I think CASA could present an argument to refute your claim that "the $1 has zero safety consequences".
I think you are correct. But the argument would be specious. If I win Lotto tomorrow and buy a 350ER and fly 14 of my friends and family around for free, why would I be a 'safer' pilot than if one of them paid me $1 to cover $1 of the $15,657 direct costs of the flight?
The way ‘out of the mire’ is as you’ve suggested: The safety regulatory regime should result in, for example, the least competent posing the least risk to others. But given that the regulatory regime allows RPT jets full of passengers to mix it in uncontrolled airspace with pilots who are neither licensed nor medically certified by any NAA and who could be the least experienced people in the air, flying aircraft that are neither transponder equipped nor certified as airworthy by any NAA, something else must be at play.