Posts

CASA Defends Enforcement Actions

,

I questioned the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) CEO Ms. Spence regarding the authority’s heavy-handed treatment, regulatory delays and conflicts of interest directed at Mr Barker and his company, UAS Pacific.

When pressed about why Mr. Lewis — a former UAS Pacific employee whose credibility, motives, and personal “axe to grind” were flagged in Fair Work Commission materials —was allowed to be involved in matters concerning Mr Barker, Ms Spence insisted that Mr Lewis has had no involvement since 2019. However, she agreed to take on notice requests for conflict declarations, management plans and access records.

CASA was also questioned over its use of disputed claims to justify severe enforcement actions, licence restrictions and prolonged delays that choked UAS Pacific’s business. Although Ms. Spence claimed a third party verified an initial 2018 issue, she agreed to provide summaries of completed jobs and confirm that neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Duffy were involved in them.

Regarding Fair Work Commission proceedings and the undertakings put in place, Ms Spence maintained there were no formal FWC orders or findings of bullying against CASA officers, though she conceded the transcript reflected a preliminary view that a CASA officer indeed had a personal “axe to grind” against Mr Barker.

Despite admitting failures in implementing conflict-of-interest policies regarding Mr Lewis, Ms Spence refused to commit to an independent review and as for the false or unsupported accusations kept on file, she noted that access to specific 2019 records has been restricted and annotated and agreed to provide details of that approach on notice.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Spence, at the last Senate estimates I put to you that CASA relied on Mr Mark Lewis, a former UAS Pacific employee, to essentially destroy his former employer, Mr Barker, and UAS Pacific, Mr Barker’s company. The Fair Work Commission material raised serious concerns about Mr Lewis’s conflict, motive and credibility. CASA now relies on a full prohibition of access to criticisms of Mr Barker from January 2021. Isn’t the real question why Mr Lewis was allowed any involvement before or after that date?  

Ms Spence: Without going over the ground that we’ve gone over before, I don’t agree with the way you’ve described the situation. We did point out previously that there were issues with the way in which, initially, the conflict of interest was managed in relation to Mr Lewis. That was addressed some time ago—I think around 2019. So he has no involvement whatsoever with UAS Pacific now.  

Senator ROBERTS: We know that he doesn’t have any involvement now. Will you please provide all conflict declarations, conflict management plans, access records and decision records concerning Mr Lewis and UAS Pacific.  

Ms Spence: I’ll take on notice what we can provide.  

Senator ROBERTS: You told this committee that CASA was looking into whether evidence given to the Fair Work Commission was misleading. CASA’s written answer now says that a broad review began on 8 October 2025. It gives no terms of reference, reviewer identity, scope, affected officers, documents being reviewed, external referral or completion date. Isn’t it true, Ms Spence, that CASA has still not provided enough information to show whether this is a genuine integrity review or merely another internal containment process?  

Ms Spence: I think that was referring to some material that Mr Barker has provided to the board. Over the period from September through until as recently as April, we had about 790 pages of documentation provided to us. Every couple of months it’s being sent through. We are taking it seriously. We’re working through the material that Mr Barker has sent through to us, but, obviously, the time for us to be able to conclude the review is dependent on us actually getting Mr Barker to say there’s no more information for him to provide to us. So we are working towards having advice to provide to our board on the serious allegations that Mr Barker has raised about CASA’s behaviour. We have also been very clear that—should Mr Barker wish to take this up with the AFP, the NACC or anyone else—we would obviously support any investigation that anyone else wanted to raise. We are working through the information that’s been provided to us, and we’ll be reporting to the board at their next meeting later next month, subject to Mr Barker not providing any more information that we would then need to review and assess.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s an invitation for Mr Barker to tell you two things: provide further information and notify you when the end has come.  

Ms Spence: My strong hope is that Mr Barker has provided us with every piece of information that he thinks the board needs to have in order for us to be able to complete an assessment of whether there was inappropriate behaviour within the organisation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you, on notice, provide the terms of reference for your inquiry.  

Ms Spence: There are no terms of reference to the inquiry. We’re reviewing the material that Mr Barker has provided to us, which, as I’ve said, has come through over a number of emails—from September until April this year.  

Senator ROBERTS: Any external referral?  

Ms Spence: We have said that, if he wishes to make an external referral, we would be happy to support that. But we have not seen any evidence, and we are acting on information as we review to see if there is anything else we need to do rather than wait till the end point. We haven’t seen anything to suggest we should be making referrals, but, if Mr Barker wishes to make a referral, we would be very happy to support any investigation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you just provide me, on notice, with material that proves this is a genuine inquiry. Tell us what you’re doing.  

Ms Spence: I’ve just told you what I’m doing. I’m not sure what else—  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s pretty loose.  

