people I owe money to) and not in the hands of lawyers and accountants; I feel we can hopefully resolve this.
Thank you for your consideration, and more importantly, your support to date.For those that have a deeper interest in my issues please follow the following link https://www.pprune.org/pacific-gener...ss-v-casa.html
Respectfully, Glen.
Impact on the bases that had already been fully approved by approved by CASA under APTA
These bases had previously applied to join APTA, the APTA procedures had been diligently followed and CASA had approved the bases. They had absolutely no reason at all to believe that they would have their approvals reversed. These bases included my own flying school of more than a decade that was now declared an unauthorised operation by CASA with only 7 days certainty of operations. The other bases were now confronted with an uncertain future as they had no certainty of operations. Understandably they directed a high level of frustration towards me. I had assured them that the structure we adopted was fully CASA approved, and had been for many years, as it was. They felt that I had mislead them as to whether I had CASA approval or not. They thought that I had possibly been deceptive and misleading. Understandably this caused me great sadness and personal reputational damage.
None of these bases can enrol students into courses while these interim approvals to operate are in place. It is illegal as an RTO, and unethical to be enrolling students into courses of 18 months duration that you have significant doubt ascto your ability to deliver that course. Each of the bases are effectively being prevented from taking on new customers/students.
1. Introduction/The allegation
2. Misfeasance in Public Office
3. First Element-Holder of Public Office
4. Second Element-Exercising a Public Power that was an incident of that Office
5. Must the Public Officer owe the plaintiff a duty with respect to the exercise of power.
6. Third Element- The Exercise of Authority must be invalid or otherwise lacking lawful authority.
7. Fourth Element- The “Bad Faith” mental Element
8. Can the Commonwealth be vicariously liable for the misfeasance of its employees?
9. Commonwealth liability for ministerial misfeasance?
10. Importance of an early and vigorous assessment of an allegation of misfeasance.
11. Damages
12. Assisting Commonwealth Officers, other than Ministers
13. Assisting Commonwealth Ministers
14. Reducing the risk of misfeasance claims
15. The need to report misfeasance issues as significant claims
16. Preference for CASA to investigate this allegation.
17. Considerations of Mr Aleck remaining in the role.
18. Summary/conclusion
DAMAGES
It is important that I convey what it is that CASA did that caused so much harm,
Limited surety of operations
CASA issued a number of short-term interim approvals to operate on the entire business. This applied to all bases that CASA had previously formally approved.
These “interim approvals to operate created significant organisational instability
These “interim approvals to operate” were as little as a minute-by-minute approval, but never longer than 90 days. This continued on for 8 months.
Initially CASAs argument was that my entire structure was illegal and needed to be dismantled.
In the initial notification sent by CASA in October 2018, the last paragraph states that "……. within 7 days, whereupon CASA will make a final determination”. As the business owner that terminology left me in little doubt that my business of more than a decade, only has 7 days surety of operations. That surety of operations expired 7 days later on 30/10/18. I had absolutely no prior indication from any one in CASA including my newly allocated CASA Certificate Management Team (CMT), that there were any concerns at all. I was shocked and devastated. It was more bizarre because CASA already held the contracts that they were calling for. Initially CASA denied this, but then after I showed irrefutable evidence that the contracts had been provided to CASA on multiple occasions over previous years, CASA reluctantly concurred.
I think this point is significant. Once CASA realised that they already held the contracts, and that the “oversight” was in fact CASAs oversight, the trading restrictions should have been immediately lifted, had good faith prevailed.
On the expiry of that approval on 23/10/19, my business was permitted to continue to operate on a minute-by-minute verbal approval. Still there were no allegations of and safety concerns or regulatory breaches. After operating for three months on a minute-by-minute approval, CASA issued another interim approval to operate.
On 25/01/19 CASA provided a letter to me stating "CASA could consider interim arrangements to allow the APTA business model to continue in the short term up to three months “(CASA underlining). The key words here being “could” and “up to three months”.
There was absolutely no doubt in my mind that CASAs intention was to shut down the entire operation, as they eventually went on to do anyway.
On 12/02/19 provide further correspondence dated permitting me to continue operations for up to three months until 13/05/19.
Approximately one week before the interim approval to operate expired, CASA issued another notice for interim approval to operate. On 03/05/19 I receive correspondence permitting an extension to our operations until 01/07/19. Another short-term approval to operate. This was to be the last interim approval issued prior to CASA shutting down the business and forcing all customers to leave.
Shortly after CASA issued the final interim approval to operate, the CEO of CASA at the time, Mr Carmody writes to me on 6th June 2018 and at the end of that correspondence states, “ To be absolutely clear, if CASA does not have the evidence we require i.e. contracts in hand by 1st July 2019, we will have no choice but to consider what further action we may need to take in relation to the flight training operations in which APTA and its affiliates are engaging.
