Balance.
You still miss the point.
What Michaels company do and what Qantas do, is not terribly relevant to any argument as to what is safe and what is not. Those comapies undoubtably run a safe cadet program. That is not to say that the way they do it is the only way.
Any opponents will simply trot out data on what goes on in the rest of the world and shoot you down in flames if you have no sustainable/quantifiable rebuttal.
200 hour cadets are a fact of life the world over. Many other countries/companies run cadet schemes. Many of those do not have the second officer concept. Never have never will. They put their guys into the RHS with minimal hours.
The resourcing that is required to do that sucessfully includes the provision of properly trained and qualified supervisors. You cannot go and put a 200 hour cadet with a 1500 hour wunderkind that has been in airlines for 2 years who has been extremely fortunate with his timing. If the regulator cannot trust the operators, (or is too weak to impose on the operators), to supply appropriately qualified people there should be a mandated minimum "cockpit experience level", to avoid the shonks like J* producing dangerous pairings of crews. If the company does not have sufficient experienced crews the system wil not work, and they will be forced to cast their net wider and increse the recruiting requirements.
I reiterate, I see no reason for a cadet scheme in the current Australian environment.
SS