There is a set of calls (not many) in AIP, which if everybody followed, there wouldn't be a problem.
Could you cite the provision of AIP that neatly summarises the "set of calls" for use by radio-equipped VFR aircraft operating in the vicinity of non-controlled (or whatever the term is this week) aerodromes in G?
And I should note that, even though I'm a dangerous LCD, I always make at least an inbound and joining call, and a taxiing and lining up/rolling call, as well as monitor Area, the nearest CTAF and 121.5 at all times. And I assume there will be no-radio or wrong-frequency aircraft in the vicinity.
If you could suspend your personal animosity to me for a moment, you would realise that part of the problem is the constant change and confusing piecemeal amendments to AIP. The "midfield" join issue highlighted above is a perfect example. When you look at the depiction of arrival paths for non-controlled aerodromes at AIP ENR 1.1-84, it still shows the crosswind arrival path over the upwind 'piano keys'.
When the people in CASA have a 'thought bubble' like: "Let's get everyone who's joining crosswind to do so somewhere between halfway down the runway and the upwind end of the runway", there's no holistic review of every relevant provision and depiction in AIP, CAAP and other reference material to make sure that
all the depictions and texts are consistently amended so that there is no confusion about what is intended by the thought bubble. And there's never an adequate education campaign to highlight and reinforce the intent.
Your interpretation of CAR 166 is quite reasonable. It's one of the many regulations that create a paradox. The phrase "the risk of a collision" means everything and nothing. That's why some - including you - interpret it as mandating every call because none of us knows what we don't know.