Ms Spence: We’re reviewing the information. It’s based on the request that Mr Barker has sent to us saying, ‘Here is a list of my concerns about the way CASA has behaved, and here is the documentation that supports it.’ We are forensically reviewing the information that Mr Barker has provided us, to determine whether there is evidence to support the allegations and assertions that he’s made.  

Senator ROBERTS: How do you conduct a forensic review?  

Ms Spence: The Industry Complaints Commissioner is reviewing all the material that is being provided and will provide advice to the board on the matters that he’s identified as part of that review process.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve previously put to you that CASA relied on disputed and allegedly false claims to pursue heavy-handed enforcement, including criminal allegations and jail threats, which effectively shut down Mr Barker’s business and put staff out of work. Given CASA now admits it is reviewing potentially false and misleading evidence, has CASA reviewed every enforcement action, show cause process, licence restriction, downgrade, refusal, delay or adverse assessment involving Mr Barker or UAS Pacific? 

Ms Spence: The first point that I would make—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m sorry, just the restrictions that may have relied on Mr Lewis, Mr Duffy or the disputed material.  

Ms Spence: To start off with, while I don’t want to go into the details of what the original issue was, we have third-party independent verification that the initial issue that occurred back in 2018 was verified. It was a serious issue that was identified, and we took appropriate action as a result of that identification. What we’re doing now— as I said, we have found no evidence to suggest that the first issue that was identified was incorrect on our part. We do have someone external to CASA who has confirmed that the issue identified was correct. So if we can just keep in mind that the regulator has to take appropriate action when a serious issue is identified, and that’s what we did. We have been reviewing all the jobs that Mr Barker has worked on with CASA, and we are working through to make sure that there’s no evidence to say that we have unduly delayed things. He sent some information as recently as yesterday, identifying two other examples where he suggested that we were being unduly slow or making life difficult for him. We’re reviewing those at the moment.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are either Mr Duffy or Mr Lewis part of the reviewing team?  

Ms Spence: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will CASA now table a positive involvement schedule stating for each UAS Pacific matter whether Mr Lewis or Mr Duffy had direct or indirect briefing, file access, referral, drafting, review, approval or no involvement?  

Ms Spence: I’m sorry, Senator, I don’t understand the question.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will you now table a positive involvement schedule? In other words, were Mr Duffy or Mr Lewis involved in any direct or indirect briefing, file access, referral, drafting, review, approval or no involvement at all with UAS Pacific?  

Ms Spence: I can’t remember the actual date, but I know that neither Mr Duffy nor Mr Lewis have had any involvement in relation to UAS Pacific, certainly for the last four years that I can recall. I don’t know how I can put a statement together which says, ‘Here are all the approvals and here’s confirming that Mr Lewis and Mr Duffy weren’t involved.’ I am telling you they have not been involved. That’s my positive assurance that they have—  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s in the last four years. What about prior to that?  

Ms Spence: I would have to check to see the last time that Mr Lewis was involved, but I think it would have been about 2019.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Could you take that on notice and give me the circumstances around his involvement and what the topic was.  

Ms Spence: Certainly.  

Senator ROBERTS: I also put to you that CASA removed or downgraded UAS Pacific’s privileges and delayed routine approvals for months or years, choking what was left of their business, destroying goodwill and driving away clients. The 2021 independent remotely piloted aircraft system—you guys go for acronyms, don’t you?  

Ms Spence: Yes, we do. Usually they’re three-letter acronyms, so RPAS is special.  

Senator ROBERTS: The 2021 independent remotely piloted aircraft system review records industry concerns about substantial business losses caused by CASA delays, inspector inconsistency and over-prescriptive risk management. Could you please provide a full schedule of every UAS Pacific approval, variation, downgrade, refusal, delay or regulatory service request since 2017—that’s nearly a decade—showing the decision-maker, the reason, the timeframe and whether it was reviewed in light of the RPAS review?  

Ms Spence: As I said, we are looking at the applications that UAS Pacific has made. We will provide on notice a summary of the jobs that have been completed and just who has been involved in them, confirming that neither Mr Lewis nor Mr Duffy have been involved in them, and whether they met our normal service level standards in terms of how long they took to process.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t want a summary. I want more than a summary. I want to see the regulatory oversight since 2017, showing the decision-maker, the reason and the timeframe.  

Ms Spence: We will provide as much information as—I’m just trying to work through how our system will actually provide the information that you’re asking for. So, if you can allow us to take that on notice—I understand what you’re asking for—I will provide you with as much information as is available to give you a level—  

Senator ROBERTS: And where you can’t provide it, provide the reason why you can’t.  