Shortly afterwards, Mr Aleck stood by his initial decision, determined the structure unlawful, and forced all customers to leave, effectively shutting down the business.
There were never any safety allegations raised by CASA. CASA never identified any deficiencies at all against any quality outcomes. CASA never alleged that we breached any of our fully approved procedures in our CASA approved Exposition (operations manual).
This entire issue was simply some wording in our commercial contracts. CASA never suggested any changes to any of our policies or procedures, they simply wanted some additional wording in the commercial contracts
Implications of “interim approvals to operate”
Consider the implications of these short-term interim approvals on any organisation in any industry.
Organisational instability and impact on employees.
The most immediate impact was the impact on employees. I had an experienced team of highly professional employees, many who had been with me for many years, and in a number of cases more than ten years. Immediately every single one of them now has concerns about their ongoing job security. Despite their professionalism and loyalty to me and the business, like any employee in any industry, they will have concerns. It would be expected that they would be pursuing other options, to ensure their continuing employment. They are distracted from their work, insecure and concerned. They work in a highly regulated environment, and CASA has determined that the business is suddenly unlawful and operating on a minute by minute CASA approval. I do not need to attend to this in detail, as the ramifications are obvious. Had the “interim approval” not been placed on the business there would be no issue at all amongst the employees.
Impact on existing students who were currently undergoing training.
Consider the students that are enrolled in a course of pilot training, typically of 18 months as they work towards the issue of their Diploma in Aviation through the flight training school, which is also a Registered Training Organisation (RTO 22508). Without any prior notice at all their education provider has been declared an unauthorised operation by CASA and will likely be subject to regulatory action. Furthermore, that school has only 7 days surety of operations. The students is now forced to find another flight training provider and leave their current flight training provider. Despite my pleas to the students, I respect and understand their concerns. The natural assumption is that there must be significant safety concerns or regulatory breaches if CASA has taken this prompt and substantive action. That is not the case, I was dealing only with a change of opinion by someone within CASA. Irrespective, the school has only 7 days certainty, they have no option. The students are compelled to transfer to another school. Students intending to travel from overseas, put their plans on hold, and understandably search for an alternative Registered Training Organisation. As the matter dragged on for many months, those students that initially elected to remain with the school drift away as the matter seems increasingly unlikely to be resolved. The students incur additional costs as they transfer and have their training interrupted. Many must undergo additional training to learn a new aircraft type at a new education provider, incurring significant additional costs, often running into many thousands of dollars. As you will appreciate this also caused enormous stress and anxiety for me. I had personally dealt with each and every one of these students, and now with no prior warning it appeared that I was not going to be able to meet my promises and commitments to them. Despite me using my savings and funds from the sale of my home, I was sadly unable to reimburse all students.
Impact on the bases preparing to open, and the reasons why significant investment was required by those respective organisations.
In this matter I refer specifically to two bases that were perhaps most impacted. Those bases were our APTA-Whitestar Aviation in Ballina and APTA-Simjet base in Brisbane.
Whitestar was a new facility that was to open in Ballina and bring a unique capability to this fast-growing regional area by joining APTA. We intended to open with a staff of 4 pilots, with rapid growth anticipated. We had secured an impressive state of the art facility and aircraft, and a team of highly capable and experienced instructors, with our Senior Base Pilot on site being an ex CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) with expertise gained in CASA,in safety and regulatory compliance. This was also the same individual that had developed APTAs industry leading Flight School Management System (FSM) that we used. This System was one of the only products designed here in Australia for the Australian Regulatory environment. Other operators traditionally used an overseas designed product and had to make it fit the Australian Regulatory environment. The FSM system was designed here in Australia specifically for APTA to ensure the highest levels of operational control could be maintained. You will recall that to further ensure CASA was satisfied with the high levels of operational control being maintained, we were the first flight training organisation in Australia to provide CASA full internet access 24/7 from anywhere in Australia to our full FSM system. This gave CASA real time access to every aspect of all flight operations including student training records, syllabi, pilot fatigue management system, maintenance status and predictive maintenance, all internal staff communications, safety department, etc.
This provided CASA a unique opportunity to audit our systems 24/7 from anywhere in Australia, to supplement the CASA practice of less than one audit per year of an industry standard, largely paper based system that needed to be audited on site. By having the designer of the FSM system as our Senior Base Pilot at the Ballina base, it provided a unique opportunity to implement a continuous improvement program to ensure our systems could remain at the forefront of the industry. His experience as an ex-CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) was invaluable. The Flight School Management system was industry leading and designed specifically for our operation.
The loss of this school to APTA as a result of the notification by CASA that the application would be rejected, and the base forced into closure was devastating news for the staff at the base as so much time, money and commitment had been put into fully preparing for the CASA inspection. APTA had also incurred significant expenses in sending an APTA team of 6 personnel to Ballina for 4 days to ensure we were fully satisfied that we had full operational control, and that all personnel were fully inducted into APTA procedures. A full audit of the facility and safety training were also completed.
