Without getting too personal just some points,
1. The incident investigations of all those incidents would have determined a number of causal factors that contributed to the incident occurring. Many of these factors are system based, and some would be based on actual deliberate or accidental non-compliance by aircrew or ATC. Without that reporting by the investigating team, merely listing the incidents has no useful purpose and neither supports nor contradicts your position.
2. You keep mentioning the KISS principle, yet NAS moves Oz airspace to a more complicated airspace design with a greater number of differing procedures (eg. VFR on top, VFR climb/descent, IFR pick-up).
3. I can substantiate S-Tonka's assertion about NAS actually taking the ATC's attention away from his primary tasks of separation. The ATC now has to continually monitor the flight paths of RPT traffic in E airspace even though the ATC has separated the acft from all known traffic. VFR pop-ups on radar occur at anytime, on occasions without height readout. Assessing and passing traffic involves more radio transmissions than separation, consequently taking up valuable ATC thinking time. Radar coverage, even under the J curve, is a patchy thing, thats why ADS-B is being developed.
4. Dick, can you provide any evidence of suitable accredited qualifications and experience in relation to airspace and procedures design, incident investigation, aviation quality assurance, or air traffic management? Being Chairman of a Board might give you management experience, but it doesn't give you specific experience in the core services of that organisation.
5. Did you read the thread started by the Voices of Reason? I noticed you didn't respond. Why?
Dick, like I said before, your heart is in the right place, but leave the professionals to do the job. Well meaning amatuers will never do as good a job as any half decent professional.
Hasta la vista.