Ms Spence: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: You suggested the Fair Work outcome did not amount to findings against CASA. But isn’t it true that the bullying matters were not dismissed because CASA’s conduct was found acceptable, but only after substantial undertakings and restrictions were put in place to prevent future bullying conduct? Isn’t that true?  

Ms Spence: No. There was no finding that was made because of the undertakings that were provided, which was not a response by CASA to say that we were concerned about bullying or harassment; they were simply—in light of the issues that Mr Barker continued to raise, it was an undertaking to say that we would keep those relevant staff members away from UAS Pacific. It was never a reflection of our concern about the behaviour of those two officers.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about the bullying?  

Ms Spence: There was no suggestion that there was any bullying or harassment by those two officers.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, by anyone.  

Ms Spence: By anyone.  

Senator ROBERTS: There was no Fair Work Commission decision referring to bullying?  

Ms Spence: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will CASA now table the bullying investigations that you did, and any undertakings, restrictions, monitoring arrangements and any internal assessment of whether CASA fully complied with any or all of the Fair Work Commission orders?  

Ms Spence: There were no Fair Work Commission orders.  

Senator ROBERTS: None at all.  

Ms Spence: None. No, there were no Fair Work Commission orders.  

Senator ROBERTS: What was the Fair Work Commission’s involvement?  

Ms Spence: They reviewed the issues to determine whether they had jurisdiction, and they also tried to understand the basis on which Mr Barker and Mr Nowak were making their allegations. In both instances, there was no finding against CASA. In the first instance, there was nothing for them to look at because of the commitment to not engage with Mr Duffy and Mr Lewis and Mr Barker; and, in the second one, there was no evidence to support the assertions that had been made. It was found to be outside their jurisdiction.  

Senator ROBERTS: When I put to you that the Fair Work Commission had found a personal vendetta or axe to grind—quote—by Mr Lewis against Mr Barker, you said you’d need to check the transcript. Have you now checked it?  

Ms Spence: Yes, and I provided written advice to the committee, which was to say that the transcript did not use the word ‘vendetta’. It did indicate a preliminary view that the CASA officer had an ‘axe to grind’ with respect to Mr Baker, but that was not a finding or an order or any kind of action that the Fair Work Commission was telling CASA to take action on.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you now accept that the Fair Work material raised serious adverse credibility and motive issues concerning Mr Lewis?  

Ms Spence: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: You told this committee that there were lessons to be learned about conflict of interest management, yet CASA’s written answer to questions on notice says, ‘CASA has not reviewed or amended its conflict of interest policies.’ How can you claim to have learned lessons while admitting you haven’t reviewed or amended the relevant policy framework?  

Ms Spence: It was around the way in which we applied the policy to Mr Lewis, and that was the lesson that we learned, and—  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you be specific.  

Ms Spence: We identified that the language in the conflict of interest could be stronger. But the policy itself was not the issue; it was more how we implemented it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will you now commit to an independent conflict of interest review and table the outcome?  

Ms Spence: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why not?  

Ms Spence: We review our policies on, I think, an annual basis. I’d have to take that on notice. But I’ve got no evidence to suggest that, as a result of one incident where we did not implement the policy as effectively as we should have, there’s a fundamental issue with our conflict of interest policy.  

Senator ROBERTS: So that’s the only breach—one?  

Ms Spence: That’s the only one that I’m aware of.  

Senator ROBERTS: I asked whether CASA has left false or unsupported accusations on file about Mr Barker, UAS Pacific and their staff. You answered by referring to one person and one withdrawn allegation and by saying that records simply cannot be destroyed. But isn’t it true that Mr Barker is not asking for unlawful destruction of records but for CASA to meet its legal obligations to correct, annotate, withdraw, restrict and prevent false or unsupported allegations from being used in future CASA decisions?  

Ms Spence: We have updated the approach that we used for Mr Nowak in relation to a specific event, which occurred in 2019 at a licensed aerodrome in Queensland, where we have increased—or reduced the number of people who can access it, I think, down to myself, and I’m not sure—very limited people can access it. We’ve also put an annotation on it so that anyone, if they do get to see it, would know that this notice was overtaken by events. But that was in relation to one specific event; that was not in relation to every issue that Mr Barker has with us.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will you table a complete record correction?  

Ms Spence: I can certainly table the approach that we have taken, or I can provide on notice the approach that we have taken, in relation to that specific event about ensuring that the information is not available to anyone in the organisation who shouldn’t have access to it. Anyone, if they did find access to it, would see very clearly that it was overtaken by subsequent events.  

Senator ROBERTS: CASA confirmed that CASA did not fully accept all recommendations of the 2021 independent RPAS review and that CASA focused on the recommendations rather than the review’s analysis commentary. The review records series concerns about regulatory overreach, retribution, passive-aggressive delays, vindictive enforcement, procedural unfairness, personal animosities and conflicts not properly mitigated. Will you now table the full unredacted review, the 6 May 2024 CEO DAS approval package and the recommendation by recommendation—  

Ms Spence: Senator, that was included in the questions on notice that we tabled. The only redactions, I think, were to remove a few names, consistent with our normal practices. That’s been tabled.  

