The present view in Govt is that you cannot make a law without an associated penalty.
601,
So??
That's true of regulations generally, and not limited to Australia, and is not new.
My comment about the style of the NZ regulations did not say there were no penalties. Of course there are, but they are not in your face. Just lay a few NZ regs. beside the AU equivalent, the differences in drafting are as I suggested, and very obvious. Generally, NZ rules are not written in the negative.
Creamie,
Most of us understand the "place" for strict liability penalties, and the mere existence of strict liability penalties is nothing new, as you have posted on may occasions. The argument, as far as I am concerned, is the improper designation of offences in the AU CAR/CASRs when the regulation is dealing with a matter that calls for a judgement by the pilot, where there is a clear mental element, called for by the regulation. How can this properly be a strict liability offence? Contrary to various government guidelines for drafting primary or secondary legislation, and you know the guidelines better than I do.
As for use of reverse onus of proof, I don't think anybody ever denied that they can be found in legislation, but the issue is: Should they be used?
I have a very simple view on this issue, in a criminal law system, there should not be reverse onus of proof, and most certainly not ever for bureaucratic convenience in the enforcement process.
Tootle pip!!
It now seems to be the practice with draft CASRs, that the designated penalty is 50 points, no matter how serious or otherwise the importance of the infringement. This was an issue brought up at the last CASA SCC meeting --- I got the impression that the CASA upper management didn't even know.