Arm Out the Window:
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.
I don't call you a troll and I think you have never had to develop policy or strategic plans or business plans because the words do matter, in fact they are the only thing that matters.
Every action CASA takes or does not take, every plan, every policy must ultimately be shown to be directly related to the achievement of the goal set out in that opening statement: "establish a regulatory framework for maintaining, enhancing and promoting the safety of civil aviation, with particular emphasis on preventing aviation accidents and incidents."
In military terms this is called "the mission" and your activity MUST be directly related to achieving the mission, the corollary is also that you don’t do anything that is not related to achieving the mission.
This is the same principle as is used in strategic business planning, some people sneer at "mission statements" but it is critical that you define very precisely exactly what business you are in and just as importantly what you are NOT in. Many businesses - even mega businesses have foundered because they lost sight of what they were supposed to be doing.
The Act under which CASA operates uses a deliberately flawed and vicious mission statement and as a direct result it produces and delivers a flawed and vicious regulatory product.
Every policy and procedure CASA produces has to be tested against the purpose/mission written into the Act. The way the Act is written, CASA is allowed to achieve its mission by preventing aviation and is not required to take into account the health of the industry at all. This allows them to be total bastards with complete impunity - as they have demonstrated time and again as evidenced by the submissions and findings of the Senate report.
True, merely changing the words aren't going to change things overnight, but until they are changed then no improvement is possible because CASA is today prohibited by the Act from taking account of the impact of its regulations and actions on jobs, growth and investment.