NACC- CASA- ALECK
Thread Starter
NACC- CASA- ALECK
I am commencing a new thread regrading allegations that I have raised against Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs.
For those that are aware, I have had a long running thread on my matter. This is a completely different thread although somewhat related.
In this thread the only topic is my upcoming submission to the National Anti Corruption Commission. I have had recent contact with both the Australian Federal Police and the Ombudsman Office on this matter, and I am fully satisfied that is the best way forward.
Many have suggested that i should pursue litigation, and that is an option. Nevertheless, the NACC is available and an avenue that should be pursued. The NACC provides a forum that could instigate real change in the industry. potentially more so than litigation alone.
My specific allegations are that Mr Aleck the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs has
Deliberately provided false and misleading advice to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Investigation in order to cover up his own misconduct, and Misfeasance in Public Office by demonstrating targeted malice towards me through his actions and decisions.
In a subsequent post, I will be asking for industry feedback on this thread in support of my submission. Whilst I understand that posters may not necessarily be able to have enough knowledge of my matter to specifically comment aginst that.
It may be, that you support an investigation into his conduct, or you may be someone impacted by his actions and decisions, or you may be just someone that sees this as an opportunity that could lead to change.
If you do choose to post on here in support of my submission, and knowing that I will be drawing the NACCs attention to this thread in my submission, obviously it needs to be kept as professional as practical.
I am using Pprune because it is suitably discrete, and I am not seeking to cause a wider mischief than is absolutely necessary. I believe this to be the appropriate forum, and welcome any comment from any individuals or Organisations.
I must emphasize that I believe in fair processes, and that my allegations are only allegations. They need to be substantiated.
To pprune moderators, I appreciate that this thread will be closely monitored. I must be very clear that I accept absolute responsibility in law for anything I post here.
My hope is that Pprune can see the benefit to the public, the possible aviation safety and other benefits that would come from my submission, and why I need to seek the support of PPRune.
I will be back, in the interim I eagerly await any feedback either on here or via my email [email protected]
I am confident that Mr Aleck would welcome such an investigation.
For those that are aware, I have had a long running thread on my matter. This is a completely different thread although somewhat related.
In this thread the only topic is my upcoming submission to the National Anti Corruption Commission. I have had recent contact with both the Australian Federal Police and the Ombudsman Office on this matter, and I am fully satisfied that is the best way forward.
Many have suggested that i should pursue litigation, and that is an option. Nevertheless, the NACC is available and an avenue that should be pursued. The NACC provides a forum that could instigate real change in the industry. potentially more so than litigation alone.
My specific allegations are that Mr Aleck the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs has
Deliberately provided false and misleading advice to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Investigation in order to cover up his own misconduct, and Misfeasance in Public Office by demonstrating targeted malice towards me through his actions and decisions.
In a subsequent post, I will be asking for industry feedback on this thread in support of my submission. Whilst I understand that posters may not necessarily be able to have enough knowledge of my matter to specifically comment aginst that.
It may be, that you support an investigation into his conduct, or you may be someone impacted by his actions and decisions, or you may be just someone that sees this as an opportunity that could lead to change.
If you do choose to post on here in support of my submission, and knowing that I will be drawing the NACCs attention to this thread in my submission, obviously it needs to be kept as professional as practical.
I am using Pprune because it is suitably discrete, and I am not seeking to cause a wider mischief than is absolutely necessary. I believe this to be the appropriate forum, and welcome any comment from any individuals or Organisations.
I must emphasize that I believe in fair processes, and that my allegations are only allegations. They need to be substantiated.
To pprune moderators, I appreciate that this thread will be closely monitored. I must be very clear that I accept absolute responsibility in law for anything I post here.
My hope is that Pprune can see the benefit to the public, the possible aviation safety and other benefits that would come from my submission, and why I need to seek the support of PPRune.
I will be back, in the interim I eagerly await any feedback either on here or via my email [email protected]
I am confident that Mr Aleck would welcome such an investigation.
The following 4 users liked this post by glenb:
Geez Glen For F Sake! GO TO COURT! This avenue you have selected is a F 'ing waste of time! Mr Aleck will be retired with MILLIONS before you can bring him to justice if at all!
The following 5 users liked this post by MalcolmReynolds:
Glen you have our support via the GoFundMe……..
If you want more support it will be there but you have to engage and follow the advice of lawyers (yes frustrating having to spend $$$). Go hard mate we are all behind you!
The following 4 users liked this post by Global Aviator:
In this thread the only topic is my upcoming submission to the National Anti Corruption Commission. I have had recent contact with both the Australian Federal Police and the Ombudsman Office on this matter, and I am fully satisfied that is the best way forward.
Many have suggested that i should pursue litigation, and that is an option. Nevertheless, the NACC is available and an avenue that should be pursued. The NACC provides a forum that could instigate real change in the industry. potentially more so than litigation alone.
Many have suggested that i should pursue litigation, and that is an option. Nevertheless, the NACC is available and an avenue that should be pursued. The NACC provides a forum that could instigate real change in the industry. potentially more so than litigation alone.
Last edited by missy; 16th May 2024 at 00:07. Reason: ]
The following users liked this post:
I note that the NSW ICAC says this, with my underlining:
Think now of Commonwealth officials who accept Qantas Chairman’s Lounge membership for free.