Senator ROBERTS: My apologies for that one. Thank you very much. Thanks, Chair. 

/0 Comments/by

Can We Trust CASA?

,

I spoke with Ms. Spence from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and raised the issue of the agency’s poor history of integrity and transparency when handling complaints from industry stakeholders, including Mr. Geoff Barker. I pointed out that the Fair Work Commission had found that Mark Lewis, a disgruntled former employee of Geoff Barker and current CASA employee, had taken adverse action against Geoff Barker and had lied during Commission proceedings.

Ms. Spence admitted that CASA should have handled matters better regarding Mr. Barker; however, she declined to specify what should have been done differently or what changes would be implemented following the completion of internal investigations. She stated that CASA is currently investigating assertions that Mr. Lewis and Mr. Scott Duffy provided false and misleading evidence to the Commission while knowing that information to be untrue.

Furthermore, Ms. Spence confirmed that CASA has chosen not to release the independent probe into its remotely piloted aircraft system, which was completed in December 2021. When I requested access to the report, Ms. Spence took the request on notice.

I raised the question of whether CASA could still be trusted, given the volume of complaints regarding its lack of ethics and persistent abuse of authority.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. This one really disturbs me. Isn’t it true that CASA relied on a conflicted officer, Mr Mark Lewis, who the Fair Work Commission found had a personal vendetta against his former employer Mr Barker, and evidence was not credible enough—essentially lies—to take actions that severely harmed Mr Barker, his staff and his company?  

Ms Spence: I’m aware of the issue that you’re referring to. I would say that, certainly, CASA did not do things as well as we should have in relation to some of the issues that Mr Barker has been involved in. But I do not agree with the way in which you described it then.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, Ms Spence. Isn’t it true that Mr Lewis was allowed to work on matters involving his former employer, with CASA knowing it was an obvious conflict of interest, and dishonestly tried to hide this fact? Isn’t it true that Mr Lewis and his manager Mr Scott Duffy gave false or misleading evidence to the commission?  

Ms Spence: Again, I don’t agree with the way you’re describing it. I’m not saying CASA was without fault, but we did have appropriate conflict-of-interest arrangements in place, and we’re looking into the issues Mr Barker has raised about the assertion of misleading evidence that was provided to the Fair Work Commission. But we’re looking into that at the moment.  

Senator ROBERTS: It must be serious, because you’ve admitted the slightest hint of responsibility, which I’ve never seen before, and you have also said you’re looking into it. Well, that’s not good enough. Isn’t it true that CASA, relying on Mr Lewis’s false claims that Mr Duffy knew were false, pursued heavy-handed enforcement, including criminal allegations and jail threats, that effectively shut Mr Barker’s business down and put his staff out of work?  

Ms Spence: No, that’s incorrect.  

Senator ROBERTS: What do you say is correct?  

Ms Spence: As I said, there are issues that we should have done better. I do not accept the assertions being made about CASA’s staff taking the kinds of actions you’ve just described. I think there were lessons that we’ve learnt around how we should manage conflict of interest, which does happen.  

Senator ROBERTS: What are those lessons?  

Ms Spence: I think they’re around the perception of conflicts of interest and making sure we’re closely monitoring how often these can happen. But I guess one of the things I would say is that in order to have people with the appropriate qualifications to operate as inspectors within the organisation they do need to have industry experience. We do have strong conflict-of-interest mechanisms in place, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be monitoring them more closely. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you saying that integrity can be cast aside for industry experience?  

Ms Spence: Sorry?  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you saying that someone’s integrity can be ignored if he’s got industry experience?  

Ms Spence: No, I’m definitely not saying that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that CASA regularly removed or downgraded Mr Barker’s firm UAS Pacific’s licence privileges without proper process and then sat on routine approvals for months or years, choking what was left of the business, destroying good will and reputation and driving clients away?  

Ms Spence: No, that’s not correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that multiple substantive bullying complaints were dropped by the commission only because CASA promised to change its behaviour going forward, not because CASA’s past behaviour was found acceptable by the Fair Work Commission?  

Ms Spence: A commitment was made around the engagement between the two staff members Mr Barker had raised concerns with, but I would not agree with the way you’ve described the outcome from the Fair Work Commission, where they I think first of all determined that they didn’t actually have jurisdiction on the matters being put to them, which is not the same as saying there was a guilty verdict in terms of the way our staff had behaved. And I do not accept the allegations that have been made.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m advised that the Fair Work Commission found a personal vendetta against Mr Barker from his former employee.  

