Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Estimates circus
Looks like Ms. Spence’s base salary with add-ons is well over $1,000,000pa with very generous super entitlements then perhaps there’s no real incentive to worry about the bothersome details affecting GA.
Is the public performance with CASA’s CEO and those few managers an agreed play on the basis that Ms. Spence takes the heat?
Oddly, Mr. Monahan is not listed in the remuneration table for financial year ‘21.
Is the public performance with CASA’s CEO and those few managers an agreed play on the basis that Ms. Spence takes the heat?
Oddly, Mr. Monahan is not listed in the remuneration table for financial year ‘21.
Ms Spence won't be in it for the money. She'll be motivated by Australia's 'enviable aviation safety record' caused by CASA's efforts in the face of uninformed critics.
Just to get the focus back on Glen’s plight, but to reinforce the point I made about the ‘standard’ being whatever someone in CASA wakes up each day and decides it is, I remind everyone that Mr White’s email to Glen on 13 March 2019 was merely a regurgitation (a quote verbatim) of words spoon fed to Mr White by Dr Aleck’s team. Those words included:
If it were true that persons “employed by” an “authorisation holder” were “in all respects agents of” the authorisation holder, some very odd things could happen. If employed under a contract of service, the employed person could, as agent in all respects of the authorisation holder/employer, go off to the Fair Work Commission and agree, on behalf of the authorisation holder/employer, to vary the applicable EBA so as to double the wages of all employees. If employed under a contract for service, the contracted person could, as agent in all respects of the authorisation holder, enter contracts with third parties, which contracts would be binding on the authorisation holder.
That’s what an ‘agent in all respects’ is: A person who can do things that are legally binding between the principal and third parties.
As we know and CASA knows, there are plenty of operators out there who engage pilots as ‘independent contractors’ – that is, under contracts for service. Those contracts almost invariably include a clause that requires the pilot, as independent contractor, to acknowledge and agree that s/he is NOT an agent of the operator and to promise NOT to represent him or herself as being an agent of the operator.
Then there’s the mere bagatelle of what Parts 141 and 142 actually say. They actually include a definition that says:
The “operational and organisational arrangements contemplated by CASR 141 [and Part 142]” are opposite to the effect asserted in Mr White's email. There is no way that all of the people covered by (b) and (c) – that is, people who are not an employee of the operator – are “in all respects agents” of the operator.
Someone in CASA just woke up one day and decided that the rules don’t mean what they say. That becomes the practical standard because the only way in which Glen could get an authoritative decision to the contrary would result in him going broke and bankrupt quicker than he would in just giving up.
All in the interests of the safety of air navigation, of course.
Just to get the focus back on Glen’s plight, but to reinforce the point I made about the ‘standard’ being whatever someone in CASA wakes up each day and decides it is, I remind everyone that Mr White’s email to Glen on 13 March 2019 was merely a regurgitation (a quote verbatim) of words spoon fed to Mr White by Dr Aleck’s team. Those words included:
The operational and organisational arrangements contemplated by CASR 141 [and Part 142] are based on a conventional business model, under which all of the operational activities conducted by the authorisation holder are carried out, for and behalf of the authorisation holder by persons employed by, and in all respects as agents of, the authorisation holder.
That’s what an ‘agent in all respects’ is: A person who can do things that are legally binding between the principal and third parties.
As we know and CASA knows, there are plenty of operators out there who engage pilots as ‘independent contractors’ – that is, under contracts for service. Those contracts almost invariably include a clause that requires the pilot, as independent contractor, to acknowledge and agree that s/he is NOT an agent of the operator and to promise NOT to represent him or herself as being an agent of the operator.
Then there’s the mere bagatelle of what Parts 141 and 142 actually say. They actually include a definition that says:
personnel, for a Part 141[/142] operator, includes any of the following persons who have duties or responsibilities that relate to the safe conduct of the operator’s authorised Part 141 flight training [Part 142 activities]:
(a) an employee of the operator;
(b) a person engaged by the operator (whether by contract or other arrangement) to provide services to the operator;
(c) an employee of a person mentioned in paragraph (b).
(a) an employee of the operator;
(b) a person engaged by the operator (whether by contract or other arrangement) to provide services to the operator;
(c) an employee of a person mentioned in paragraph (b).
Someone in CASA just woke up one day and decided that the rules don’t mean what they say. That becomes the practical standard because the only way in which Glen could get an authoritative decision to the contrary would result in him going broke and bankrupt quicker than he would in just giving up.
All in the interests of the safety of air navigation, of course.
Looks like Ms. Spence’s base salary with add-ons is well over $1,000,000pa with very generous super entitlements
The 2019-2020 annual report stated DAS total remuneration (including super) as $685,000 pa
[A] tabular legend, showing how and where the actions called up under each applicable provision of the civil aviation legislation germane to the conduct of operations under CASR Part 141 [and Part 142] are effectively addressed in the terms of the contractual agreement(s).
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the additional pay is because of the emergence of the ‘great resignation movement’ and CASA desperately needs to retain the most qualified person for the top job. Ms Spence, with no aviation experience, but with years of experience kissing PMC ass and rising through the lofty ranks of the APS, is obviously the best choice to retain as the DASA/CEO. Anyway, it will be fun watching Aleck throw her under the bus and ‘slow roast’ her at Estimates every year for the next few years. Have fun Pip, they are going to make you earn your keep. Sleep with one eye open.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Government Industries
Government Industries, them and us.
They, increasingly, have the upper hand as we subjects of the Crown crave privileges, not rights, from Her Maj’s Government.
Government instrumentalities have become the monopoly providers of myriad permissions and we pay.
They, increasingly, have the upper hand as we subjects of the Crown crave privileges, not rights, from Her Maj’s Government.
Government instrumentalities have become the monopoly providers of myriad permissions and we pay.
Thread Starter
Craig Martin
Or the fact that the ABC did an investigative piece into his conduct of an investigation into Bruce Rhoades, or my allegations of professional misconduct etc etc.
Join Date: Dec 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Found some curious Hansard links ystdy. The flaws of CASA were predicted from day #1 here!
CIVIL AVIATION BILL 1988 - Second Reading
A brief mention that gliders are not aircraft (half-way down the page). I won't cross-post my topic content into Glen's thread, just wanted to show briefly the curious things are in Hansard when you go looking
28/06/2017 - Regulatory requirements and the safe use of remotely piloted aircraft and unmanned aerial systems
I have watched the latest video once, I am yet to absorb the meaning of it. Maybe I can make a few comments next week
CIVIL AVIATION BILL 1988 - Second Reading
A brief mention that gliders are not aircraft (half-way down the page). I won't cross-post my topic content into Glen's thread, just wanted to show briefly the curious things are in Hansard when you go looking
28/06/2017 - Regulatory requirements and the safe use of remotely piloted aircraft and unmanned aerial systems
I have watched the latest video once, I am yet to absorb the meaning of it. Maybe I can make a few comments next week
So how did things go in court on 21 Feb?