Is Qantas Chairman’s Lounge membership of “more than token value”?
What would a reasonable member of the public perceive the intention of Qantas to be in giving out Chairman’s Lounge memberships to Commonwealth officials, including the CEO of CASA (and to the PM’s son)?
The current NACC Gifts and Benefits Register, here, includes Chairman’s Lounge membership of NACC Deputy Commissioner, Dr Ben Gauntlett and NACC Deputy Commissioner, Kylie Kilgour, with “not applicable” under the heading “estimated value in AUD$”. Read that twice.
The NACC evidently considers it appropriate for Commonwealth officials – including the NACC’s own officials - to accept Qantas Chairman’s Lounge membership for free, and to ignore putting a value on it. If that’s any indication of how the NACC will go about doing its job, I anticipate the NACC will turn out to be an expensive, sick joke on the body politic.
Who’d have thought that NSW would end up being stronger than the Commonwealth in identifying and dealing with government corruption.
Gifts and benefits
The public rightly expects that government employees in NSW exercise their duties impartially and in a transparent manner, without any perceived undue influence. The offering and acceptance of gifts, benefits and hospitality is one of many red flags of corruption and presents a considerable risk to public sector authorities.
The NSW Public Service Commissioner’s directive 1 of 2022, Managing Gifts and Benefits: Minimum Standards requires relevant agency heads to implement minimum standards for the management of gifts and benefits in the NSW government sector.
Part 6 of The Model Code of Conduct and Procedures 2020 outlines how offers of gifts, benefits and hospitality are to be dealt with by council officials. Similarly, the NSW Government Supplier Code of Conduct makes explicit that suppliers must not at any time offer or provide any financial or non-financial benefits to NSW public officials.
While entities have their own policies, procedures and guidelines, which may vary in their prescriptiveness, the following overarching rule applies to all.
Public officials should not solicit or accept any gifts, benefits or hospitality that could be perceived as intended to influence them, or if they are more than token value. Offers of money in any form should never be accepted.
Perceptions are often at the core of deciding whether to accept an offer. Key issues to consider include: what is the perceived intention of the giver, and what would a reasonable member of the community perceive of a public official accepting a gift, benefit or hospitality …?
The public rightly expects that government employees in NSW exercise their duties impartially and in a transparent manner, without any perceived undue influence. The offering and acceptance of gifts, benefits and hospitality is one of many red flags of corruption and presents a considerable risk to public sector authorities.
The NSW Public Service Commissioner’s directive 1 of 2022, Managing Gifts and Benefits: Minimum Standards requires relevant agency heads to implement minimum standards for the management of gifts and benefits in the NSW government sector.
Part 6 of The Model Code of Conduct and Procedures 2020 outlines how offers of gifts, benefits and hospitality are to be dealt with by council officials. Similarly, the NSW Government Supplier Code of Conduct makes explicit that suppliers must not at any time offer or provide any financial or non-financial benefits to NSW public officials.
While entities have their own policies, procedures and guidelines, which may vary in their prescriptiveness, the following overarching rule applies to all.
Public officials should not solicit or accept any gifts, benefits or hospitality that could be perceived as intended to influence them, or if they are more than token value. Offers of money in any form should never be accepted.
Is Qantas Chairman’s Lounge membership of “more than token value”?
What would a reasonable member of the public perceive the intention of Qantas to be in giving out Chairman’s Lounge memberships to Commonwealth officials, including the CEO of CASA (and to the PM’s son)?
The current NACC Gifts and Benefits Register, here, includes Chairman’s Lounge membership of NACC Deputy Commissioner, Dr Ben Gauntlett and NACC Deputy Commissioner, Kylie Kilgour, with “not applicable” under the heading “estimated value in AUD$”. Read that twice.
The NACC evidently considers it appropriate for Commonwealth officials – including the NACC’s own officials - to accept Qantas Chairman’s Lounge membership for free, and to ignore putting a value on it. If that’s any indication of how the NACC will go about doing its job, I anticipate the NACC will turn out to be an expensive, sick joke on the body politic.
Who’d have thought that NSW would end up being stronger than the Commonwealth in identifying and dealing with government corruption.
The following users liked this post:
Gladys Berejiklian, Daryl Maguire, Barry O’Farrell, Nick Greiner and many, many others would probably take the view that the corruption rules and ICAC are not mere feel-good symbolism in NSW.
I am commencing a new thread regrading allegations that I have raised against Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs.
For those that are aware, I have had a long running thread on my matter. This is a completely different thread although somewhat related.
In this thread the only topic is my upcoming submission to the National Anti Corruption Commission. I have had recent contact with both the Australian Federal Police and the Ombudsman Office on this matter, and I am fully satisfied that is the best way forward.
Many have suggested that i should pursue litigation, and that is an option. Nevertheless, the NACC is available and an avenue that should be pursued. The NACC provides a forum that could instigate real change in the industry. potentially more so than litigation alone.
My specific allegations are that Mr Aleck the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs has
Deliberately provided false and misleading advice to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Investigation in order to cover up his own misconduct, and Misfeasance in Public Office by demonstrating targeted malice towards me through his actions and decisions.
In a subsequent post, I will be asking for industry feedback on this thread in support of my submission. Whilst I understand that posters may not necessarily be able to have enough knowledge of my matter to specifically comment aginst that.
