It may be that those arrangements would require more tarmac and more resources to work equally effectively in Australia. If that's true, let's hear that as a response to Dick's arguments.
No, that's Dick's job! He wants more service, he can 1/prove it will cost the same and if not, 2/will improve safety so much that the extra cost will be justified. If you want change, it is up to you to justify it, not for the incumbent to justify the status quo! You could have every crackpot wally shooter's party nut demanding this and that with the system then being tied up in knots probably for nothing. In the eyes of the majority, the law was not an ass when it was passed. It may be an ass now, but it not up to the current rulers to justify. It is up to the change-merchants to justify a change, not the other way around.
Dick's not making arguments, he's
demanding, with no justification apart from the old mantra "this is the way they do it in the USA".
For instance, any objection to making the RFFS at Ballina a CAGRO is merely a demarcation issue. A mere relic of Australia's 1970s industrial relations arrangements. There is no objective risk or cost/benefit objection. It's just politics, plain and simple.
Sounds impressive, LB, but it's irrational. Do you think training anybody to CAGRO standard is cost-neutral? Demarcation dispute...between whom? ATC? Do they want to put in a tower so are blocking a CAGRO? That ain't gunna happen because CASA (created by Dick, IIRC) has clear establishment criteria and it doesn't make the grade. A relic?? There
is a cost objection for a CAGRO, I will give Dick that much. He wants Joe Bloggs "who might be on the airport" to provide critical info to RPT jets carrying 100+ punters because it won't cost. Surprising coming from an ex-businessman who would be keen to have his airport workers doing work for him instead of being untrained pseudo ATCs. CASA quite rightly has requirements for people passing operational info, and so it should. This costs money.