Simjetwas a business that would have bought a unique capability to the APTA with its high-end Simulation facility that would allow Airline standard training up to and including the Boeing 737. The resources and expertise that Simjet bought to APTA was world leading and at the cutting edge of the industry. It would have attracted significant international opportunities. The Senior Base Pilot that was to be our senior person on site at the base was an ex-RAAF pilot and Airline Pilot, with a passion for the role of advanced flight simulators in flight training and safety training, including Crew Resource Management (CRM) and Multi Crew Co-operation (MCC) training.
The intention being that by adding this substantive capability to the final stages of training, we would attract International Students to commence the initial year of training in our Regional APTA bases. The opportunities to attract large volumes of International Pilot Training were very real. No other organisation in Australia would have had the capability that APTA now had. The potential for growth in APTA and particularly in regional areas would have been significant. The significant group capability that would have existed was unrivalled in Australia. APTA a fully Australian owned venture could now compete against the large foreign owned companies in Australia, that now delivered more than 50% of Australias flight training. We could now approach AUSTRADE to assist us in developing opportunities in export markets for pilot training with foreign airlines.
Both our APTA-Ballina and APTA Brisbane bases and Whitestar found the burdensome legislative requirements, and associated costs too onerous and could not “go it alone”. By joining APTA they also had access to the largest funded safety department of any flying school in Australia. They could focus on delivering quality training and APTA would manage their safety, regulatory compliance, continuous improvement, syllabi development, whilst accepting full responsibility as the Authorisation Holder, in accordance with APTAs CASA approved procedures.
Importantly, the CASA requirement was that all bases are fully setup with facilities, staff, aircraft, and required support services i.e., classrooms, internet, phone systems etc, prior to CASA conducting the inspection of the base, and deciding whether to approve that base or not. The respective investment in these bases was significant as you can imagine. The rejection of these bases by CASA was a major blow for the people involved.
Both the APTA Brisbane and APTA Ballina bases made this investment with the following considerations in mind when electing to join APTA.
1. APTA (previously known as MFT) had over a decade’s experience doing exactly this i.e., providing Air Operator Certificate (AOC) coverage to multiple operators which had been fully sanctioned by CASA.
2. APTA had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars and worked side by side with 10 CASA personnel over a two-year period, to redesign APTA to improve all systems and procedures to ensure they were industry leading and met CASA requirements. I have obtained the checklist that CASA used under Freedom of Information, and this matter cannot be in dispute. More than 600 CASA stipulated requirements were attended to, as we worked with CASA to develop our manuals.
3. CASA had fully revalidated APTA in April 2017 in what was referred to by CASA as “the transition”, and fully approved APTA in April 2017 to keep doing what it had already been doing for over a decade. This system was fully CASA approved. Every single procedure had been overhauled, redesigned, and CASA approved. There was no reason that either of these new bases could have anticipated that CASA would reject their application.
4. CASA had already approved multiple bases under the APTA system, so it was reasonable for these new bases to assume that they would also be approved. Obviously, the systems and procedures that APTA had designed in conjunction with CASA, met all CASA requirements, and those requirements had been met.
5. CASA records will demonstrate that the Company had an industry leading record of safety and regulatory compliance achieved over more than a decade of operations. The brand names of MFT and APTA and the quality of the personnel associated with those businesses provided assurance of the “good intent”.
6. CASA personnel had in fact recommended operators to join APTA, and those operators have confirmed that. This CASA recommendation further assured the bases that APTA provided a CASA accepted system.
7. The APTA model had been operating for 6 months after its CASA reapproval in April 2017. In November 2017, APTA had undergone the highest-level audit that CASA conduct, being a Level 1 audit. No concerns about APTAs structure were raised because of that Level 1 audit.
Suppliers
Any owner of a flying school will tell you how tight the margins are in running a flight training organisation. There are significant fixed costs involved. Cash flow is critical. Quite simply there is not enough “fat” for things to go wrong. Once the restrictions were placed on the business, and cashflow dried up it became increasingly difficult to operate. Up until the restrictions placed on APTA by CASA in October 2018, the business had a decade of impeccable payment terms with its Suppliers, and a reputation in the industry as a “good payer”. The business had a good relationship with all its Suppliers, all of whom I also considered friends.
Every one of those Suppliers stood behind me, and provided me with generous trading terms, in anticipation of this matter being promptly resolved, as it should have been. No one could have anticipated the matter would drag on for 8 months until the business could no longer trade.
Throughout the first six months I held some hope that the matter would be resolved, I could have the restrictions lifted, and would have some hope of returning to business as usual and finalise my increasing debts to the Suppliers.
On early April almost 6 months after this started, I began to realise that this matter was never going to be resolved. CASA had already contacted all of my customers, advised them that were operating unlawfully, and was forcing them to leave APTA.