It may be, that you support an investigation into his conduct, or you may be someone impacted by his actions and decisions, or you may be just someone that sees this as an opportunity that could lead to change.
If you do choose to post on here in support of my submission, and knowing that I will be drawing the NACCs attention to this thread in my submission, obviously it needs to be kept as professional as practical.
I am using Pprune because it is suitably discrete, and I am not seeking to cause a wider mischief than is absolutely necessary. I believe this to be the appropriate forum, and welcome any comment from any individuals or Organisations.
I must emphasize that I believe in fair processes, and that my allegations are only allegations. They need to be substantiated.
To pprune moderators, I appreciate that this thread will be closely monitored. I must be very clear that I accept absolute responsibility in law for anything I post here.
My hope is that Pprune can see the benefit to the public, the possible aviation safety and other benefits that would come from my submission, and why I need to seek the support of PPRune.
I will be back, in the interim I eagerly await any feedback either on here or via my email [email protected]
I am confident that Mr Aleck would welcome such an investigation.
For those that are aware, I have had a long running thread on my matter. This is a completely different thread although somewhat related.
In this thread the only topic is my upcoming submission to the National Anti Corruption Commission. I have had recent contact with both the Australian Federal Police and the Ombudsman Office on this matter, and I am fully satisfied that is the best way forward.
Many have suggested that i should pursue litigation, and that is an option. Nevertheless, the NACC is available and an avenue that should be pursued. The NACC provides a forum that could instigate real change in the industry. potentially more so than litigation alone.
My specific allegations are that Mr Aleck the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs has
Deliberately provided false and misleading advice to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Investigation in order to cover up his own misconduct, and Misfeasance in Public Office by demonstrating targeted malice towards me through his actions and decisions.
In a subsequent post, I will be asking for industry feedback on this thread in support of my submission. Whilst I understand that posters may not necessarily be able to have enough knowledge of my matter to specifically comment aginst that.
It may be, that you support an investigation into his conduct, or you may be someone impacted by his actions and decisions, or you may be just someone that sees this as an opportunity that could lead to change.
If you do choose to post on here in support of my submission, and knowing that I will be drawing the NACCs attention to this thread in my submission, obviously it needs to be kept as professional as practical.
I am using Pprune because it is suitably discrete, and I am not seeking to cause a wider mischief than is absolutely necessary. I believe this to be the appropriate forum, and welcome any comment from any individuals or Organisations.
I must emphasize that I believe in fair processes, and that my allegations are only allegations. They need to be substantiated.
To pprune moderators, I appreciate that this thread will be closely monitored. I must be very clear that I accept absolute responsibility in law for anything I post here.
My hope is that Pprune can see the benefit to the public, the possible aviation safety and other benefits that would come from my submission, and why I need to seek the support of PPRune.
I will be back, in the interim I eagerly await any feedback either on here or via my email [email protected]
I am confident that Mr Aleck would welcome such an investigation.
My point was - and remains - that Glen is asking a Commonwealth body - the NACC - to investigate an allegation of corruption, when the NACC evidently thinks it's OK for Commonwealth officials - including senior NACC and CASA officials - to accept Qantas largesse. If that's the formal position of the NACC, I reckon we (including Glen) can kiss goodbye the prospect of much groundbreaking coming out of NACC.
I would dearly (dearly) love to be proved wrong.
I would dearly (dearly) love to be proved wrong.
The following 2 users liked this post by Lead Balloon:
My point was - and remains - that Glen is asking a Commonwealth body - the NACC - to investigate an allegation of corruption, when the NACC evidently thinks it's OK for Commonwealth officials - including senior NACC and CASA officials - to accept Qantas largesse. If that's the formal position of the NACC, I reckon we (including Glen) can kiss goodbye the prospect of much groundbreaking coming out of NACC.
I would dearly (dearly) love to be proved wrong.
I would dearly (dearly) love to be proved wrong.
Don't forget Virgin makes similar arrangements. Invites to a special lounge for special people. From the press release "reserved for corporate partners, some high-status Velocity Frequent Flyer members and key opinion leaders throughout the country."
Thread Starter
FOI- Legal Area awreness
Regarding my allegation that Mr Aleck the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory affairs has provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation in order to cover up his own misconduct I made an FOI request, and sent that to the Ombudsman Office.
I have elected wherever practical going forward to submit my FOI requests through the Ombudsman office rather than CASA. The reason being that it ensures that Mr Aleck has no opportunity to interfere with processes, and it ensures that there is an awareness within the Ombudsman Office of my allegations.
My correspondence can be somewhat wordy. I do that for a reason because my correspondence often has other recipients, and I want to ensure that those recipients, who may not have technical expertise, can still be included, and have an understanding.
For example in this correspondence that I have sent through to CASA in this case, I have also included the Ombudsman Office, as well as my Local MP for the Seat of Chisholm, Dr Carina Garland and Minister Catherine King, as the Minister responsible for CASA. Both these individuals have legislated responsibilities to refer matters to the NACC if they suspect corruption, which by now, surely they must.
My intention is to make sure that both those elected officials have a shared responsibility.
A brief overview for those that do not want to wade through the document in its entirety.
Mr Aleck maintains and has convinced the Ombudsman, that the CASA "legal area" which is Mr Aleck, first became aware of my "structure" in October 2018.
