I did my first parachute jump in 1982. It was with a static line round canopy and prior to that I was instructed on how to land and had to practise by jumping off any slightly elevated platform. The jump site was a tin shed at Collector and the jump plane was a C-182. To consider it a "commercial" operation was a bit of stretch. It was no more commercial than gliding and as I was accepting a significant part of the risk by jumping out of a perfectly serviceable aircraft the CAA didn't consider that it needed any more oversight than any other private operation.
Then of course came the tandem parachute. An innovation that really does deserve the appellation of "gamechanger". Along with the increase in young backpackers parachuting was available to anyone, disabled, centenarians, just show up and pay your money. Now the line between private and commercial ops was being blurred but the Regulator continued to allow the APF to oversight it. The people paying for the thrill of being intimately strapped to someone think that the operation is to the same standard as a commercial operation but (You will like this LB) caveat emptor!
The parachute operators are now operating fleets of sophisticated aircraft but still under the existing system. If CASA are corrupt in line with kingRBs definition then surely there would be evidence. If CASA are inept (more likely) then the parachuting industry has simply overtaken the regulations in the same way that AI and social media has.overtaken their respective legislative controls. I can't see CASA in the near or long term future regulating parachute ops to the same standard as regular passenger carrying operations.