By now Suppliers had become frustrated with me. For 6 months I had been assuring them that a return to Business as usual was imminent. Their support to date had been exceptional, and I am still highly appreciative of that support. However, CASA never lifted the restrictions. The suppliers couldn’t understand why I could resolve this. The business ceased trading.
After I had given APTA away, I wrote to all Suppliers on 20/08/19, and copy of that correspondence is below
“To All Suppliers of MFT. 20/08/19
I am in a very difficult situation.
CASA placed several restrictions on my parent company, APTA and its ability to conduct business in October of 2018. This lead to the sale of APTA recently, and it’s now under new ownership.
Importantly, at no stage was the CASA action based on any allegations of safety concerns. Also, at no stage have there been any allegations of regulatory breaches that CASA has been prepared to substantiate.
The fact is, there have been no regulatory or safety breaches. None!
CASA actions,
· Reduced our “surety of operations”, to never more than 90 days into the future.
· Prevented me marketing · Prevented me enrolling new customers
· Prevented me renewing approvals as they expired.
· Prevented me adding new approvals.
In October 2018, I identified to CASA that those restrictions on my business, would cost me at least $10,000 per week, to sustain operations until the CASA imposed restrictions were lifted.
Over the last 9 months, I have had to call on MFT to financially support APTA operations, as I had several other operators also depending on APTA for their own continuing operations. It was anticipated that CASA would resolve their confusion in a matter of weeks. I could not possibly have imagined it would continue for over 9 months, and still be unresolved. Those restrictions on my ability to trade have continued throughout the last 9 months, as has the associated stress on both me and the business. I now find myself in the current situation.
CASA has insisted on something they call “direct operational control” and this has required me to transfer all MFT operations to APTA, with the associated income going to APTA (under new ownership) and not to MFT (which I still own). This makes resolution of my current situation almost impossible, but I have called on CASA to define, “direct operational control”. Once I have that defined, it may be possible that MFT can continue, and I can derive revenue from MFT. At this stage there is much uncertainty.
Moving forward
The reality is that I have exhausted everything in fighting with CASA to maintain APTA. I have been left with nothing. No home, no business, no savings and no job, so I cannot promise an easy resolution.
I can assure you, there is not a higher level of shame, guilt and embarrassment that a human being can have, than to owe money, to friends and people that have supported him. I do not have a solution to put to you at this stage. I have no intention of running away or hiding from my responsibilities. I will be working for as long as it takes in an endeavour to ensure that every one of you is paid 100%. No haggling, and no discounting. It is a big call, and that is why I need your input.
As suppliers you have the right to act against me and have me declared bankrupt. I respect that, and can accept, and understand that stance. To be frank, to be declared bankrupt, and go and start a simpler life and concentrate on looking after my family is the easier path, and in the interests of my health, probably the sensible path.But I will head down the path of resolution, and as the saying goes. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
I want to meet face to face wherever possible and call on those engagements to be respectful. I appreciate that several people are seriously affected, and not just myself. With the restructure in APTA, I don’t have the admin support that I had previously, and as you will appreciate, I have a lot going on. If you have an invoice for MFT, or are a staff member with an entitlement, could you please resend it through to a new email that I have created; [email protected] With the significant change of personnel in the office I need to collate this information accurately in the one spot.
Could I also call for a meeting at 4PM on Friday 30th August. I will advise a venue, but it will be at Moorabbin Airport. If someone cannot attend on site, please let me know, and I will arrange video-conference facilities. Please RSVP by text 0418772013, if you can attend. I will provide light refreshments (bread and water is all I can promise at this stage, but will swing past Aldi for any cakes approaching their "best before")
At that meeting I would like to:
· Stand in front of you;
· Introduce you to each other;
· Assess priority suppliers. i.e. I would call on bigger businesses to help me prioritise any individuals or smaller businesses for payment ahead of them wherever practical;
· Place several options to you for consideration;
· Have a robust, truthful and well-intentioned respectful discussion.
I genuinely want to get money where it belongs (the people I owe money to) and not in the hands of lawyers and accountants; I feel we can hopefully resolve this.
Thank you for your consideration, and more importantly, your support to date.For those that have a deeper interest in my issues please follow the following link https://www.pprune.org/pacific-gener...ss-v-casa.html
Respectfully, Glen.
Impact on the bases that had already been fully approved by approved by CASA under APTA
These bases had previously applied to join APTA, the APTA procedures had been diligently followed and CASA had approved the bases. They had absolutely no reason at all to believe that they would have their approvals reversed. These bases included my own flying school of more than a decade that was now declared an unauthorised operation by CASA with only 7 days certainty of operations. The other bases were now confronted with an uncertain future as they had no certainty of operations. Understandably they directed a high level of frustration towards me. I had assured them that the structure we adopted was fully CASA approved, and had been for many years, as it was. They felt that I had mislead them as to whether I had CASA approval or not. They thought that I had possibly been deceptive and misleading. Understandably this caused me great sadness and personal reputational damage.
