Cost sharing on a private flight requires all participants to contribute equally
Fair enough. But besides the argument, CASA clearly don't have a difficulty with it.
The Red Tape you refer to has as its intent, the safety of all people participating in aviation. It is, to a greater or lesser extent, necessary.
I believe the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is apt!
Where you get the two inferences you refer to is beyond me.
From here:
passenger can reasonably expect to survive a flight.
If your meaning is other than it reads on this point, I.e. That an AF passenger on a pvt flight, cannot currently expect to survive a flight, then the error is mine !
HACC buses are driven by accredited people
Nope. Just (drivers) licensed people. Not all these services are buses. Same as meals on wheels. I'm sure most AF pilots would be willing to undergo a police check, to qualify for volunteer status, possibly their ASIC would do.
Not really sure what your definition argument regarding missions is about. The point remains that pilots (even lowly vfr ppls) are aware that they are sometimes under pressure from various sources to complete a flight (mission). Pilots are also acutely aware that the responsibility for the safety of that flight falls on them (notwithstanding the fact that it is also their own safety).
Private operations don't involve heroes, eh? Possibly the recipients of AF's may disagree. Didn't the inhabitants of some of the earthquake and hurricane affected areas in the northern hemisphere receive aid and mercy flights from private ops? If so, that also seems pretty heroic. IMO.
The seat brokering argument is just that...
Yes, clearly every private pilot who flies for his own business needs (who are as 'quasi-commercial' as AF) as well as AF are sliding down the slippery non-regulated pole of dooooooooom! :P