This is another CASA Part 61 type stuff up.
Folks,
Actually, what it is, is the continued refusal of many players (not just CASA) to accept that aviation regulation should be risk based ( as in real risk, not the "perceived risk" beloved of the AFAP) and cost/benefit justified.
NONE of the Australian airspace rules have ever been properly risk managed ---- ICAO "alphabet soup" airspace, when you get into the ICAO "separation assurance" principles, has never been properly implemented in Australia.
Remember the huge resistance to NAS (not just CASA) --- there are lots of players in the Australian aviation scene who are very resistant to change ---- even when it is change that would clearly have benefits in both risk reduction (more "safety") and reduced costs.
For Nextgen, the FAA have done a lot of serious cost/benefit analysis, hence the various proposals for subsidizing fitment of advanced equipment, because FAA cannot show, even with US traffic levels, that their proposed post 2020 requirements can be cost/benefit justified.
A large proportion of the IFR traffic does not believe the FAA claimed benefits in time saving and increased traffic handling capability --- not the least because runway capacity, not in-air capacity, is the limiting factor.
So we see the good old "traditional" jackbooted Australian approach, "mandate it", so you either spend the $$$$$ for no benefit, or quit flying.
Even the "benefits" of the mandate above FL290 have been asserted, but never demonstrated, particularly post RVSM.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Do not bother bringing up the proposed subsidies in early days of "ADS-B" here in Australia, the money was to come from airlines, can you really seriously imagine the CASA Chairman or Mr. Joyce and the Qantas CFO agreeing to hand over $$MM to subsides GA, even if it was the RFDS.