Bloggs,
My dear chap, Dick had extremely limited influence on the contents of the original "Airspace Policy Statement" in the Airspace Act 2007, and I rather suspect, even less on the present Minister.
Quite apart from the Airspace Act, the Civil Aviation Act and the Air Navigation Act all refer to ICAO compliance, rightly or wrongly ( in my opinion a bit both, depending on the subject, but that is just opinion) Australia has had a long history of Government policy directed at meeting its obligations under the Chicago and the many other ICAO conventions.
That Australia has been out of step with ICAO on airspace matters, and is slowly being brought into step (far too slowly, in my opinion, because I accept, understand and support the risk management underpinnings of ICAO CNS/ATM --- directing the resources at the areas of greatest demonstrated risk) really should not be a surprise.
Credit should go to Dick for championing rational use of resources for CNS/ATM for so long, but it is now part of the legislative framework, which binds CASA.
Of course, it does "the cause" no harm that CASA Director of Aviation Safety John McCormick understands that the ICAO system works, and why it works, and equally understands that the many local claims of great potential danger in Australia following the ICAO/US model are just that --- unsubstantiated claims.
As for "un-alerted see and avoid", please read the history of the development of CAR 166, use of a serviceable comms radio never was optional (in law --- if not in the minds of too many pilots), but the revised CAR 166 make it quite explicit.
Tootle pip!!