Ms Spence: I would have to check the transcript, but I do not accept the way you’ve described the outcomes from the Fair Work Commission.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that CASA failed to hold anyone to account for bullying and giving false or misleading statements to the commission, effectively condoning that conduct as Mr Barker and his staff remained unsatisfied?  

Ms Spence: As I said, there is one element that we are looking into around the question of what information was provided to the Fair Work Commissioner, but in terms of the outcome of the process, I do not accept the way that you’ve described the way in which the matter has been handled.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the conflict of interest you’ve unearthed? What work did you need to do on conflict of interest?  

Ms Spence: No. As I said, we were aware of the issues relating to Mr Lewis, who’d been a former employee of Mr Barker, and we did have conflict-of-interest arrangements in place. That’s not the issue that I’m referring to. I do understand that some comments were made in the Fair Work hearing that we’re looking into to see whether they were misleading. We do not consider that they actually impacted the outcome of the Fair Work Hearing, but we are looking into it because, to your point, integrity is important. We want to make sure no-one has said anything that could be misleading to such an important organisation as the Fair Work Commission.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that CASA has left false accusations on file about Mr Barker, his company and staff without correction, annotation or apology, allowing CASA to keep seriously hurting their ability to work and earn?  

Ms Spence: No. We have advised one person who was in a similar situation. There was one issue where the original allegation was subsequently withdrawn, and that was provided in writing. We have taken whatever efforts we can, without destroying official documents, to make it clear that (1) people can’t access our system to find the original assertion that was made, and that (2) if anyone were to get access to it, it would be very clearly marked to say that this matter was overtaken by subsequent events.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that an independent probe into CASA’s remotely piloted aircraft system, drones, branch’s alleged wrongdoing was finished on 12 December 2021 and that CASA refuses to release it or carry out all recommendations? And isn’t the real reason that public release would confirm systemic wrongdoing inside the CASA remotely piloted aircraft systems branch?  

Ms Spence: No. The report that you’re referring to has been considered within CASA. It was prepared for CASA. It looked at the way in which we were undertaking our regulatory arrangements. It identified reforms that we could implement, and we’re working our way through those. We didn’t accept some of them, but that’s perfectly reasonable. We’re making sure that we’re looking at how we do our work, and we’re improving things as we need to. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can we have a look at that report?  

Ms Spence: Can I take that on notice please?  

Senator ROBERTS: Sure. Isn’t it true that the combined effect of CASA’s conflicts of interest, discredited evidence, process breaches, suppressed report, punitive actions and leaving false allegations on file shut down UAS Pacific and left its people unemployed, consistent with an intent to destroy Mr Barker to hide CASA’s failures?  

Ms Spence: As I said, I do not accept the way in which you have presented it. We’ve had ongoing engagement with Mr Barker. I know that anything I say he will disagree with, but we’ve looked at these issues very seriously, and we’re looking into those areas where we have identified potential less-than-appropriate behaviour. But I do not accept the way you’re describing how those events occurred within the organisation.  

Senator ROBERTS: How can anyone trust CASA? We have so many complaints, serious complaints, from people in the aircraft industry about CASA—CASA’s lack of ethics, violation of ethics, violation of laws, violation and abuse of authority and misplaced public faith.  

CHAIR: We might take that as a statement.  

Senator ROBERTS: It is a statement. 

/2 Comments/by

Questions CASA Won’t Answer

,

In this Estimates session, I asked CASA about an incident that raised serious safety questions where a Qantas flight made an emergency landing in Sydney after the captain suffered chest pains. I wanted to know if a full medical review had been done since the event. CASA couldn’t answer on the spot and agreed to take it on notice.

I asked whether the pilot had received a COVID-19 mRNA jab and if CASA’s medical investigation screens for conditions linked to adverse vaccine events. Again, no answers — just promises to take it on notice.

Then I pressed CASA on something I’ve raised before: their refusal to provide the number of times “myocarditis” appears in their medical record system. They admitted they could do the search however argued it would take too much time and might be misleading. I made it clear — I want the data.

Finally, I shifted to another concern: wind turbines being installed on prime agricultural land. I asked whether CASA considers the impact on aerial operations like crop dusting. CASA confirmed they provide advice on aviation safety but don’t make the final decision — that’s left to local councils.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you have the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. I want to ask about the Qantas plane that made an urgent landing at Sydney airport in March after the captain suffered chest pains. Has a full medical report been done on this pilot for his CASA licence after this event? 

Ms Spence: I don’t have that information in front of me, but I’m happy to take it on notice and provide you with a response.  

Senator ROBERTS: No-one has that information?  

Ms Spence: No, sorry.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did the pilot have a COVID-19 mRNA jab?  

