It seems the cat’s got Bill’s typing finger. While he’s struggling to extract it from the cat’s apparently vice-like grip, I’ll take the opportunity to note that a thread on strict liability has been started on the AGACF. That thread includes a very good short explanation on the key elements and effect of the current federal criminal liability regime. However, the explanation is wrong in one very important respect.
Prior to the Criminal Code Act 1995 coming into effect, offences under the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 were offences of strict liability (or perhaps absolute liability - see above). They did not have a fault element.
The President of AOPA agrees with me, at least to the extent of the many offences that in her publicly stated view would have been found to be offences of strict liability. Further, and decisively, the parliament intended all of them to be offences of strict liability. If the parliament did not intend them to be offences of strict liability, it would not have allowed them to continue to be so.