Read the article in Friday's Australian about CASA's new regulatory philosophy. I think it shows a subtle but significant change in focus from a regulate and enforce organisation, to one in which risk assessment and consultation are front and centre. Whilst I understand the skepticism based on past actions of CASA, looking overseas and at other safety critical industries it is not an impossible task to provide for safety without killing an industry.
From the early 90's the military aviation safety culture and processes have undergone significant change. In the early 90's accident investigations were behind closed doors and reports routinely found Pilot error as the major factor in the accident. By the late 90's the culture changed to one in which risk assessment and mitigation were centre stage, with accident investigations resulting in major organisational and procedural changes. The results have been a large, statistically significant reduction in accidents particularly in Air Force. DAS Skidmore was in leadership positions throughout this period of change and his experience of it can be seen in his public comments.
The military is not the commercial world, the pressure points are different, the equipment and roles can be vastly different, and funnily enough the commercial regulatory environment is not as flexible. However DAS Skidmore was in a good position to see sound safety culture and principles develop over time in Defence so don't rule out his background as irrelevant. Of note the previous DAS left Air Force under the old culture of "it's always the captains fault" so when he blamed the pilot in the Norfolk Island accident entirely he was reflecting a culture that produced poor results in Defence and has largely been eradicated.
Organisational change starts at the top so be skeptical and keep the pressure on but reasoned argument backed up with facts will produce better results than hurling abuse.