Sunfish, I just aim to say it as I see it. Thanks for your reasoned response (apart from the bit suggesting I'm a troll and the kind offer to set me straight in my thinking!), but I can't agree.
If I'm reading it right, you say that the definition (or non-definition) of safety in law and the 'accident prevention' statement are the root causes of the current woes with CASA, with the implication, I assume, being that if they are changed to something more suitable, we'll be on the path to reform.
I don't say CASA are perfect, far from it, but I find it hard to believe any re-definition of those kinds of terms would change anything much. Of course, the wording of laws is important, but it's the culture and people in the organisation doing what they do that have the impact.
As I've alluded to before, if you radically change things, what do you change them to? Whatever wording of the charter and laws, there will be an organisation charged with being the aviation rule setter and policeman. Would you have another group policing the police? Who and how?
The Australian aviation community isn't big enough to have a well-rounded pool of experts champing at the bit to fill regulatory jobs, so as with most organisations we get a mixed bag. You and others seem to suggest they're all hopeless or vindictive or both, I don't agree.