CASA is not an aviation Association.
CASA is a Safety Authority appointed by the Commonwealth Government to oversee safe flying in Australia.
CASA fits within the nesting of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts.
Most of the complaints on this site levelled at CASA belong with other bodies.
Some of the complaints are due to misaligning CASA with the FAA, and not understanding that both bodies are progressively changing to align with ICAO. (so RAA members should always be keeping a close eye on the changes withing ICAO)
The aircraft you describe from time to time do belong to an Association (of sorts) Recreational Aviation Australia Ltd.
The Members of Recreational Aviation Australia, Incorporated (operating under the regulations specifically set up by the Department of Justice in the ACT to protect Sporting Bodies) voted to step away from that protective structure and form a Limited Company, by majority vote.
If we look at the EAA link:
https://www.eaa.org/~/media/0cbfb393d341470e8342c56b26662001.ashx
I would expect similar thoughts and promotions to be coming from Recreatioal Aviation Australia Limited relating to recreational aviation in Australia, or one of the similar self administering bodies.
The fact that you haven't had a good response from RAA could possibly result from proposals to hijack one on the RAA Australian aircraft categories and recommend Australians fly without registrations or licences. I know they read everything on this site because I've been contacted by them.
The solution is to compare what's in the above link with the available RAA catergories and rules, and put up a comprehensive proposal, with draft amendments, proposed rules and proposed specifiocations to replace existing ones. An Association operating understaffed is more likely to accept that format.