The underlying assumption, that we are 'unique,' has been the basis of the zealots' argument for God knows how long.
I won't go through the stuff again that proves that assumption false. But Leady and the zealots get an F for using that underlying assumption to support an argument that doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Howabout,
You have certainly got the above back to front.
Underlying the position of us zealots is that there is nothing unique about Australian aviation or those involved in it to justify the argument that "cultural differences" dictate that what works in the rest of the world (or most of Australian industry, for that matter) will not work in Australian aviation.
Sadly, this is not limited to airspace matters. I, for one, do not accept the proposition that participants in Australian aviation (both regulator and regulated) are not sufficiently mature to work to outcome (performance) based rules, but must have absolutely prescriptive rules with draconian penalties. This latter is the position put by CASA Legal Services branch, some time ago, when "explaining" why Government guidelines preferring outcome/performance based regulation were not suitable for aviation regulation.
Back to airspace classification, most of Australian industry (and most aircraft design, certification and continuing airworthiness) works to risk management based standards, and I hope you accept that the basis of ICAO airspace classification is based on CNS/ATM service levels that ensure an acceptable separation assurance standard in any classification of airspace.
If you don't accept that basic proposition, we are in real trouble, and you do not understand or accept (or both) the basis of the ICAO airspace classification.
The real zealots here are those of you who refuse to accept that the rest of the world has something to offer, and whether it is matters CNS/ATM or many other areas of Australian aviation, in any valid comparison, Australia does not shine.
As Australia's rather poor air safety outcomes, particularly compared to US, illustrate.
It is the true zealots who maintain a position that Australian aviation is unique, and somehow different to the rest of the world, and have fought tooth and nail to maintain costly and inefficient system that, by definition, cannot produce the best safety outcomes, because they are not based on rational risk management.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Creamie,
You know the long history of disputation about the power of the Commonwealth to regulate Australian aviation, at least as well as I do, you well know that these powers stem from the Commonwealth's treaty making powers, and have absolutely nothing to do with the general validity of the Australian Constitution.