None of these bases can enrol students into courses while these interim approvals to operate are in place. It is illegal as an RTO, and unethical to be enrolling students into courses of 18 months duration that you have significant doubt ascto your ability to deliver that course. Each of the bases are effectively being prevented from taking on new customers/students.
Determination
I have not met Glen Buckley, but hope to at some future point.
My wish is to express my thanks in person for his courage and determination to see wrong righted.
We all benefit from Glen Buckley’s remarkable fight for justice in ways which cannot be detailed. We can be sure the notoriety generated will have certainly influenced the attitudes and actions of bureaucracy by giving caution as to how the General Aviation community is treated.
CASA has become used to a submissive response from an understandably cowed GA community, GA needs all the help it can find.
My wish is to express my thanks in person for his courage and determination to see wrong righted.
We all benefit from Glen Buckley’s remarkable fight for justice in ways which cannot be detailed. We can be sure the notoriety generated will have certainly influenced the attitudes and actions of bureaucracy by giving caution as to how the General Aviation community is treated.
CASA has become used to a submissive response from an understandably cowed GA community, GA needs all the help it can find.
Thread Starter
A follow up to Ms. Spence
20/10/22
Dear Ms Spence,
I acknowledge that you had a period away from the Office and that would impact on your response times.
I wrote to you on the 19th of September 2022 and followed up on the 6th of October 2022.
The purpose of that correspondence was to seek clarification as to the date that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation. As you are aware CASA has led the Ombudsman’s office to be of the view that it was just prior to October 2018, when CASA imposed the crippling trading restrictions on the business. I claim that it was in fact, many years prior.
Irrespective of whether it was at least six years prior as I claim, or it was “just prior to October 2018”, as CASA claimed, there must be a specific date that CASA first became fully aware of the structure. There must have been some documentation submitted, a meeting with a CASA employee, an approval granted, a base approved, an audit, a report, a Part 141/142 approval, or something that triggered CASAs awareness as to the specific nature of my operation.
You will appreciate my point. There must be a date attached to an occurrence that caused CASA to first become fully aware of the specific nature of my operation. That being the operation that CASA incorrectly declared to be unlawful and unauthorised. We have since found out that my operation was in fact both lawful and authorised by CASA.
To date, I have not received an acknowledgement or a response. Whilst I am prepared to wait for a lengthier and considered response, can I respectfully request an acknowledgement that you have at least received and viewed the email of 19th September.
My understanding is that CASA is meeting with the Ombudsman, and I would like to have a clear understanding of CASAs position prior to that meeting proceeding. In fact, I believe it is incumbent that you should clearly identify CASAs position prior to that meeting, to maintain the integrity of CASAs position.
CASA must already “know” the date that they claim they first became aware of the specific nature of my operation. You will appreciate that the meeting with the Ombudsman, could provide an opportunity for CASA to “see what they can get away with”, so by publicly identifying that date that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation, prior to meeting with the Ombudsman, that would bring integrity to CASAs position.
I’m sure you will agree, that as the person impacted by this matter, It would seem entirely reasonable that you clearly identify to me, the same information that you are presenting to the Ombudsman’s office. That being the date that CASA claim they first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation, and that there should be no reason that CASA would not be prepared to identify that date to me prior to that meeting.
At this stage may I request a confirmation that you have received my correspondence of 19th September 2022.
As an aside, I would like to make a request to the Ombudsman’s Office that I attend that meeting between CASA and the Ombudsman. This would bring transparency and present the opportunity to put “everything on the table”. I am confident that such an approach would expedite timelines and ensure a fair outcome.
Thank you, Glen Buckley
Correspondence previously sent to Ms Spence, and referred to here can be accessed via the following link at Posts # 2376 and 2377. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 119 - PPRuNe Forums
Dear Ms Spence,
I acknowledge that you had a period away from the Office and that would impact on your response times.
I wrote to you on the 19th of September 2022 and followed up on the 6th of October 2022.
The purpose of that correspondence was to seek clarification as to the date that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation. As you are aware CASA has led the Ombudsman’s office to be of the view that it was just prior to October 2018, when CASA imposed the crippling trading restrictions on the business. I claim that it was in fact, many years prior.
Irrespective of whether it was at least six years prior as I claim, or it was “just prior to October 2018”, as CASA claimed, there must be a specific date that CASA first became fully aware of the structure. There must have been some documentation submitted, a meeting with a CASA employee, an approval granted, a base approved, an audit, a report, a Part 141/142 approval, or something that triggered CASAs awareness as to the specific nature of my operation.
You will appreciate my point. There must be a date attached to an occurrence that caused CASA to first become fully aware of the specific nature of my operation. That being the operation that CASA incorrectly declared to be unlawful and unauthorised. We have since found out that my operation was in fact both lawful and authorised by CASA.
