Up-into-the-air: You completely misunderstand the functions and powers of the ALRC. Please do some more research.
All: The video at RR’s link is interesting, and instructive, for a number of reasons, one of which is the manifestation of one cultural similarity between the USA and Australia. Those of you who were watching and listening to both speakers, closely, would have noticed to whom they attributed much of the propensity to misconstrue the position and evidence of even the innocent defendants. It’s a little like the propensity of the ‘industry’ in Australia.
Mirrors ready. Mirrors up.
And don’t confuse criminal actions and administrative actions.
If someone receives a ‘show cause’ notice in Australia, the recipient is, like anyone in the USA, perfectly entitled to say nothing. But the regulator in Australia is also perfectly entitled to proceed to make an administrative decision, with adverse affects for the recipient of the ‘show cause’ notice’, despite silence from the recipient.
For example, if the Australian regulator sends a notice asking the recipient to show cause as to why the regulator should not cancel the recipient’s pilot’s licence on the ground that the recipient has breached the direction requiring specified tolerances from Class C or E or Restricted airspace to be applied to the intended flight path of aircraft of which the recipient was PIC, and the recipient says nothing in response, the regulator is entitled to cancel the licence provided the regulator finds, as a matter of fact and despite silence from the PIC and an absence of a successful prosecution for the ‘offences’, that the breaches occurred.
Now, while everyone’s spitting their wine, whiskey, coffee, tea, cool-aid or medication across the room, I’d suggest grabbing that mirror again.