I think Niles was spot on with his comments regarding Mr Smith and his general policy of a "user pays" aviation environment - unfortunately you can't have it both ways.
With regard to the failure of airspace reform under Mr Smith's chairmanship of CASA, the report by BASI/ATSB into the Class G Airspace "Demonstration" explains why and if you have time on your hands, it is worth reading to gain a full and thorough understanding of why it failed.
One of the key selling points of the demonstration (which was part of Airspace 2000) was that the current system was not "ICAO compliant and not aligned with the practices of other leading aviation countries, and there was a need to ensure compliance and greater harmonisation". BASI's investigation revealed that: 1) Australia's current Class G airspace is ICAO compliant; 2) The airspace systems of other ICAO states such as the USA and Canada are not fully ICAO compliant; 3) In the USA and Canada, IFR flight in Class G airspace is the exception rather than the norm (the lowest airspace classification such aircraft would normally operate in is Class E; 4)In the USA and Canada, radar coverage is generally far more extensive than in Australia; 5) The Class G and E environments of the UK, USA, Canada and NZ significantly differ so international harmonisation is not really possible; 6)Neither CASA or Airservices conducted a comparison of Class G or E airspace with overseas environments. If the BASI report is accurate, it would appear that what we were being told at the time may not have been completely accurate?
Finally, 4 Corners ran a program back in 1999 appropriately entitled "Crash Through Or Crash" (a link is below hopefully), which dealt with the Class G trial, the key players and why the demonstration was terminated. It is definitely worth a read and you perhaps gain a better understanding of how Mr Smith operates.
web page
web page
Henry the Octopus