To date, I have not received an acknowledgement or a response. Whilst I am prepared to wait for a lengthier and considered response, can I respectfully request an acknowledgement that you have at least received and viewed the email of 19th September.
My understanding is that CASA is meeting with the Ombudsman, and I would like to have a clear understanding of CASAs position prior to that meeting proceeding. In fact, I believe it is incumbent that you should clearly identify CASAs position prior to that meeting, to maintain the integrity of CASAs position.
CASA must already “know” the date that they claim they first became aware of the specific nature of my operation. You will appreciate that the meeting with the Ombudsman, could provide an opportunity for CASA to “see what they can get away with”, so by publicly identifying that date that CASA first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation, prior to meeting with the Ombudsman, that would bring integrity to CASAs position.
I’m sure you will agree, that as the person impacted by this matter, It would seem entirely reasonable that you clearly identify to me, the same information that you are presenting to the Ombudsman’s office. That being the date that CASA claim they first became fully aware of the specific nature of my operation, and that there should be no reason that CASA would not be prepared to identify that date to me prior to that meeting.
At this stage may I request a confirmation that you have received my correspondence of 19th September 2022.
As an aside, I would like to make a request to the Ombudsman’s Office that I attend that meeting between CASA and the Ombudsman. This would bring transparency and present the opportunity to put “everything on the table”. I am confident that such an approach would expedite timelines and ensure a fair outcome.
Thank you, Glen Buckley
Correspondence previously sent to Ms Spence, and referred to here can be accessed via the following link at Posts # 2376 and 2377. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - Page 119 - PPRuNe Forums
Thread Starter
To the CASA ICC
14th October CASA ICC wrote to me:Hi Glen
Given the nature of the allegations you made in your 2022 ICC complaint, I am emailing to let you know that I will be attending an upcoming meeting between CASA and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office.
As you’re aware, no review of your most recent ICC complaint has commenced. That was on the basis set out in my email of 16 August 2022 seeking further information where I noted that if the issues you have raised are still being considered by the Ombudsman in any form then an ICC review may be inappropriate or premature at this stage.
My offer to meet with you and any support person you wish to attend stands.
Regards
Jonathan Hanton
20/10/22 My response
Dear Jonathan Hanton,
Thank you for your correspondence, and I understand that no review has yet commenced. I have written to my local MP, Ms. Carina Garland seeking her input and I await her response. Pending her response, I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you once I have established contact with her.
Are you able to advise me the date of the meeting with the Ombudsman’s Office.
I would like to put forward a proposal that CASA permit me to attend that meeting with the Ombudsman, and I would have to write to the Ombudsman with that request subject to CASAs response.
Obviously I would be professional and respectful at that meeting. Such a meeting would provide the opportunity for a frank and honest discussion that would promptly bring clarity to the entire matter. This would only enhance outcomes and bring a prompter resolution.
Is this a request that CASA would support,
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Given the nature of the allegations you made in your 2022 ICC complaint, I am emailing to let you know that I will be attending an upcoming meeting between CASA and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office.
As you’re aware, no review of your most recent ICC complaint has commenced. That was on the basis set out in my email of 16 August 2022 seeking further information where I noted that if the issues you have raised are still being considered by the Ombudsman in any form then an ICC review may be inappropriate or premature at this stage.
My offer to meet with you and any support person you wish to attend stands.
Regards
Jonathan Hanton
20/10/22 My response
Dear Jonathan Hanton,
Thank you for your correspondence, and I understand that no review has yet commenced. I have written to my local MP, Ms. Carina Garland seeking her input and I await her response. Pending her response, I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you once I have established contact with her.
Are you able to advise me the date of the meeting with the Ombudsman’s Office.
I would like to put forward a proposal that CASA permit me to attend that meeting with the Ombudsman, and I would have to write to the Ombudsman with that request subject to CASAs response.
Obviously I would be professional and respectful at that meeting. Such a meeting would provide the opportunity for a frank and honest discussion that would promptly bring clarity to the entire matter. This would only enhance outcomes and bring a prompter resolution.
Is this a request that CASA would support,
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
A reasonable request to attend meeting.
Glen’s request should fall under CASA Board Chair Mr. Binskin’s declaration of transparency as being a desirable characteristic of CASA’s dealings with the public.
in particular the General Aviation community are heavily invested in the whole saga because the proper function of CASA is of prime importance.
Proper function being a fervent wish and hope.
We’ve not seen proper function from CASA since its inception because the ‘independent’ model of governance is wrong.
it was far from perfect under Ministerial control but it was workable. I should know, I developed my flying school, charter and RPT services before the advent of the monopoly corporate style of governance that was introduced by Labor Minister for Transport Gareth Evans. A move made to remove himself from Ministerial responsibility, a responsibility that is a cornerstone of our democratic system. The current PM when Minister of Transport in 2009 did the same to the ATSB.
in particular the General Aviation community are heavily invested in the whole saga because the proper function of CASA is of prime importance.