Ms Spence: As I said, I don’t have any information on that incident, but I’m happy to provide that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did CASA’s medical investigation specifically screen for the conditions associated with adverse events from COVID-19?  

Ms Spence: As I said, I don’t have any information on that incident. I’m happy to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move slightly. I’m assuming you’re still refusing to draw the number of times the word myocarditis appears in your medical record system and provide it to the committee, even though you’re capable of doing it.  

Ms Spence: I think we gave you information in response to your questions on notice explaining the time associated with doing a search for the terms you mention and how long it would take to do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you are still refusing. You’ve made your position clear. You can do it. You just think it could be misleading. Now you’re saying it might be too much work. I want to ask if you’re still maintaining that you will refuse to provide that answer. I’ll ask you to take it on notice once again. The proper process is for the minister to raise a public interest immunity claim. Are you aware of that?  

Ms Spence: What we can take on notice is whether there have been further references to that term in our system since the last time we gave you that answer and then we can provide you advice on how long it would take us to do any more detailed analysis about the basis on which that term was used.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you say that again, please?  

Ms Spence: We can take it on notice to provide you with an update on the number of times, based on a search, that those terms have come up in our system since the last time. We can also provide you with advice on how long it would take us to do individual analysis of each time those words came up.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I want is the information with no qualifications. I just want the information. If you’re not going to provide it, I want a public interest immunity claim from the minister.  

Ms Spence: Taking it on notice is the process that’s normally followed when there’s—  

Senator ROBERTS: If you’re not going to give me the data that I want—  

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you’ve asked the question. It’s been answered and taken on notice. We have limited time, so I suggest you move on.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you ever been consulted in relation to wind turbines that are being put up on prime agricultural land and the effect this will have on aerial agricultural operations like crop dusting?  

Ms Spence: Our views are often sought in relation to the establishment of wind turbines. We provide our views on it. We don’t have a decision-making role as to whether or not those turbines can be installed.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you do give guidance?  

Ms Spence: We provide advice on what the impact might be.  

Senator ROBERTS: Some of these issues were raised over 10 years ago with CASA, I understand, directly. Are you being asked about these developments today?  

Ms Spence: Yes. We’re still being asked. As I said, we don’t have a decision-making role, but we certainly provide advice on any aviation impacts for the decision-maker, which is usually a local area council.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t make a final decision on that?  

Ms Spence: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: You just provide safety advice?  

Ms Spence: That’s right. We don’t have any decision-making role in those areas.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. 

/by

CASA Has Loose Ends It “Cannot Recall”

,

CASA’s credibility is in free fall.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is meant to be the authority regulating aviation safety and yet senior executives have free and exclusive access to Chairman’s Lounge and Virgin Beyond Lounge that aren’t available to the public. These exclusive memberships were not listed as gifts or benefits on the register until AFTER I drew attention to them. CASA quietly updated their website with these gift memberships without issuing a clarification.

How is this not a conflict of interest? The behaviour of these senior CASA members is bordering on contemptuous and as the Chair noted during this Estimates session, it’s sloppy.

What else is hidden from the public by Miss Spence and other CASA executives?

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Let’s tidy up some loose ends. We’ve got a fresh set of questions coming in May. I asked at the previous estimates whether CASA was aware of all the incidents in relation to Qantas on a list that I circulated. Ms Spence told me that these were all ones that CASA was aware of, yet in the answer to question on notice SQ23003791 CASA clarified it actually wasn’t aware of five of the provided incidents. Can you clarify whether those events were then self-reported or if CASA had to make inquiries to Qantas to initiate those reports? 

Ms Spence: Sorry, I don’t think that was at the last hearings. Was it at the hearing before that you raised those issues? 

Senator ROBERTS: It was October-November 2023. 

Ms Spence: It wasn’t at our last hearings, I don’t think. 

Senator ROBERTS: That’s the date I’ve got written on the Hansard reference. 

Ms Spence: Sorry, I’ll have to take that on notice. I don’t have the information in front of me. Apologies. 

Senator ROBERTS: So, presumably, the answer, presumably from CASA, says that four of the five incidents—they say in brackets afterwards, ‘this event has now been reported’. So at the time it wasn’t. 

Ms Spence: Sorry, I genuinely don’t have that document in front of me so I can’t— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m telling you what the document says. 

Ms Spence: I know. And it’s very difficult for me not having it in front of me to be able to explain what the context was. 

Senator ROBERTS: Would you like to make a copy of this? 

Mr Marcelja: Sorry, I’m just looking for it as well. 

Ms Spence: I know the document you’re talking about, but I genuinely thought it was— 

Mr Marcelja: A bit further back. 

