Sorry for ressurecting this topic after so long but I have to earn a living. Upside is Europe is nice this time of year.
I think the issue here and the one that Feenix has been alluding to is when the Head Office is actually here. Two companies come to mind and I think the questions to be asked are different as the arrangments are different.
Heavylift is clearly an Australian company with its head office in Sydney if I am correct and clearly Australian Based as opposed to a foreign Carrier such as United with an Australian base. Originally a Sierra Leone AOC, now a Phillipino AOC. This arrangement is clearly to circumvent meeting Australian requirements although in the long run this would appear to have been a detrimental move if the squeeling from NL after the demise of Ozjet is anything to go by.
The other arrangement is that of Strategic and Air Luxor. Strategic is clearly an Australian based company. I am not casting doubt on the veracity of the Air Luxor AOC being JAR based however as we know this whole operation is represented as Strategic. In the posting above about problems in the ranks and also the recent problem going into Darwin. Was it Air Luxor talking ... nope just Strategic. Strategic have control. I would assume Air Luxor has a Foreign AOC issued on the basis of the JAA one. The question to be asked is how does this meet the borrowed AOC requirements of CAO 82. Particularlly so now that Strategic have made an application. This hasn't been a temporary arrangement and Strategic should have had an AOC for quite some time.
I would be surprised if CASA have been happy about either of these arrangements but it certianly shows there is something wrong with legislation when these arrangements continue. It is certainly not the intention of the legislation.