To be fair (for once) strict liability is not all CASAs problem - it is a lazy politicians crutch and defence against media attacks.
The Two easiest stories journalists learn to write pander to our worst instincts.
The first story is: "Mr movie star millionaire comes to town, but doesn't help local starving homeless children". (no logical connection)
The second is: " Drunken man runs over woman pedestrian and only gets Three months jail".
In this story the reader is not told the details of the case nor the judges reasoning. It may be that the "drunk" blew .051 and the woman was trying to commit suicide by car.
Another example, I know someone who drove a hundred metres while over the limit to extract herself from domestic violence - didn't matter. Drive a suspected heart attack victim to hospital while over the limit? Think again.
So what chance have you got when you try and explain a miscalculation of zero fuel weight to a journalist as the reason you ran out of fuel? No one cares.
……And that is also what will happen to CASAs regulations in the end, no one will care. They will become so huge, confusing, contradictory, unfair and simply awful that no one will do more than outwardly try to comply and pray that they don't come to the attention of the authorities. This is what a whole class of car owners and drivers are already doing.
It doesn't affect airlines like Qantas because CASA doesn't have the capability to regulate them anyway.
To put that another way, when CASA talks of "enhanced safety" you think they mean for you and your passengers? They don't. They mean the enhanced safety of their careers and their masters political backsides.