This thread is slipping, and its too important for that. I haven't read the new regs because I don't have the time to face up to reading the thing. I'm sure most of us will be like this, which gives the document a free ride through the comment process.
I'm told the equivalent FAA regs are 30-odd pages, while the Australian equivalent is 160-odd pages. Why do we need this amount of added bureaucracy compared with the country where most of our aircraft were designed, certified, manufactured and indeed most are flown & maintained.
I contend that CASA's regulations are impeding safety, not enhancing it. We seem to be increasing regulation not decreasing it.
The more controlled & complex maintenance activities are, the more expensive they become. Higher levels of regulation & certification of maintenance organisations means less of them and less competition. The higher the part prices, the more we tend to rebuild components rather than replace them.
The higher the maintenance cost, the less maintenance that gets done, the more corners that get cut and the more the minimum requirements are met rather than doing what's best for the aircraft. For private owners, the more that is spent on maintenance, the less flying that gets done. The insurance companies will tell you that a pilot is only as good as his last flight.
The current regulatory structure is (at least in part) responsible for a shortage of GA maintenance organisations. Therefore there isn't much competition which in turns breeds poor work practices. You only have to look in a maintenance hangar door and compare it with your local dealer workshop.
Aircraft maintenance is time consuming. Why not facilitate owners to spend more of their time doing non critical, time consuming maintenance? Even if the intent of the new regs is not to do this, the size of them and subsequent lack of understanding of them will.