"aerial photography where no remuneration is received by the pilot or the owner of the aircraft or by any person or organisation on whose behalf the photography is conducted"
Would that not imply CASA is exercising economic regulation, contrary to it's legislative mandate?
It would appear to me that the only difference between a PPL taking a photograph from an aircraft and a commercial photographer taking a photograph from an aircraft, is a financial transaction that occurs at some time post flight, with no impact on the safety of the flight?
Indeed, that commercial photographer has not committed an offense until some time after the flight - which may be in days, months or years - when he receives remuneration for sale of the photograph? How can an economic transaction at some time in the future change the nature and safety implications of a flight that took place at some stage in the past?
Of course, we may not be having this debate twenty three years after the Australian aviation regulatory reform process commenced, had CASA spent the estimated $200 million cost of regulatory reform far more wisely and completed the task in a prompt and efficient manner as soon as possible after 1988.