Proper function being a fervent wish and hope.
We’ve not seen proper function from CASA since its inception because the ‘independent’ model of governance is wrong.
it was far from perfect under Ministerial control but it was workable. I should know, I developed my flying school, charter and RPT services before the advent of the monopoly corporate style of governance that was introduced by Labor Minister for Transport Gareth Evans. A move made to remove himself from Ministerial responsibility, a responsibility that is a cornerstone of our democratic system. The current PM when Minister of Transport in 2009 did the same to the ATSB.
GA is dead. No one but an idiot will invest in private sector GA given the regulatory risk to their capital that CASA poses, as demonstrated by Glen Buckley. All Spence and Binskin are doing is what is termed palliative care - the future is electric multi copters and drones don't you know.. There will be the appearance of reform but it will have no substance, well, not enough to convince investors anyway.
Thread Starter
Reply to post #2410 from CASA ICC
In post #2410 i had written to the CASA ICC. That correspondence being a request to attend a meeting between CASA and the Ombudsmans office.
20/10/22Good morning Glen
Thanks for your email.
The meeting with the Ombudsman has already taken place. The primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss what further material CASA may be able to provide to assist the Ombudsman in the investigation of your complaint to that Office. I anticipate that as a result of the meeting, a further request for information will be made to CASA.
Regards
Jonathan Hanton
20/10/22Good morning Glen
Thanks for your email.
The meeting with the Ombudsman has already taken place. The primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss what further material CASA may be able to provide to assist the Ombudsman in the investigation of your complaint to that Office. I anticipate that as a result of the meeting, a further request for information will be made to CASA.
Regards
Jonathan Hanton
Thread Starter
And back to the ICC
21/10/22
Good morning, Mr. Hanton,
Thank you for the notification that the meeting has occurred. Am I able to be advised as to who attended that meeting from CASA apart from yourself obviously?
Cheers. Glen
Good morning, Mr. Hanton,
Thank you for the notification that the meeting has occurred. Am I able to be advised as to who attended that meeting from CASA apart from yourself obviously?
Cheers. Glen
Meeting attendees
I’m sure we’d all like to know who attended the meeting, and what was the outcome of their discussions.
Public servants and their activities should be transparent, just as said by CASA Chair Mr. Binskin.
In the circumstances, and the enormity of Glen’s case concerns the whole of the General Aviation industry, it would be fitting to have a full run down of the proceedings.
This would be in the spirit of the Government’s model litigant requirements, fairness and displaying a willingness to address any wrongful treatment of Glen Buckley.
Public servants and their activities should be transparent, just as said by CASA Chair Mr. Binskin.
In the circumstances, and the enormity of Glen’s case concerns the whole of the General Aviation industry, it would be fitting to have a full run down of the proceedings.
This would be in the spirit of the Government’s model litigant requirements, fairness and displaying a willingness to address any wrongful treatment of Glen Buckley.
Thread Starter
Ms Spence reply to my correspondence in Post#2409
Dear Mr Buckley
I apologise for the delay in responding, but as you have observed I have been travelling.
As I have consistently indicated, I am awaiting advice from the Ombudsman as they complete their review of their original investigation. Once that process has been finalised, I will be happy to meet with you and discuss their findings.
That said, there are some points that I do need to clarify.
The first is that I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information that CASA provided to the Ombudsman.
The second is that I have now asked the Ombudsman’s office to address their correspondence to me rather than Dr Aleck. This is not because I have concerns about him or the role that he has played, but because I think it is appropriate in light of the issues that you are raising about Dr Aleck’s role.
In terms of your questions about the meeting between CASA and the Ombudsman, as Mr Hanton has already advised the primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss what further material CASA may be able to provide to assist the Ombudsman in its investigation.
Your sincerely
Pip
I apologise for the delay in responding, but as you have observed I have been travelling.
As I have consistently indicated, I am awaiting advice from the Ombudsman as they complete their review of their original investigation. Once that process has been finalised, I will be happy to meet with you and discuss their findings.
That said, there are some points that I do need to clarify.
The first is that I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information that CASA provided to the Ombudsman.
The second is that I have now asked the Ombudsman’s office to address their correspondence to me rather than Dr Aleck. This is not because I have concerns about him or the role that he has played, but because I think it is appropriate in light of the issues that you are raising about Dr Aleck’s role.
In terms of your questions about the meeting between CASA and the Ombudsman, as Mr Hanton has already advised the primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss what further material CASA may be able to provide to assist the Ombudsman in its investigation.
Your sincerely
Pip
Sounds to me like they are going to stand on the letter of the law - that there has been no wrongdoing. They have simply relied on language that says “ ‘CASA must. be satisfied” somewhere in the legislation..
‘’That’s the trouble with nominatives. What today is satisfactory tomorrow is “Unsatisfactory “. What gets me is how anything SOAR did was satisfactory on any level..
