AN LAME,
I fear that I shall be doomed to wallow in my alleged ignorance until I figure this one out.
I am not a LAME. No part of CASA has had anything to do with the approval or the regulatory oversight because the operation is not in CASA’s jurisdiction. That’s why I am so very curious to learn precisely where this “must be a LAME” requirement comes from, and to learn the precise terms of the requirement.
If it is an international requirement then wouldn’t it be a requirement in all ICAO countries? It is certainly not the modus operandi in the numerous ICAO countries that I have visited recently.
I don’t have access to a copy of ICAO Annex 6 where I am, but I might be able to find an internet version if you could tell me the VOLUME and EDITION you are looking at. You should be able to find the VOLUME and EDITION on the front page –
like this. Alternately, perhaps you might post a quotation – or email me if you would prefer.
When you say :
But at the end of the day an appropriately trained and qualified person, who may be a pilot, must be trained to the same level of competency as...you guessed it, a LAME.
precisely what do you mean?
Do you mean that the person must
be a LAME and must hold an aircraft maintenance engineer licence? Do you mean that the person must be trained in
all skill areas that a LAME is required to be trained in?
Is it really necessary to train a pilot how to bleed a hydraulic system, or how to change a brake unit, or how to rig an aileron, just so that they can be approved to conduct a pre-departure inspection?
(as long as those are not items required during a pre-departure inspection 
)
Or do you mean that the person must be
“trained to the same level of competency as…a LAME” in the specific skills that are required to conduct a pre-departure inspection? That would seem like a very sensible idea, and it is my understanding that that is precisely the level of training that I, and many thousands of other pilots, have received in order to be approved to conduct pre-departure inspections.
Maybe that's the kind of training the anonymous CASA mouthpiece was talking about?
CASA said pilots would only pick up the extra duties where they had received enough additional training.
(from this thread's first post)
I think I am aware of the effect that high cycles has on an aircraft. The point I make is based on cost and on practicality, and for that I do not apologise. Modern high-cycle short-haul aircraft are designed to operate without requiring engineering attention at every turnaround – and that design philosophy is based on cost and practicality. I know you will want to wave the safety flag, but that is only to be expected in these situations.
Do you expect to have a LAME based at Olympic Dam to inspect airline aircraft that land there? What about the Dash 8 that goes into Moree - would you have a LAME sitting there all day waiting for the aircraft? Maybe you would fancy being based at Cobar so that you could do the inspections on any SAABs that might need to divert there if Broken Hill was fogged in? Perhaps you would have a LAME fly around with each and every aircraft so that he was able to do an inspection each time the aircraft landed? Perhaps B737s really should have had a flight engineer station?
(although only the Fat Man would have bought into that one! 
)
It doesn't happen that way now because there is no need.
Do Dash 8s, B737s, F100s, B717s and BAe146s
really need a LAME to attend to them 12 times a day? I don't think they do.