I think you're mixing up the issue of the clarity of the rules on the one hand with the issue of the "philosophy" of enforcement and the enforcement tools available to the regulator on the other
No, look, I'm pretty right with that. The rules aren't all that hard to understand and comply with and most of us know when we're doing the wrong thing.
The gist of Sunfish's argument is, it seems to me from that last post, that he wants rigid rules with no room for interpretation, which will remove the possibility of CASA officers either being lenient or harsh depending on their wishes. I think that would just lead to more grief, as it would be a strict liability (i.e. no excuses) thing when perhaps a warning, or no action, might be more appropriate. I like the idea that the cops might be able to let me off if I'm speeding to get my pregnant wife to hospital or something like that.
Only having the options of educating, counselling or proving makes the system even less workable, because unless they're going to effectively let you off, they are forced to go to court with the associated pain and cost. A middle ground like an on-the-spot warning and / or fine is needed, I think.
I take your point about the suspension / revocation / testing process - that seems to be a weapon readily available for misuse by the authority, given that it can put a person or operation out of business while the matter's being (or not being) resolved. I don't know what would be better there.
Back to the previous point, though; Sunfish was implying that a 'philosophy' or directions about how to approach interaction with the aviation community is bad because it implies that CASA staff will have more power to interpret rules to suit themselves. He seems to be saying that all flexibility of interpretation should be removed from the working staff and that any direction from above is pointless in the organisation.
I say that the directions being issued are steps in the right direction, and while you can be cynical and say it's just window dressing veiling their real evil intentions, I don't think so. This, for example:
9.CASA demonstrates proportionality and discretion in regulatory decision-making and exercises its powers in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice
and this:
I understand some people may be sceptical at first about how or whether these principles will make a practical change to the way we carry out our regulatory responsibilities," Skidmore said.
“To regain trust, we must earn that trust.
sound like positive steps to me. Anyhow, we all have our own views so I won't try to force mine on you guys.