Quite simply that is ludicrous. I had operated in the same structure for a decade, and for those involved in this heavily regulated industry, it is simply preposterous to suggest that the "legal area" first became aware in October 2018, when it was the "legal area" that issued the initial approval a decade prior, approved bases, and was involved in audits.
Anyway, Mr Aleck who was the person responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman Office, convinced the Ombudsman that the legal area first became aware of my structure in October 2018, and the Ombudsman Office advised me of that on two occasions. In the Ombudsman report they stated,
"Complaint Officer Mark’s email to you dated 23 December 2020 concluded that the evidence available suggested the legal area of CASA had not been made aware of the business structure used by APTA prior to October 2018. This should be distinguished from CASA more broadly.
Under FOI I obtained correspondence that clearly indicated there had been communication with the Legal area 1 year prior to when Mr Aleck convinced the Ombudsman because on 9 October 2017 I obtained correspondence that clearly indicates that Mr Alecks legal area was aware at least 12 months prior.
At no stage between the legal area becoming aware, and 1 year later in October 2018, did CASA ever raise any concerns with me. The "legal area" sat on that information.
I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck has provided false and misleading information to the Ombudsman office as to when his "legal area" first became aware.
For those wanted more info, please read on.
To the FOI Department CASA -May 6th 2024
You may or may not be aware that I have made allegations directly with Minister King that the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs has provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation. I have included Minister King in this FOI request as a courtesy, and to ensure that she remains fully aware of my allegations against Mr Aleck, the CASA Executive manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, as she has been to date.
I have included my Local MP, Dr. Carina Garland on this matter, and my understanding is that by now she will have forwarded on my documents as requested as they are highly relevant. My understanding is that she will have established contact with the Ombudsman. I have been seeking clarification from her Office for over two months now, but have not heard back from her, although I will follow up again
I have also included the Commonwealth Ombudsman FOI Department as this correspondence will be the basis of a request that I will be making of that Office that is related to this matter, and will form part of my evidence gathering.
My intention is to take this information to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to seek guidance on options available to me, to pursue my allegations against Mr Aleck.
Mr Aleck has clearly provided false and misleading information on multiple occasions. He is aware that the information is false and misleading, and he has provided that false and misleading information to deliberately cover up his own misconduct.
This correspondence deals only with the Commonwealth Ombudsman finding that the "legal area" was not aware of the structure that I had adopted until October 2018, when CASA provided me with notice that my business of a decade was now unlawful.
I thought it was quite ludicrous that Mr Aleck would assert that the "legal area" only became aware of APTA in October 2018. Throughout the 5 year Ombudsman investigation, I sensed that Mr Aleck was being afforded an extremely high level of protection by the Ombudsman Office. The Ombudsman Office did this by taking Mr. Aleck at his word, and not seeking evidence when it is clearly available, and specifically if that evidence may bring harm to Mr Aleck. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman took Mr Aleck at his word and at the conclusion of the five year investigation the Ombudsman confirmed their earlier finding, and wrote to me advising, "Complaint Officer Mark’s email to you dated 23 December 2020 concluded that the evidence available suggested the legal area of CASA had not been made aware of the business structure used by APTA prior to October 2018. This should be distinguished from CASA more broadly.
There can be no doubt at all that Mr Aleck as the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs , which is the "legal area" of CASA ,was aware of APTA far earlier than he had convinced the Ombudsman to believe. He was misleading the Ombudsman Office to cover up his own misconduct, and in this correspondence I will present my evidence and be seeking further supporting evidence.
I will be making a separate request under FOI for the Ombudsman Office to supply me the "evidence" that they referred to, and used in arriving at their determination that the "legal area was not aware until October 2018", as I hold evidence that clearly indicates that the Legal area of CASA was aware at least 12 months before Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman believe. In support of my allegation I will refer to documents that I obtained under FOI, and present that information here.
Under FOI, I have obtained a document dated 9 October 2017 . This document was submitted to CASA by a competitor of APTA as they identify themselves as one. . The tone of the letter suggests that it was not a friendly competitor. No Competitor had ever approached me raising concerns or to clarify their understanding. It is possible that the letter was sent for reasons other than reasons of aviation safety.
The second point that I would make is that the "writer" is clearly not a flight instructor, and probably unqualified to comment. The writer obviously has negligible knowledge of the regulations, and the wording of the email to CASA clearly indicates that.
Irrespective of the lack of understanding of the writer, the writer importantly does receive a response from CASA. I have also received that response from CASA under FOI, and that response is concerning because the CASA employee in his response to the writer clearly states that he or she will approach the "legal area" of CASA. The date of the correspondence is 12 months before Mr Aleck has convinced the Ombudsman that his department being the "legal area" first became aware.
Mr Aleck has clearly provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.
Recall that on the "evidence" provided by Mr Aleck to the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman had found that Mr Alecks "legal area of CASA" only became aware of APTA in October 2018.
Yet under FOI, I receive correspondence 12 months prior where a competitor has raised concerns about the structure, and the CASA employee responds to that competitor stating.
"Hello (redacted)
Thanks for your email. Let me look into this for you. I will most likely have to seek advice from our legal area. I will be back in touch when I have more.
