CREAMPUFF,
I think the point on debate here is not to take the NZ or FAA rules and change tha name to Australia but to adopt the concept of rules rather than regulation for a start and then using the consultive process with the Industry and the Authority in a Ying and Yang type relationship to come up with Rules (with teeth) that suit Australia. NZ has often undergone change before australia both good and bad (GST, Employment contracts and CAA reform to name a few) and yet why do Australians seem to ignore NZ's sucesses and failures and still have to go down the same painful paths making the same mistakes only to find out that the Kiwi's were probaply right (or wrong) in the first place. The NZ CAA reform seems to be a sucess (unless runway markings is your thing) and if Australia is to go down a similar path then it makes sense to look closely at how the KIWI's achieved it thus avoiding the same pitfalls that NZ had to face during the reform process. It sounds like good management to me to do that as it would be cheaper which will ultimatly cost the industry less.
A while ago I turned up in Europe with a Kiwi ATPL and a full Aussie ATPL having flown on both licences and went through the validation process in two countries the poms and the other JAR authority were far more interested in the Kiwi one therefore both of my European validations were based on the KIWI licence. The message here is the Australian licence (thats our qualifications) has in effect lowered in value on a world wide basis and will continue to do so in it's current form (just look at alll those ICAO variations printed on your licence).
Australia needs a reform and has done for some time and I think that the initiative CASA is showing is a progressive one. Now the big question is how progressive is the Industry?