Ms Spence: My recollection was that you raised a list, and we said we thought most of them would have been covered. The reason we took it on notice was to test which ones we were aware of and which ones we weren’t aware of. And the ones that— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll remind you that I asked you if you’d seen these incidents on the document. Without looking at the document, you said, ‘No, these are not on the document.’ 

Ms Spence: I doubt very much— 

Senator ROBERTS: Then I said, ‘Would you please look at the document before answering?’ How can you have any credibility with me? 

Ms Spence: Obviously I don’t. 

Senator ROBERTS: No, you don’t. You don’t have a lot of credibility with many pilots either. 

Ms Spence: I’m sorry. I just genuinely don’t. I’ll take on notice what it means when we say ‘this event has now been reported’. 

Senator ROBERTS: You also told me that the frequency of incidents on the list that I gave you, before you’d seen it, was not out of the ordinary. If some of the incidents weren’t reported to you then it’s hard for you to say that there isn’t an increase in frequency, correct? 

Ms Spence: That’s correct. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. If you look at the last one there, the October 2022 Perth-Sydney incident, it remained unreported. What is the status of your investigations on this incident? 

Ms Spence: We don’t investigate. The ATSB investigates. 

Senator ROBERTS: So you didn’t chase it up with Qantas? 

Ms Spence: As I said, I’ll take on notice what it means when we say ‘this event has now been reported’ and what we did, but at the end of the day we do not do accident or incident investigations. Unidentified speaker: If I could— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to ask the questions here. That might be the question you’d like me to ask. 

Ms Spence: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: Have you inquired about that incident? 

Ms Spence: I just said I’d take that on notice. I don’t know. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s move on. Do you believe that senior leadership of the agency that is meant to be regulating aviation—that’s your agency—having access to the exclusive Qantas Chairman’s Lounge and Virgin Beyond Lounge creates a conflict of interest? 

Ms Spence: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: Not even as a potential perceived conflict of interest? 

Ms Spence: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: In the May 2022 Senate estimates your evidence was that all gifts and benefits were listed on your website under the gifts and benefits register. That wasn’t true, was it? 

Ms Spence: I thought that they all were on the list. I haven’t deliberately misled the committee. If something wasn’t included, I apologise. But everything is certainly on the register now. 

Senator ROBERTS: Now? 

Ms Spence: And has been for some time. 

Senator ROBERTS: If you put it on the register, that means you think it was a gift. But you told me it wasn’t a gift. 

Mr Marcelja: We were pretty clear in our written response that those memberships predated people joining CASA. We clarified that. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll get to that. That’s clarified in your opinion, but it doesn’t clarify it so far as the Public Service Association is concerned. Senior members of the aviation regulator had been given access to exclusive airline clubs that aren’t available to the public, and this was kept a secret from Australians. Yet you maintain that this doesn’t create even a potential conflict of interest. 

Ms Spence: I don’t accept the premise that it was kept a secret. 

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll get to that one too. This explanation from the Australian Public Service Commission is very important: “… Public confidence in APS agencies and the APS more broadly can be damaged when gifts and benefits that create a conflict of interest are accepted or not properly declared. The appearance of a conflict can be just as damaging to public confidence in public administration as a conflict which gives rise to a concern based on objective facts”. Having gifted access to exclusive aviation lounges is obviously a conflict of interest when you are the aviation regulator—the aviation regulator. 

Ms Spence: No, we’re the aviation safety regulator. 

Senator ROBERTS: This is regardless of whether the benefit predates the official’s employment, and this was not declared. 

Ms Spence: I genuinely don’t recall us not being on the register—of me having Chairman’s Lounge and Virgin Beyond lounge membership. When I was in the department and first received those invitations to join those, it’s always been something that I’ve declared in any of my potential conflicts of interest. Notwithstanding that, I genuinely don’t believe it creates a conflict of interest. 

Senator ROBERTS: Let me continue. It’s very concerning to me that you try to tell this committee that all benefits were declared on the gift register at a time they clearly were not. You made no mention of the fact that you had updated the register with these gifts— 

Mr Marcelja: Senator, we— 

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Marcelja, I’m trying to talk! 

Ms Spence: Just— 

Senator ROBERTS: You just quietly updated the webpage and tried to act like those things had been there properly for the entire time, and that’s not the case, is it? The gifts weren’t on the register at the time you gave evidence to this committee that they were. Ms Spence: Senator, I’ll have to take that on notice. I genuinely thought that they were always on the register. If they weren’t, they’re certainly on there now and it has never been a secret that I’ve had those lounge memberships. 

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Spence, it seems that it’s contemptuous of this committee for you to try and just quietly update this information in the secretive manner that you have. Why not alert the committee that the previous evidence was incorrect and issue a clarification, which is what most honest public servants do? 

Ms Spence: As we said in our response to your question, nothing was declared on the CASA gifts and benefits register as no lounge access had actually been provided to CASA executives or board members as a result of their roles in CASA. 

