While I worked for CASA we asked why everything had to be so hard to understand. We were told about a place called the Parliamentary Drafting Office, through which all proposed regulation had to be processed before being presented to the Parliament. A quote we were told that came from there was that “Australia has it's own way of drafting law”, hence lifting stuff from NZ or the US simply was no good enough for Australia. Furthermore, should something from CASA not comply, it would be sent back for re-draft. This put it again at the end of the queue, where it might languish for another few years. (And you wondered why there were so many exemptions! It's because CASA cannot keep it's CASRs up to date) One piece I was involved with had been waiting for five years and was still nowhere near being presented to parliament.
Resorting to the AIP, of which the VFG is part, is fraught with danger for the reader because both documents contain “instructions” instead of information, as the names imply. This is another way CASA makes up for their inability to keep the CASRs up to date, even though everything in those documents should have a “head of power”, many do not. When I pointed out that in my job it was very difficult to audit Airservices by reference to CASR Part 172 etc. I was told by my boss to forget the CASRs and simply audit Airservices compliance with their own document, the Manual of Air Traffic Services (MATS). Don't worry that the MATS is required to comply with CASRs, that's above your pay grade!.
My point is that nothing you can imagine can make any difference to a set of rules that are themselves out of date.