What you said was:
It appears that CASA are being forced to legislate against stupidity.
And by our choices, as evidenced by our actions, we appear to need it.
My suggestion?
First, find out things called
facts.
Secondly, determine, on a basis of those facts, whether there is actually a
problem.
Thirdly, determine how most effectively to
solve that problem.
Fourthly, decide whether the
cost of that solution is worth paying.
Fifthly, if the cost is worth paying, implement the solution.
We already know, as a matter of fact, that pilots flying VFR occasionally fly - whether intentionally or unintentionally - in IFR, often with catastrophic results. There is general agreement that this is a problem.
The chronic failure to address the problem is a consequence of the fact that CASA is not qualified to do #3 or #4. A regulator's solution to most problems is to ... increase regulation. (To a hammer, every problem is a nail...).
#3 and #4 have to be taken out of CASA's hands.
It might be that the costs of effectively solving the problem outweigh the costs of the problem itself. But you have to do that analysis
first.
The cost of road trauma in Australia in 2016 is 27
billion dollars (according to figures published by DIRD/BTRE). Although everyone agrees that is a "problem", the costs of effectively solving the problem are considered too high to pay. The speed limit isn't going to be set to 10KPH, private drivers are not going to be subject to recurrent testing or mandatory training for special activities, and collision-preventing technology isn't going to be mandated for private vehicles. That's because the economic and political costs would be too high. That's called 'affordable [politically pragmatic] safety'.
That's not how it works in aviation, because aviation is 'special'.