Leadslead,
I will gladly admit to wanting to see the end of NAS. I think you are right in that the Government, for no good reason I can think of, has continued an obsession with using the US as a model for Airspace architecture.
However, my favourite section of the AAPS is Section 43
The strategy does not pre-determine the adoption of a particular class of airspace before airspace risk reviews are completed, but rather requires that the determination of the class of airspace reflects the most appropriate safety outcome as determined by CASA after completion of these reviews and consistent with the Government‟s policy objectives.
One of my biggest issues with the NAS policy is that it arbitrarily dictated that volumes of airspace relative to an aerodrome should have certain designations. I am therefore optimistic that we will in good time gain an appropriate airspace composition without it being dictated by special interest(s).
The original NAS document contained various ATC techniques based on US practice e.g. Implied Clearance. The AAPS still requires that such characteristics be subject to relevant analyses.