CASA have effectively written the regulation and provided further information on the intended meaning of the regulation and you suggest the courts wouldn't look at this information?
If the courts "look at" the "further information" it will merely be to be observe that it contains someone's earnest hope as to what the law actually means. It would be no different than the courts "looking at" a lawyer's opinion as to what the law actually means.
The courts will then get on with the job of interpreting the law in accordance with the laws for interpreting laws.
It's why some CAAPs contain this statement:
A CAAP is not intended to clarify the intent of a CAR, which must be clear from a reading of the regulation itself, nor may the CAAP contain mandatory requirements not contained in legislation.
Atrociously worded - yes. But the gist is correct: The law means whatever the law means. This CAAP (or "information sheets" or whatever) contains the regulator's earnest hope as to what the law requires and permits.
What you appear to be suggesting is that if CASA changed its "information sheet" the requirements of Part 61 would change as a matter of law.
Let's think about that.
Let's assume an information sheet says:
Although 61.385 does not say only an instructor can deliver training to get a pilot up to the MOS competency standard, CASR Part 61 only authorises a flight instructor rating holder to deliver the training to satisfy 61.385.
Someone in CASA wakes up tomorrow morning and decides that wasn't intended, and changes that information sheet to instead say:
61.385 does not say only an instructor can deliver training to get a pilot up to the MOS competency standard. Therefore, CASR Part 61 does not prohibit someone other than a flight instructor rating holder from delivering the training to satisfy 61.385.
Did that change in the information sheet change Part 61?