With respect, we cannot have a world based on "We're Australian AOC holders, we're OK, please look more at the dodgy Asians".
The role of the Australian government is to adequately supervise Australian AOC holders and apply adequate oversight to foreign operators. All fairly well laid out.
I think the point is that the correct level of oversight of Australian AOC holders by CASA is not predicated on "whether problems have shown up yet". That in essence is the BCG view of the world. See where the band-aid is needed and apply it.
It is the essence of problems that they might not show up in the stats until it's too late. KLM was the safest airline in the world until Tenerife. Qantas was then the safest until Bangkok. Southwest had a flawless record until Burbank. Air France's CRM record was the envy of the world until Toronto. etc etc.
What is needed and must be adequately funded is a rock solid regulatory oversight system watching internal operator management through surveillance, audits, spot checks and genuine involvement in change management, quality and SMS systems in practice as well as theory and ready if needed to hold AOC post holders accountable-at the risk of their certificate if necessary. This is the only way to go.
Some Asian carriers have maintenance that would put western carriers to shame. Ditto their cadet schemes. Anecdotes are no way to allocate oversight resources. For foreign operators quality vetting of operating applications and quality ramp checks are a good start. Build onto that the ability to look deeper when data does indicate any problem.
But let's not ever deceive ourselves with hubris and pretend that our flying is inherently safer than the rest of the world so the real place to look is other cockpits and workshops.