Sorry, Lead, but affordable safety is only another term for a cost/benefit analysis. Sometimes you need to quote a ridiculous example to see what that means. For instance, close Ballina aerodrome, make everyone fly to the Gold Coast, then the problem goes away. Clearly that is silly because we can make Ballina much safer without closing it down - oh and incidentally not forcing holidaymakers to drive for an hour on the Pacific Highway - arguably a less safe practise than flying!
The issue here is that Airservices has a master plan, and it does not include any new non-ADSB surveillance or manned control towers. They are really not interested in providing services at places like Albury or Ballina because they do not make any money! Any service they do end up providing in such places is simply a spin-off from their main game which is making money for the Federal Government out of aviation or something the Department forces them to provide because otherwise it may embarrass the Minister and affect his/her chances of re-election (see current activity around Hobart for proof). Why else would the law forbid private enterprise from providing such services? As for CASA - just a rubber stamp working for the same department as Airservices; CASA's main game is administering AOCs.
Other countries with free-enterprise economies allow private sector air traffic services (ATS) where the private sector is best placed to provide such services. Why, for instance, is Sydney Airport not allowed to own the ILS although they own the runway lights? Why are they not allowed to build their own air traffic facilities and then tender the services out to specialist companies or even employ ATS staff them selves. Heathrow Airport does!
Funnily enough the Certified Air/Ground Services at Ballina and Ayers Rock are the closest we get to free-enterprise in our system - pity the company that provides the service is not allowed to operate control towers or even an Aerodrome Flight Information Service!