Best regards, (redacted) Safety Assurance Branch/CASA \ Aviation Group"
Mr Aleck has convinced the Ombudsman that his department first became aware in October 2018, yet correspondence dated 12 months prior leaves me in little doubt that truthfully the date was 1 year prior than Mr Aleck convinced the Ombudsman.
The documents that I am requesting.
The CASA employee gave the competitor an undertaking in early October of 2017, being 1 year before Mr Aleck claims the "legal area" first became aware that he would establish contact with the legal area of CASA. It is unlikely, but perhaps the CASA Employee took 12 months to get around to establishing contact with the legal area, and in that case I would withdraw my allegation on this particular subject.
I am seeking the document that the CASA Employee sent to the legal area, and the chain of emails that are related to this specific topic, including correspondence back to the original writer.
This is significant because one must wonder why if the legal area first became aware 1 year prior than Mr Aleck has led the Ombudsman to believe, there was absolutely no attempt whatsoever to discuss the matter, raise any concerns, seek a solution. CASA merely sat on that for 12 months and then 1 year later blindsided me with correspondence advising that my business of a decade is unlawful, threatens me with prosecution, contacts all my customers destroying mine and my businesses reputation, places crippling trading restrictions, and advises I have 7 days to continue operating.
It makes no sense.
Thankyou for accepting this FOI request in support of my allegation that Mr Aleck has provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.
Respectfully
Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
FOi request of the Ombudsman Office
19/05/24
FOI request of Ombudsman Office- prior knowledge
To the FOI Department of the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.
You may or may not be aware that I have made allegations directly with Minister King that the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs has provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.
I have included Minister King in this FOI request as a courtesy, and to ensure that she remains fully aware of my allegations against Mr Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, as she has been to date. I have included my Local MP, Dr. Carina Garland on this FOI request.
My understanding of the legislation is that both elected officials in their respective positions have a legislated obligation to refer matters of corruption to the NACC, as soon as they become aware. By including them in this correspondence it affords them repeated opportunities to do so, and as this is a substantive allegation of corruption, I am compelled to act.
I had included your office in my related FOI request to CASA to ensure you had an awareness of this upcoming FOI request.
Mr Aleck has clearly provided false and misleading information on multiple occasions. He is aware that the information is false and misleading, and he has provided that false and misleading information to deliberately cover up his own misconduct.
This correspondence deals only with the Commonwealth Ombudsman finding that the "legal area" being Mr Alecks area was not aware of the "structure" that I had adopted until October 2018, when CASA provided me with notice that my business of a decade was now unlawful, placed crippling trading restrictions on the business, contacted my customers advising that they were subject to prosecution, as was I, and placed an administrative freeze on all regulatory tasks.
I thought it was quite ludicrous that Mr Aleck would assert that the "legal area" only became aware of APTA in October 2018. Throughout the 5 year Ombudsman investigation, I sensed that Mr Aleck was being afforded an extremely high level of protection by the Ombudsman Office. The Ombudsman Office did this by taking Mr. Aleck at his word, and not seeking evidence when it is clearly available, and specifically if that evidence may bring harm to Mr Aleck. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman took Mr Aleck at his word and at the conclusion of the five year investigation the Ombudsman confirmed their earlier finding, and wrote to me advising, "Complaint Officer Mark’s email to you dated 23 December 2020 concluded that the evidence available suggested the legal area of CASA had not been made aware of the business structure used by APTA prior to October 2018. This should be distinguished from CASA more broadly.
There can be no doubt at all that Mr Aleck as the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs , which is the "legal area" of CASA ,was aware of APTA far earlier than he had convinced the Ombudsman to believe. He was misleading the Ombudsman Office to cover up his own misconduct.
I am making an FOI request of the Ombudsman Office to supply me the "evidence" that they referred to, and used in arriving at their determination that the "legal area was not aware until October 2018", as I hold evidence that clearly indicates that the Legal area of CASA was aware at least 12 months before Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman believe.
Recall that on the "evidence" provided by Mr Aleck to the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman had found that Mr Alecks "legal area of CASA" only became aware of APTA in October 2018, and presumably and hopefully the Ombudsman Office relied on more than Mr Alecks 'word" and sought supporting evidence, in fact the Ombudsman specifically identifies that they arrived at that significant determination based on the available evidence, and it is that evidence that I am seeking.
I am requesting these documents because I intend to make a submission to the NACC on Mr Aleck providing false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation. I do not want to waste the resources of the NACC so needed to fully satisfy myself that I have a robust case against Mr Aleck.
I am also requesting these documents for reasons of my own mental health. I have felt completely gaslighted by CASA over the last five years, and much of the trauma has been caused by the Ombudsman Office refusal to seek evidence when it is clearly available but may bring harm to the Agency.
The third reason is that I have sought legal advice on this matter, and in order for me to pursue justice, I require these documents.
Respectfully
Glen Buckley
FOI request of Ombudsman Office- prior knowledge
To the FOI Department of the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.
You may or may not be aware that I have made allegations directly with Minister King that the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs has provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.
I have included Minister King in this FOI request as a courtesy, and to ensure that she remains fully aware of my allegations against Mr Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, as she has been to date. I have included my Local MP, Dr. Carina Garland on this FOI request.
My understanding of the legislation is that both elected officials in their respective positions have a legislated obligation to refer matters of corruption to the NACC, as soon as they become aware. By including them in this correspondence it affords them repeated opportunities to do so, and as this is a substantive allegation of corruption, I am compelled to act.
