From the various threads regarding experience with rogue parachute operations, and lack of regulatory action by the self regulator, it would appear that the idea of self regulation of GA is unsafe and impracticable.
In my humble opinion, all it would take is for a rogue operator to threaten to take the association (RAA for example) all the way to the Supreme Court, and the RAA would have to back off.
I am under the impression (rightly or wrongly) that there are enough nutcase psychopath operators around to threaten to do this on a regular basis and I don't think a voluntary not for profit organisation has either the procedural and administrative skills or deep enough pockets to finance the court challenges and occasional wins by the rogue element.
As any lawyer will tell you, threatening to take away someone's livlihood by administrative action, is regarded as an extremely serious matter requiring very high standards of proof and forensically correct procedural actions (natural justice, equity, etc. etc.). I'm not sure even any evidence provided by a GA inspector who was not a public servant would stand up in court. In addition I fail to see how they could gather evidence and maintain privacy since they would not be subject to either the Public Service Act nor the official secrets act.
To put it another way, unless a GA organisation has pockets as deep as CASA's, or can flick litigation to CASA, I fail to see how any form of self regulation could be enforced.
P.S I have a niggling suspicion in the back of my mind that GA represents a very small percentage of CASA's operating costs but a very large percentage of its litigation budget (I don't see RPT pilots being hauled through the courts).
To put it another way, what is the RAA going to do when someone tells it; "she'll be right! Now F**@ off or I'll have the law on yer?"