‘’If you are lucky, you might get a without prejudice ex gratis payment but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
‘’If that argument is what CASA rely on, then it’s welcome to the third world. The essence of government corruption is having to “satisfy” officials.
‘’That’s the trouble with nominatives. What today is satisfactory tomorrow is “Unsatisfactory “. What gets me is how anything SOAR did was satisfactory on any level..
‘’If you are lucky, you might get a without prejudice ex gratis payment but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
‘’If that argument is what CASA rely on, then it’s welcome to the third world. The essence of government corruption is having to “satisfy” officials.
FWIW, regarding taking on a government entity, there's an article in the Sydney Morning Herald this afternoon about rorting of the Medicare system, with commentary from an opthamologist who says he made a simple mistake over something and has been almost ruined by it:
-------------------
As one of the only full-time resident ophthalmologists in Rockhampton, a region servicing more than 250,000 people, [Dr David] Kitchen delivered more Medicare services than 99 per cent of his peers. He had opened the Central Queensland Cataract Centre, which offered bulk-billed services and no gap surgery, and his claims spiked.
“A lot of patients, especially uninsured pensioners, are unable to afford cataract surgery, so I set up this centre at affordable prices for patients to get cataracts done. The patients were paying just under $1500 per eye, walk in, walk out. And elsewhere in Queensland they will be paying $5000 per eye, or more. So that saw my numbers of cataracts go up substantially,” he said.
During the audit he realised he had made an error with one Medicare item number and voluntarily paid it back. But the PSR went after him and failed to listen to his explanations or his evidence, which it is legally required to do.
He challenged the PSR in the Federal Court and won in February 2021.
“I fought it because I’ve done nothing wrong,” he said.
But he said it cost him $3 million and nearly destroyed his life, “for what in the PSR’s own words was a $20,000 claim”.
In July this year he decided to sue the former PSR director for malfeasance in public office. The Department of Health is defending the case.
“I’m out of pocket a lot of money for something which should never happen in the first place. And to try to recover some costs, and also because the PSR needs to be held accountable.
“It’s a fundamentally flawed, secretive government regulatory agency,” he said.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/dist...25-p5bsmp.html
-------------------
As one of the only full-time resident ophthalmologists in Rockhampton, a region servicing more than 250,000 people, [Dr David] Kitchen delivered more Medicare services than 99 per cent of his peers. He had opened the Central Queensland Cataract Centre, which offered bulk-billed services and no gap surgery, and his claims spiked.
“A lot of patients, especially uninsured pensioners, are unable to afford cataract surgery, so I set up this centre at affordable prices for patients to get cataracts done. The patients were paying just under $1500 per eye, walk in, walk out. And elsewhere in Queensland they will be paying $5000 per eye, or more. So that saw my numbers of cataracts go up substantially,” he said.
During the audit he realised he had made an error with one Medicare item number and voluntarily paid it back. But the PSR went after him and failed to listen to his explanations or his evidence, which it is legally required to do.
He challenged the PSR in the Federal Court and won in February 2021.
“I fought it because I’ve done nothing wrong,” he said.
But he said it cost him $3 million and nearly destroyed his life, “for what in the PSR’s own words was a $20,000 claim”.
In July this year he decided to sue the former PSR director for malfeasance in public office. The Department of Health is defending the case.
“I’m out of pocket a lot of money for something which should never happen in the first place. And to try to recover some costs, and also because the PSR needs to be held accountable.
“It’s a fundamentally flawed, secretive government regulatory agency,” he said.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/dist...25-p5bsmp.html
The unchecked bureaucracy of Canberra
The bureaucracy of Canberra is becoming ever more aggressive and intransigent. It’s been given, in many cases, such excessive powers that it finds no difficulty in exceeding those powers that the Parliament enacted. Sometimes the powers are given believing that commonsense will ameliorate excessive use of power.
It’s easy to exceed the expectations of Parliament, easy because there’s rarely anyone that’s willing to risk their time and money, and putting the authority offside, the same authority that regulates, and at times persecutes the said individuals.
It’s easy to exceed the expectations of Parliament, easy because there’s rarely anyone that’s willing to risk their time and money, and putting the authority offside, the same authority that regulates, and at times persecutes the said individuals.
The bureaucracy of Canberra is becoming ever more aggressive and intransigent. It’s been given, in many cases, such excessive powers that it finds no difficulty in exceeding those powers that the Parliament enacted. Sometimes the powers are given believing that commonsense will ameliorate excessive use of power.
It’s easy to exceed the expectations of Parliament, easy because there’s rarely anyone that’s willing to risk their time and money, and putting the authority offside, the same authority that regulates, and at times persecutes the said individuals.
It’s easy to exceed the expectations of Parliament, easy because there’s rarely anyone that’s willing to risk their time and money, and putting the authority offside, the same authority that regulates, and at times persecutes the said individuals.