I had included your office in my related FOI request to CASA to ensure you had an awareness of this upcoming FOI request.
Mr Aleck has clearly provided false and misleading information on multiple occasions. He is aware that the information is false and misleading, and he has provided that false and misleading information to deliberately cover up his own misconduct.
This correspondence deals only with the Commonwealth Ombudsman finding that the "legal area" being Mr Alecks area was not aware of the "structure" that I had adopted until October 2018, when CASA provided me with notice that my business of a decade was now unlawful, placed crippling trading restrictions on the business, contacted my customers advising that they were subject to prosecution, as was I, and placed an administrative freeze on all regulatory tasks.
I thought it was quite ludicrous that Mr Aleck would assert that the "legal area" only became aware of APTA in October 2018. Throughout the 5 year Ombudsman investigation, I sensed that Mr Aleck was being afforded an extremely high level of protection by the Ombudsman Office. The Ombudsman Office did this by taking Mr. Aleck at his word, and not seeking evidence when it is clearly available, and specifically if that evidence may bring harm to Mr Aleck. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman took Mr Aleck at his word and at the conclusion of the five year investigation the Ombudsman confirmed their earlier finding, and wrote to me advising, "Complaint Officer Mark’s email to you dated 23 December 2020 concluded that the evidence available suggested the legal area of CASA had not been made aware of the business structure used by APTA prior to October 2018. This should be distinguished from CASA more broadly.
There can be no doubt at all that Mr Aleck as the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs , which is the "legal area" of CASA ,was aware of APTA far earlier than he had convinced the Ombudsman to believe. He was misleading the Ombudsman Office to cover up his own misconduct.
I am making an FOI request of the Ombudsman Office to supply me the "evidence" that they referred to, and used in arriving at their determination that the "legal area was not aware until October 2018", as I hold evidence that clearly indicates that the Legal area of CASA was aware at least 12 months before Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman believe.
Recall that on the "evidence" provided by Mr Aleck to the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman had found that Mr Alecks "legal area of CASA" only became aware of APTA in October 2018, and presumably and hopefully the Ombudsman Office relied on more than Mr Alecks 'word" and sought supporting evidence, in fact the Ombudsman specifically identifies that they arrived at that significant determination based on the available evidence, and it is that evidence that I am seeking.
I am requesting these documents because I intend to make a submission to the NACC on Mr Aleck providing false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation. I do not want to waste the resources of the NACC so needed to fully satisfy myself that I have a robust case against Mr Aleck.
I am also requesting these documents for reasons of my own mental health. I have felt completely gaslighted by CASA over the last five years, and much of the trauma has been caused by the Ombudsman Office refusal to seek evidence when it is clearly available but may bring harm to the Agency.
The third reason is that I have sought legal advice on this matter, and in order for me to pursue justice, I require these documents.
Respectfully
Glen Buckley
Glen,
I think it’s fair to say every department in CASA, Nacca, FOI and the list goes on knows about your case.
To a simple layman like me you appear to be beating your head against a wall, continuously.
Why have you not engaged lawyers to take up your cause? This is a genuine question. The funds are there, well at least for the initial briefs. I think you would be surprised at how the donations would grow when there is a real legal challenge mounted.
You’ve lost my attention span and I don’t read the postings anymore.
You said what was it? April 2 to engage.
Supporting you mate but…………
I think it’s fair to say every department in CASA, Nacca, FOI and the list goes on knows about your case.
To a simple layman like me you appear to be beating your head against a wall, continuously.
Why have you not engaged lawyers to take up your cause? This is a genuine question. The funds are there, well at least for the initial briefs. I think you would be surprised at how the donations would grow when there is a real legal challenge mounted.
You’ve lost my attention span and I don’t read the postings anymore.
You said what was it? April 2 to engage.
Supporting you mate but…………
The following 3 users liked this post by Global Aviator:
Thread Starter
FOI request of Ombudsman
21/05/24
To the FOI Department of the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.
Please note that I have included Minister King as the Minister responsible for CASA, and my Local MP for Chisholm, Dr. Carina Garland in this correspondence. They have legislated obligations to refer matters of suspected corruption promptly to the NACC. I believe that each should have initiated that action already, but can do so at any time, if they have doubts or concerns or become uncertain.
If Minister King and/or Dr Carina Garland are unwilling to initiate that referral, I will initiate that myself. It is essential that I keep them fully briefed by including them in this correspondence to ensure they maintain a high level of awareness of the matter.
Please accept my FOI request
On 4th November 2022, the Ombudsman Office directed a series of questions to CASA as part of their investigation. At this stage, the Ombudsman investigation has been continuing for several years.
The reason that I am making this FOI request is because these are the same questions that I have been putting to both CASA and the Ombudsman Office over the last five years, and neither Organisation has made any attempt at all to address these significant issues, which are fundamental to this matter in its entirety.
The Ombudsman Office refers to the “specific nature” of my business. Whilst the use of the word “specific” indicates something “specific,” it actually says nothing at all, because no one has ever identified to me what that “specific nature” is.
It’s quite significant because if I was aware of the “specific nature” of my business compared to others, then this matter in its entirety could be almost immediately finalised.
