More power to your arm, Ben.
Some paradigm issues that I suggest you take into consideration in your strategic thinking, so that any momentum you build and effort you are making are focussed where it may have some chance of having some effect.
The practical reality is that while ever the Coalition and Labour effectively take turns in government, they both win every election. Each 'side' merely takes its turn to feast on the treasure of the body politic.
These days, the job of the bureaucracy is to protect the relevant minister. Whether that happens to result in something that's in the public interest is a matter of mere coincidence. The bureaucracy is effectively now a support system for the political advisers for the ministers who come and go, no matter to what party they happen to belong. The political advisers decide whether the minister is happy or sad, and that determines whether the bureaucrats keep their jobs.
Both 'sides' effectively abdicated their responsibility for the aviation industry to the bureaucracy a couple of decades or so ago. This makes ministers and their advisers happy, because they can disclaim responsibility for aviation regulation on a bi-partisan and 'public interest' basis. That's why the bureaucracy proceeded to build (and continues to build) the enormous, complex mess that is the aviation regulatory system. My view is that it is now impossible for anyone to work out what the amalgamation of the Civil Aviation Act, 1988 regulations, 1998 regulations, Civil Aviation Orders, Manuals of Standards, Directions, Determinations and, most importantly, exemptions, actually means as a matter of practicality. It's now mainly a life support system for all the people who build and continue to build on the mess: The bigger the mess, the longer it will take them to clean it up (on six figure salaries, year after year).
Some of them seriously believe they are making a positive contribution to safety. Many of the people in AVMED would fall into this category.
This abdication is also the explanation for why nothing changes despite all of the matters identified by Senate Committees and inquiries and reviews and coronials etc. Witness all those Senate enquiries that don't result in the Senators walking into the Senate and voting to give effect to the strong opinions expressed during Committee hearings. It's just pantomime.
Short point for you: Don't bother wasting energy on the tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber. The only glimmer of hope for GA lies in the laps of independents like Nick X.
Therefore, I'd suggest it would be very worthwhile finding out whether Tony Windsor has any knowledge of the plight of GA, any sympathy for the plight of GA and any inclination to use his vote to support change to improve the lot of GA. If the answer to each of those questions is 'no', meeting with and talking to Chester, Joyce and Windsor is - in my opinion based on the observation of the similar circumstances have arisen with depressing regularity over the last couple of decades and more - a complete waste of your and everyone else's time and energy. Focus has to be on the people who are actually prepared to legislate for change.