Agree 100% INTBH.
The RAAF has never been against, and has always been open to, cogent argument that puts a rational case forward based on fact, not opinion or emotion.
Unfortunately, that's never been the case in respect of this issue going back years.
I lost count of the number of polite replies, for 'senior Sir' sign-off, I had to write in response to an avalanche of correspondence that, IMHO, was emotive, lacking fact, and just amounted to 'I want because of who I am.'
Days wasted researching and crafting factual letters in rebuttal, because that was/is our responsibility. Days wasted in reply to bumf dashed-off in what I regarded as a sixty-second fit of pique. And days wasted responding to gormless politicians that had been 'captured' by a name - to use an expression bandied around on this forum.
My time could have been far better spent on practical improvements to the system, but there was always another letter in the in-tray and, no matter how loopy, our obligation as 'public servants' was always to respond in a polite, factual and non-emotive manner. But it chewed so much time; the loss of which I still regret.