Regarding the issue of strict liability, does any other country apply it to aviation as Australia does?
I have done a quick Google search for it and Australia seems to be the only one doing so. So much for aligning our regulations with current world or best practice. I came across an article in the Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy's winter 1997 titled "Maintaining Air Safety at Less Cost: A Plan for Replacing FAA Safety Regulations with Strict Liability", from which I have excerpted the following:
Additionally, strict liability contravenes attribution theory. Pilot negligence rules should provide realistic and achievable goals within the locus of control of pilots. In contrast, strict liability targets individuals regardless of whether the blameworthy agents were within the loci of control of those individuals. Hence, strict liability offers no incentives to eliminate negligent conduct.
To summarize, aviation strict liability is not a viable legal principle. From any viewpoint, general aviation is no longer an uncommon and hazardous activity. State common law recognizes this fact, but statutory strict liability does not. Furthermore, strict liability contributes nothing to the quest for greater safety, but tends the other way, to keep aviation dangerous. Hence, it is an antiquated doctrine that needs a funeral.
There you have it: CASA's new (antiquated) regulatory framework.