Without wishing to get into a tit-for-tat with you CS, the point of this discussion is the risk factor that is involved. Like you, I've never had an engine failure either, but obviously engine failures have to be considered because the regulations require them to be considered.
But where do we draw the line on what else should be considered? If I fly into a flock of birds on takeoff, I could easily lose two engines after takeoff. Should four-engined aircraft always be required to consider two-engines out performance whenever they fly? How would this requirement affect current operations?
As you rightly said, it is CASA that sets the legislative agenda within this country. I'm absolutely certain that they are fully aware of the fuel policies of every AOC-holder that is operating within their jurisdiction. If they had a problem, they would either act to warn the operator of a deficiency or legislate to ensure compliance.
Your last statement seems to reflect some sort of anti-QF bias, and I would hope that that is not the case. CASA is charged with regulating the industry and ensuring the safety of the flying public. At the same time, they would also be under immense pressure to ensure that aviation is a sustainable industry in this country. If they do not feel that they have adequate experience or qualifications to regulate the airlines that they oversee, then that's another problem entirely.