You will be aware that my allegation is that Mr Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, international and Regulatory Affairs effectively singled me out personally and targeted my business to cause harm to me. It’s a most significant allegation. My allegation does go substantially further because I allege that Mr Aleck then provided false and misleading information to the Ombudsman investigation to cover up that misconduct.
If someone could identify what the “specific nature” of my business was, then I would know what it is that I have done wrong. Somebody telling me that my business was closed down because of the “specific nature” of the business does nothing to resolve my confusion and trauma.
Based on the unwillingness or inability of both CASA and the Ombudsman Office to identify to me what was specifically different about my business to every other business, and because I am pursuing this matter with the NACC, it is essential to be fully aware of exactly what it is about my business that was “new” or “unusual”, both being words that the Ombudsman has used to describe my business. It's also essential to know what the “specific nature” of my business was. What is it specifically that I was doing differently, and if I was doing something different, what was it that was so different that it couldn’t be resolved?
These are significant questions and most especially if my allegation is that Mr Aleck was targeting me, and in fact fabricating specific and unattainable requirements on me, and me only.
It seems to be a very central theme, and an essential matter to have a clear understanding of going forward.
With that in mind, and in order to understand what I am alleged to have done, and to satisfy myself that my allegation against Mr Aleck, the CASA executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory affairs has merit, and to give me access to pursuing justice on this matter, and for my own mental health I am requesting under FOI the responses that CASA provided to the Ombudsman on the following questions, also be provided to me under FOI
I should also add that my experience replicates the matters identified in the Robodebt Inquiry and that is the interagency collaboration.
In my matter I felt there was a concerning level of interagency collaboration between the Ombudsman and CASA, and it reasonable that I expect that interagency collaboration between the Ombudsman and any NACC investigation would continue, as part of the “handover”.
I should be entitled to an awareness of the narrative being presented to the NACC by the Ombudsman, and most especially if I am of the opinion that those narratives are not accurate.
The specific documents that I am seeking are the responses to questions sent to CASA on 4th November 2022.
In that correspondence the Ombudsman started with the following introduction;
‘Mr Buckley maintains that the structure of APTA and the ‘sharing’ of authorisations or Air Operator Certificates was not unique to the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA) or Melbourne Flight Training (MFT). In particular, Mr Buckley refers to earlier approvals obtained by MFT regarding the addition of flying bases in Darwin and Bacchus Marsh. He also suggests that prior to his request to add LaTrobe Valley Aero Club (LVAC) to the APTA umbrella, it had been operating in substantially the same way that was proposed by APTA under the authorisation of Bairnsdale Air Charter. He also expressed his view that the requirement to show ‘operational control’ and to provide contracts in support of this was unique to him, and not required of any other operator in a similar situation”
My own note to add here is that there was never any objection at all to me showing operational control in contracts. My point was that matters of operational control in a contract should form part of the CASA Approved Exposition, and not be contained within the “commercial agreement” which is a document that traditionally CASA has never had any involvement in, and lies outside of the Exposition. This is a significant misunderstanding of which there are many.
With that point clarified the following questions were then put to CASA.
1. Can CASA provide information and/or provide relevant documents demonstrating that the requirement to show ‘operational control’, including the requirement for contracts, was not unique to APTA?
2. Further to our discussion on 19 October 2022, and if not addressed above, can CASA briefly explain the basis for its requests for contracts from APTA as the means to satisfy ‘operational control’, when this is not a specific requirement of the relevant legislation or regulation?
3. I acknowledge that CASA met with Mr Buckley and provided advice and instructions to him about the requirements of contracts to show operational control. Can CASA provide a brief explanation, or provide relevant documents, as to why it did not believe the contracts provided by Mr Buckley, or the amendments he made during his engagement with CASA, provided CASA with the assurance it needed regarding the APTA model.
4. Can CASA provide information regarding the arrangement between Bairnsdale Air Charter and LVAC as a means to identify how that arrangement was similar or different to what was proposed by LVAC joining APTA?
Thankyou for accepting my FOI request for the responses that CASA provided to the Ombudsman to the above four questions.
Glen Buckley
To the FOI Department of the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.
Please note that I have included Minister King as the Minister responsible for CASA, and my Local MP for Chisholm, Dr. Carina Garland in this correspondence. They have legislated obligations to refer matters of suspected corruption promptly to the NACC. I believe that each should have initiated that action already, but can do so at any time, if they have doubts or concerns or become uncertain.
If Minister King and/or Dr Carina Garland are unwilling to initiate that referral, I will initiate that myself. It is essential that I keep them fully briefed by including them in this correspondence to ensure they maintain a high level of awareness of the matter.
Please accept my FOI request
On 4th November 2022, the Ombudsman Office directed a series of questions to CASA as part of their investigation. At this stage, the Ombudsman investigation has been continuing for several years.
The reason that I am making this FOI request is because these are the same questions that I have been putting to both CASA and the Ombudsman Office over the last five years, and neither Organisation has made any attempt at all to address these significant issues, which are fundamental to this matter in its entirety.
The Ombudsman Office refers to the “specific nature” of my business. Whilst the use of the word “specific” indicates something “specific,” it actually says nothing at all, because no one has ever identified to me what that “specific nature” is.
It’s quite significant because if I was aware of the “specific nature” of my business compared to others, then this matter in its entirety could be almost immediately finalised.
