'gaunty, me old' eh!
It's good you stick your head up every now and then to remind us all how your input helped inflict 'strict liability' upon us all. It's amazing you, of all people have the hide to even pass yourself off as some sort of expert on CASA regulatory matters, let alone pass on any unbiased opinion. I also vaguely recall creampuff being some sort of 'strict liability' advocate at the time.
It may be of interest to you, gaunty, that your efforts will be mentioned in dispatches in the upcoming Attorney Generals Inquiry, as that piece of bad historical legal bastardry fits well within the terms of reference.
11 December 2013?New Australian law reform inquiry to focus on freedoms
Unfortunately you will have to wait for those submissions to be published and hope there is no 'privilege'. As my submission will be but one of many based on fact it will be interesting to see the fallout.
The Truss 'review' may well account for some slaps with a wet shoelace and some upper and mid level bureaucrats getting a DCM with bar, but it could well lay the foundations to challenge 'strict liability' offences as illegal and lay waste to everything CASA has regulated over the last decade.
It may come to pass that if that were to occur, you would have done us a great service albeit with a lot of flotsam and jetsam along the way. Whatever, there is then a real chance that we will have to adopt a form of the FAR's for immediacy of safety, as tearing up the existing Reg's will effectively ground every aircraft in Australia.
The Brandis Inquiry has more teeth than the Truss 'review'. Whatever sample you now wish to ridicule as inadequate, they will be bookends for the paperwork to come.