I thought the point was to promote industry...
It's not.
A very deliberate policy decision was made to ensure CASA does
not have a 'dual mandate': that is, being concurrently responsible for promoting the industry and policing the industry.
CASA
does have a mandate to set clear and concise safety standards but has abjectly failed to do that. This allows anyone in CASA to come up with whatever differing views they want about what those rules mean from time to time. And there is no end of people with strong opinions about how to save the world from perceived and overblown risks to aviation safety. It is very stressful and expensive to challenge their interpretations, as they'll always try to invoke aviation safety to scare the AAT/court. Hence, the practical 'standard' is whatever someone in CASA's subjective opinion says it is from time to time.
Someone in CASA just woke up one day and decided that what Glen had been led by someone else in CASA to believe was OK is now no longer OK. (Actually, I suspect that the person who 'woke up one day' was just used as a patsy to do the dirty work of someone else who saw Glen's success as a competitive threat.) Is aviation any safer now, as a consequence of that change? Of course! There's less of it.
(Actually, the fatality rate has been fairly constant over the past couple of decades, demonstrating that the regulatory 'reform' program has been an abject failure and egregious waste of resources.)