Sunfish,
I understand the issues all to well. I don't ( and I don't think anyone would) dispute your points a through e. However the current regulations are the ones we
all have to deal with. If it takes a trip to the AAT to get a ruling on the application of those regulations then unfortunately that's what will have to happen until our legislators come up with a better way of resolving those issues. If all legislation was concise and clear cut there would be no need for all our levels of courts and all those lawyers. Hysterical and offensive outbursts from some and the exaggeration of statistically isolated incidents just isn't going to change that.
On to some of your other points.
No actual unsafe behaviour has to occur for CASA to act. Merely the apprehension of unsafe behaviour is enough.
Are you suggesting that CASA has to wait for a smoking hole in the ground before acting. That if CASA suspects that could be an outcome it should sit on its hands and wait?
When taken into account with CASA's bottomless legal resources and the commercial characteristics of aviation businesses (no flight = no money = no ability to fight CASA in Court) this produces a horrid state of affairs where there is virtually no appeal to even the most egregious charges.
It costs you nothing to go to the AAT. If you have a solid case, the member sitting is not an idiot and will find in your favor as has occurred. No amount of lawyering up by CASA will change that fact. What is a fact is that more and more the AAT is used as a time wasting exercise by people who know they have no case.
For example, we have the case of Three CASA who were caught lying themselves blind when they alleged that a pilot was doing prohibited maintenance on an aircraft.
To put it simply mate, there have been big greasy gobs of black smoke coming out of CASA for a very long time, and to suggest that this is not the result of a fire is stretching it a bit thin.
You have quoted one case of dishonesty and built it into a fire, isn't that stretching it a bit thin, mate. I would guess that with human nature being what it is, most organisations and a fair few family's have a tiny minority of members who are dishonest, I guess by your standards there are great big greasy gobs of black smoke all over the country. Try to keep things in perspective. Mate.
These are not mere assertions, they are fact as demonstrated by a Twenty plus so called period of reform that has not produced a comprehensive single set of regulations. By way of example, FAA part 91 is apparently contained in Fifty pages. The Australian equivalent draft is Two hundred and Fifty pages.
I would suggest you don't understand the issue. Do some homework on how legislation is drafted and by whom, how it is approved and why our form of legislation doesn't follow the sparse style of US law. Ask around about why the previous version of the Regs based on the FAR's was recalled on its way to Parliament house (they were done years ago) and CASA had to start all over again.
Also, are you sure you want our regs to move away from the current "criminal" style, the other option is harder to defend against, the burden on CASA to prove its case would be significantly lowered and CASA wouldn't have to refer every enforcement action to the DPP for prosecution to fine offenders, it would be a simple matter of writing a ticket and see you in court if you don't pay the fine. How many tickets written by police, fisheries inspectors, etc are successfully defended in court? Fairly low percentage I would suggest. Put plainly, under the current system it's just too much trouble for CASA to pursue fines and other sanctions so most cases are dealt with administratively through counseling and education. Are you sure you want to change that?