I always wonder how much of what is expressed on PRUNE is fact, personal experience, assumption or just prejudice. I have built two aircraft from scratch, one under 101.28 and one EXPERIMENTAL. The latter was granted a 101.28 ABAA on the basis of a package of data I submitted to the CAA/CASA under the safe history of operation criteria. I did not find 101.28 "highly restrictive". I decided on the Experimental option because to provided more opportunities for me to carry out and certify my maintenance. I do not however believe that building automatically qualifies one as a maintainer as the knowledge bases of assembly/manufacture and inspection are quite different. There needs to be an absorption of both.
On the basis of review of the VH register and walking the flight line at events like AUSFLY or display days at Temora, I suspect that the advent of highly prefabricated kits such as the RV family have done much to increase the number of amateur built aircraft. The RVs would have had no issues under 101.28 and in fact the RV 3 and RV 4 have acceptance under 101.28.
While many like to hate the regulator, we all need to remember that people in CASA have assisted and in some cases driven the changes to the regs which we now enjoy. Ober the years there have been some opposed to change but the extent of change shows the limits to their influence.
I also note that some seem to assume that CASA has not had a role in RA-Aus. and that they are only now getting involved. That is not the case. The Civil Aviation Act applies to ALL forms of aviation activity and the Parliament holds CASA accountable for that.