Re an option for “Don’t know / Unsure”; I would be willing to wager that this is where most GA and many commercial pilots sit.
After all, why would we ever delve into the reg’s unless we really had to? Only when you get stuck into the issue in some detail (sitting an air law exam at any level, figuring out what you can or cannot do as an operator, instructor etc) do you realise just how incredibly convoluted, inconsistent and obtusely shambolic it all is.

Our regulations are absolutely not clear and are manifestly not concise.

The ‘yes’ voters could only vote yes for ‘clear and concise’ for the following reasons:-
1. They have no standard reference point or historical knowledge to compare therefore their vote is meaningless.
2. They have a vested interest therefore their vote is meaningless.
3. They pressed the wrong button therefore their vote is meaningless.
4. They are mischievous or dull and therefore their vote is meaningless.
5. They always say yes to everything hoping that something might fall into their laps that they don’t have to pay for, therefore their vote is meaningless.
The attached illustrations convey some of the Government’s written intentions via the vehicle of the day (CAA & CASA). Its obvious that there was never any honest attempt to make good on the promises. Today CASA has still not finished rewriting the rules, a task more than thirty years on, probably the longest running make work program in Commonwealth history. CASA as an independent corporation is a model of governance that is incapable of administering aviation in a rational manner, let alone write intelligible rules. The current rules, inappropriately migrated into the criminal code and made strict liability, are a horrendous and incomprehensible mis mash and have smashed a perfectly good industry with great losses of jobs and services.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....cd02747cd.jpeg
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....853333afb.jpeg

Nuke the entire site from orbit.

Consider that CASA disappears, all employees are paid out with lots of golden handshakes.
Yes of course some government agency has to provide ‘rules of the air.’ Aruba in the Caribbean has about 100 pages to deal with that and ICAO will provide lots of detail where needed particularly for international operations. Our current Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Act (thnx ref LS) with New Zealand (only covers airlines at present) could be expanded to cover GA and therefore there could be an option to take on board the NZ rules.
Or we could have rules of the air in a similar fashion to that of road rules. Common usage would in practice deal with the immediate needs of the industry. In other words the industry would continue in much the same way as now. All operators would need to follow equipment manufacturers recommendations or face common law sanction.
As one well known lawyer and pilot told me about aviation law is that criminal acts are across the board. I took his comments to mean that any obviously dangerous, wilful or negligent acts in any field are illegal and therefore most of the excruciatingly complex regulations that CASA has migrated, inappropriately, to the criminal code (strict liability, also inappropriate) are not necessary.
The insurance companies would fill in a lot of the gaps. In France much of the building code is provided by insurance companies which is logical because they have a vested interest in the safety of the buildings that they insure. Now I hear some saying that certain individuals and companies will go without insurance. My view is that its easy these days to enquire of any service providers, such as flying schools or airlines if they are insured. If there is no answer then your choice is informed.
What we could say, without a doubt, there would be an expansion in GA in most if its forms, particularly in training and aircraft building. New aircraft, with few exceptions, would only be successfull if they were safe, and meeting known standards for the obvious reasons, including the ability to be insured.
Finally I would contend, with benefit of many years of GA business, that the public are very much alive to the risks of GA flying and will choose very carefully. Today’s world is different, information is ubiquitous and available instantaneously.
As others have noted, CASA goes to inordinate lengths in it’s human factors instructor training, on pain of criminal charge (massive penalty) if not complied with, to emphasise open acknowledgement of mistakes in the laudable effort to create continued improvement. However, as is easy to see, this is a construct that cannot work. The fear of a criminal conviction which may cruel one’s career, and prevent travel to many countries, is virtually a guarantee that CASA’s intent is simply a torpedo with an irreversible hard wired navigation system to return it to the tube from whence it came.

NO, NO, HELL NO.
Ask three CASA FOIs the same question and you get three different answers. Lack of training, lack of standardisation. Not their fault.
Deal with head office CASA in Canberra, then one of their capital city offices; you get two different demands for the same application or approval. Very much their fault.
Among the FOIs there are a few good people in CASA, but sadly they are stymied by overall organisational dysfunction. Team Leaders (or whatever they call them these days) live in their own silos and, like politicians, are all about covering their own sad arses.
USELESS.

Back when I were but a boy, the old DCA was known as the Department of Constant Aggravation. They placed some extra demands on operators even then, like requiring every light aircraft to have a Flight Manual done to their format. A manufacturer POH was not good enough. Also their own P charts to add fudge factors to takeoff and landing numbers.
But, we could live with them.
FOIs were active in doing ramp checks and would jump aboard occasionally to run surveillance on flying activities. If you were caught a bit overloaded (as we often were) you would be hauled in for tea and bickies then sent on your way.
Once I landed an Aztec on a dirt road out in the scrub because I was caught short by the previous night’s curry. A diligent Flight Service Officer working HF radio figured out that I was nowhere near any airstrip and dobbed me in.
Hauled in for more tea and bickies. The FOI held my licence over a shredder while asking me several questions on what constituted an Authorised Landing Area.
At least they had a sense of humour.