Folks,
In part SWH is correct, but it is not the whole story, as a careful reading of the Fice decision shows --- read the history lesson about protection of TAA, which had precisely naught to do with ICAO, and everything to do with post WWII Labor believing in Government owned monopolies for large slabs of the commercial activities of the nation, including transport (rail, air and sea), telecommunications, power and banking, not an exhaustive lift.
No country is required to implement all ICAO SARPs for domestic operation, although it is convenient for air transport. Don't forget "filing a difference" make Australia "compliant", and Australia files probably more than any other country.
The FAA approach to "hire and reward" is significantly different to Oz, for example a jump pilot here can be paid as a PPL, not so the US. Indeed, the FAA takes such a narrow view that a member of a formation team at Oshkosh cannot accept free "smoke oil" from sponsors, unless the pilot has a CPL, even if the aircraft is experimental exhibition certificate aircraft.Indeed, a PPL cannot even accept a free can of Coke and a hamburger from the organizers of an airshow.
The comments about C.of A./Certificate v. MR is off beam for the aircraft to which I was referring, and the curious interpretations of a former CASA senior exec.
All Limited Cat. aircraft in Oz. are maintained to a CASA approved maintenance schedule specific to the individual aircraft, and only one MR can be issued.
Last time I noticed, some aircraft used for SkyTyping had dual cat. C.of As, Limited and Restricted, the aerial work operations were/are conducted on the Restricted Cat. C.of A.
Another example of where our regulations are hellishly complicated and very subject to much variable "interpretation".
Tootle pip!!