One or two good points raised in the maintenance article, seems there is at least a semblance of hope, this provides a 'reasonable' explanation of what's going on:-
Progress - presumably this will soon be incorporated into the CASR 's as is the current CASA process for developing new rules - remove old rules and the bulk of new ones using instruments (or CAAP) to fill any gaps until all can be incorporated into the new suite. This takes time and can lead to confusion with rules and regulations spread amongst CAR, CASR, CAAP and Instruments until it all gets consolidated.
Then again –
LS - Those of you with any actual familiarity wit EASA Part 66, 145 etc., will know that the CASA "EASA like" engineering and maintenance suite is unrecognizable in EASA terms. Indeed, unrecognizable compared to any other major aviation country's continuing airworthiness regulations.
If two respectable, sensible experts can't agree 'fundamentals' perhaps it's understandable that we 'Plebs' in matters maintenance are scratching our heads.
One thing is certain though, it's a first class revenue generator; heard a yarn recently about a 'minor' unserviceability at an outfield location which normally would have cost 1 hour of local engineer time which, by the time the aircraft returned to service, cost almost $6000 in CASA administrative fees. Could this end up the real issue, hide the fault and have it fixed at home or, trade honestly and go broke trying?