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a furphy, Ms Spence! They have done— 

Ms Spence: It’s not a furphy, Senator! 

Senator ROBERTS: You’re making out that they had them before they joined CASA. 

Ms Spence: They did—I did. 

Senator ROBERTS: They still have them— 

Ms Spence: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: and they weren’t declared. Then, when you updated it to declare them, you didn’t advise the committee. You just did it quietly. 

Ms Spence: I’m genuinely sorry that you feel that I’ve misled the committee— 

Senator ROBERTS: It isn’t my feelings that matter! It’s the facts that matter— 

Ms Spence: Well, I apologise to the committee unreservedly, but there was never any intention to mislead. As I said, the issue, as far as I can recall, was because you list things as they’re provided to you, and because they were already in the possession of myself and some of our board members prior to them actually being on the board they must not have been listed originally. They’re on there now, and I have nothing else I can say. 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, does this— 

Senator ROBERTS: It’s my last question. This brings much of the evidence that you’ve given to this committee into question, Ms Spence, if this is how you deal with answers that you later find are incorrect. We wouldn’t even know this unless someone had trawled back through the internet archives. You have apologised; is there anything else you need to apologise for in our exchanges? 

Ms Spence: No, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t see you as a credible witness with your evidence, Ms Spence. 

CHAIR: What I might do, Senator Roberts, due to the hour, is this. I have kept saying all day that we have that report about behaviour—you know what it is—and you have made your point. Ms Spence, it is sloppy— 

Ms Spence: Yes. 

CHAIR: Let’s get over it. The behaviour of politicians in this building over the last few years is pretty questionable too—but anyway! Senator Roberts, do you have further— 

Senator ROBERTS: I have finished my questions, thank you, Chair. 

/by

Evasive CASA Witness Faces Estimates Grilling

,

Principal Medical Officer at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has been absent during our previous senate estimates sessions despite my requests for her presence.

I asked her questions about her other roles and responsibilities, including her role as supervising GP and her other board positions. I also asked about her knowledge of pilot adverse events and what research underpins her position that such adverse events as myocarditis are predominantly caused by the COVID infection rather than the COVID injections.

It’s been a long wait to ask these questions of Dr Manderson and her staff appeared anxious to shield her from my line of inquiry. What do they have to hide?

/5 Comments/by

Pilots and COVID Vaccines

, ,

Pilots are restricted from flight 24 hours after any vaccine. I want to know if there has been any occasions where an air safety incident has been reported connected to a vaccine adverse event.

Transcript

Terrific, thank you. Senator Roberts has some questions.

[Roberts] Thank you, Chair. Thank you for appearing here tonight. For the period, 1st of July, 2020, to the current date, could you please provide on notice a report detailing all aviation safety incidents, where COVID and or a COVID vaccination is mentioned as a contributing factor?

We would have to take that on notice, senator.

[Roberts] Of course. Yeah. Secondly, are there practises in place to ensure that air crew do not fly immediately after a COVID vaccination or booster? And if so, what are they, and why were they determined to be necessary?

Senator, I’m not aware of any restrictions.

[Man] Senator Andrea is much the acting executive. Take that off. Lot easier. Andrea’s, much the acting executive manager for the stakeholder engagement division and aviation medicine sits within that portfolio. The way we treat vaccination for COVID is the same as any other vaccination. So it’s got a 24 hour exclusion period after you vaccinated.

[Roberts] Thank you. Thirdly, we’re informed that there was an incident where the crew were informed by flight crew, where there was an incident where the crew of a commercial aircraft turned off fuel to both engines during flight. We’re informed that a potential factor in this incident was COVID vaccination. You know, brain fog that sometimes comes. Please provide, can you please provide full details of any incident resembling this description and provide full details of the investigation report and recommendations on notice.

And that one might actually be better directed at the Australian transport safety bureau as well, but we’ll see what we can find at our end as well.

[Roberts] Have there been any similar incidents where the reported cause was a TIA, or a transient ischemic attack, a minor stroke?

Senator, we haven’t had any incidents reported to us of that nature at all, in relation to COVID vaccination. We’ll check on notice but to my knowledge, we’ve had no incidents reported to us.

[Roberts] How long after having had a COVID 19 or a COVID 19 vaccine are air crew allowed to pilot a commercial aircraft? I’d take it 24 hours after vaccine, what about after COVID?

So after COVID, it’s treated in the same way as any illnesses. So it’s up to the pilot to assess whether they’re impaired or not. And if the impairment goes for more than seven days then they’re required to see a medical examiner to clear them back to line and that’s that’s standard for any kind of illness.

[Roberts] Thank you, I appreciate your direct answers. That’s it, Chair.

/1 Comment/by