Eddie,
I think I know what you are saying; however, 'strict liability' means that 'intent' does not have to be proved by the police or whomsoever, but officials still have to prove that you actually DID do whatever they claim you did (the 'actus reus').
The classic example is speeding. The police do NOT have to prove that you left home in the morning and INTENDED (mens rea; volition) to speed down the road to work in your car so that when they stop you at a speed trap, it is irrelevant whether you MEANT to speed; the answer to that proposition is nugatory.
The police still have to prove you actually DID exceed the speed limit, though.
CASA's regulations are no different to other legislation in OZ in that Australian legal drafting regulations (I think they are 'regulations' now since the demise of the OLDP and the rise of the OPC) require that the 'penalty' and conditional statements are written as close as possible to the regulation/law that gives rise to the offence.
NZ for instance, does not have this requirement which is why there is a seperate 'offence' document (for simplicity) that has to be read in conjunction with the applicable aviation regulations.