You are way off the mark. You seem to be saying that CASA can drag you to court because they THINK you have done something wrong, and you then have to prove otherwise.
That is ridiculous.
I would think otherwise. Ask John Quadrio, AAT rejected the CASA case, but he never got his licence back. Imposition of strict liability is a departure from a fundamental protection of the criminal law. Strict liability may be justified where it is difficult to prosecute fault provisions, to overcome ‘knowledge of law’ issues, where a physical element incorporates a reference to a legislative provision, where it is necessary to protect the general revenue, or to ensure the integrity of a regulatory regime. Which is quite at odds with the thrust of Dr Jonathan Aleck's article. Since he is a CASA employee it's just a puff piece.