In isolation, what Mr Smith says may (though not inarguably) have merit.
The problem is, as always, Dick will let no opportunity go by, be it the tragic deaths of people (and cynical conscription of their grieving relatives into ridiculous sideshows) to a global financial meltdown (caused by the greed and incompetence of free-marketeers whom he has trumpeted in the past) to push his own, narrow agenda.
Yes Aviation is in financial difficulty. Globally. Along with the entire capitalist system!!! Largely because of the kind of de-regulated thinking he has long espoused
Neither CASA nor ASA had anything to do with the sub-prime disaster and all it's ramifications. It had more to do with the kind of politics Dick wants to now introduce into the regulation of Aviation in Australia. The areas where this has happened so far have largely had a very negative outcome on Aviation in Australia. A couple of examples:-
1) The sell off of Australian Airports- All very market driven and justified in economic terms. It has opened up the kind of competition Dick holds so dear- unfortunately that has included competition from non-aviation sources of revenue meaning many airports have either been closed and re-developed or had a large part of their areas hived off for non-aviation use, and those that remain becoming increasingly costly to use. I do not know of one case of a general use airport being built greenfields by private enterprise. It is a classic case of an individuals right to gain the most from his investment robbing the wider community of a valuable piece of infrastructure. It is a government role to facilitate commerce, and as such it should be the government providing airports just as they provide roads and railways.
2)ATC and ASA. A relentless drive for productivity has led to a chronic shortage of staff and a collapse in moral. The real world consequence is TIBA. Zimbabwe still has 100% ATC coverage, Australia does not.
What then might some of the consequences be for Dicks other "Improvements"?
Well, lets start with RFF and Towers, and opening them up to competition. First up, will it be cheaper? Well, perhaps. Lets look at something like the free market US health system as opposed to Medicare. Cheaper, right? NOPE!!! Hideously expensive to point where 40% of Americans do not have affordable health care. Have other examples of governments ceding infrastructure to private enterprise resulted in cheaper, more efficient service? Been on a Sydney tole way recently??:?????
The other point is that these are ESSENTIAL services. You cannot set up an RFF service or a tower operation over night. So what happens next time there is a financial glitch thanks to our free-market gurus and Sams Rent-a-fiery, or Rent-a-mouth INC finds that it is over exposed to the stock market, or put next weeks pay-role into Lehman brothers, and goes broke? The financial impact of one of our major airports not being able to operate for one day would negate the savings made for decades. Think it can't happen? the name ANSETT mean anything to you??
But the major point is that it is simply not worth it. As Dick says, 100M has been spent on a fruitless reform process, largely initiated by him and his co-horts. Could we have that back please Dick? And for what? Dick, give an honest estimate as to how much regulatory costs, as a percentage, contribute to the expenses of an Aviation business. My estimate would be 5-10%, less impact than a $10 spike in a barrel of oil. So lets have a huge win and reduce those costs by 25%- now instead of 5-10% it's down to 4-8%.Cool. But at what cost? If it's ANOTHER 100M, and means exposing vital infrastructure to the vagaries of the market, it's not worth it.
If nothing else, this should teach you no to post after I'm just back from an all-nighter from Shanghai!!!!