Yes, Lead, anyone can make a submission on the web site <https://www.avsef.gov.au/>. Select your topic, click on make a submission and it will give you a contact email for the proposer. You can also do the same thing to Airservices on <engage.airservicesaustralia.com/>
My opinion - MBZs/CTAF(Rs) etc are just an excuse for a third world air traffic service (ATS). At what traffic level does pilot separation by radio become impossible and unsafe? I think we found that out at Mangalore, and nearly at Ballina.
Does the nation want a first world ATS? UK and USA have, even though the models are different. Aeroplanes are going too fast and randomly in relation to each other, voice calls and maps on knees or Ipads, are inadequate, particulalrly when in-cockpit training is also being conducted.
We know surveillance works, it has been in use for years. It does not matter whether it is passed by ATC like the UK Low Airspace Radar Service, or direct like the US Traffic Information Service - A or B, they both use ground based surveillance. If we are going for pilot separation than Australia simply needs more surveillance coverage of traffic areas that are becoming increasingly busy.
Another option, if surveillance is too expensive for a poor country like Australia, is for more Control Towers looking after the 5-10 NM around relatively busy aerodromes. Particulalrly where there is flying training and English language skills are still developing. The Federal Government can make a simple change to CASR Part 172 to make these possible, and in my opinion they might even be more cost effective than increased traffic surveillance. My logic behind that is that they should be owned by, and the ATCs work for, the aerodrome operator. ATC eyes on the runway and the circuit area, with oversight of the approach and departure tracks in conjunction with Airservices, is arguably the simplest way to ensure aerodrome safety. In the US these are colloquially called VFR Towers with Class D airspace, and in the UK simply an Air Traffic Zone (ATZ), quite small like our Metro Ds, or if military a MATZ and bigger because of aircraft size and speed. The UK recognises that an ATZ/MATZ is "controlled" even though there is no ICAO airspace allocation other than G. Pilots still have to follow instructions on the runways and in the circuit area.