You will be aware that my allegation is that Mr Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, international and Regulatory Affairs effectively singled me out personally and targeted my business to cause harm to me. It’s a most significant allegation. My allegation does go substantially further because I allege that Mr Aleck then provided false and misleading information to the Ombudsman investigation to cover up that misconduct.
If someone could identify what the “specific nature” of my business was, then I would know what it is that I have done wrong. Somebody telling me that my business was closed down because of the “specific nature” of the business does nothing to resolve my confusion and trauma.
Based on the unwillingness or inability of both CASA and the Ombudsman Office to identify to me what was specifically different about my business to every other business, and because I am pursuing this matter with the NACC, it is essential to be fully aware of exactly what it is about my business that was “new” or “unusual”, both being words that the Ombudsman has used to describe my business. It's also essential to know what the “specific nature” of my business was. What is it specifically that I was doing differently, and if I was doing something different, what was it that was so different that it couldn’t be resolved?
These are significant questions and most especially if my allegation is that Mr Aleck was targeting me, and in fact fabricating specific and unattainable requirements on me, and me only.
It seems to be a very central theme, and an essential matter to have a clear understanding of going forward.
With that in mind, and in order to understand what I am alleged to have done, and to satisfy myself that my allegation against Mr Aleck, the CASA executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory affairs has merit, and to give me access to pursuing justice on this matter, and for my own mental health I am requesting under FOI the responses that CASA provided to the Ombudsman on the following questions, also be provided to me under FOI
I should also add that my experience replicates the matters identified in the Robodebt Inquiry and that is the interagency collaboration.
In my matter I felt there was a concerning level of interagency collaboration between the Ombudsman and CASA, and it reasonable that I expect that interagency collaboration between the Ombudsman and any NACC investigation would continue, as part of the “handover”.
I should be entitled to an awareness of the narrative being presented to the NACC by the Ombudsman, and most especially if I am of the opinion that those narratives are not accurate.
The specific documents that I am seeking are the responses to questions sent to CASA on 4th November 2022.
In that correspondence the Ombudsman started with the following introduction;
‘Mr Buckley maintains that the structure of APTA and the ‘sharing’ of authorisations or Air Operator Certificates was not unique to the Australian Pilot Training Alliance (APTA) or Melbourne Flight Training (MFT). In particular, Mr Buckley refers to earlier approvals obtained by MFT regarding the addition of flying bases in Darwin and Bacchus Marsh. He also suggests that prior to his request to add LaTrobe Valley Aero Club (LVAC) to the APTA umbrella, it had been operating in substantially the same way that was proposed by APTA under the authorisation of Bairnsdale Air Charter. He also expressed his view that the requirement to show ‘operational control’ and to provide contracts in support of this was unique to him, and not required of any other operator in a similar situation”
My own note to add here is that there was never any objection at all to me showing operational control in contracts. My point was that matters of operational control in a contract should form part of the CASA Approved Exposition, and not be contained within the “commercial agreement” which is a document that traditionally CASA has never had any involvement in, and lies outside of the Exposition. This is a significant misunderstanding of which there are many.
With that point clarified the following questions were then put to CASA.
1. Can CASA provide information and/or provide relevant documents demonstrating that the requirement to show ‘operational control’, including the requirement for contracts, was not unique to APTA?
2. Further to our discussion on 19 October 2022, and if not addressed above, can CASA briefly explain the basis for its requests for contracts from APTA as the means to satisfy ‘operational control’, when this is not a specific requirement of the relevant legislation or regulation?
3. I acknowledge that CASA met with Mr Buckley and provided advice and instructions to him about the requirements of contracts to show operational control. Can CASA provide a brief explanation, or provide relevant documents, as to why it did not believe the contracts provided by Mr Buckley, or the amendments he made during his engagement with CASA, provided CASA with the assurance it needed regarding the APTA model.
4. Can CASA provide information regarding the arrangement between Bairnsdale Air Charter and LVAC as a means to identify how that arrangement was similar or different to what was proposed by LVAC joining APTA?
Thankyou for accepting my FOI request for the responses that CASA provided to the Ombudsman to the above four questions.
Glen Buckley
Glen, are you getting help writing these FOI requests?
Remember the FOI officer is not there to assist you rather they are there to cover the Government bodies arse and provide you with as little information as they can get away with. From reading the above the FOI officer couldn't care about others you may contact or your feelings and I would expect they would either come back with nothing or request you to narrow your request down along with a very large dollar estimate of the cost of searching for the documents you want. Given your request mentions third parties then they will approach them before releasing anything to you and if the party objects then they won't.
I respectfully suggest you need to drop out all the references to politicians and NACC and simply try for a narrowly specified document or documents and then when you get that it may lead you to further documents to request. It might be quicker and cheaper and help.
Remember the FOI officer is not there to assist you rather they are there to cover the Government bodies arse and provide you with as little information as they can get away with. From reading the above the FOI officer couldn't care about others you may contact or your feelings and I would expect they would either come back with nothing or request you to narrow your request down along with a very large dollar estimate of the cost of searching for the documents you want. Given your request mentions third parties then they will approach them before releasing anything to you and if the party objects then they won't.
I respectfully suggest you need to drop out all the references to politicians and NACC and simply try for a narrowly specified document or documents and then when you get that it may lead you to further documents to request. It might be quicker and cheaper and help.
