Do you mean This White Paper ?
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/in...on-white-paper
GA as we know it has to end sometime; we can't keep driving around in 70's era piston aircraft forever, and as much as we value our memories and the good return we can make today out of owning those aircraft if your engineering is under control, technology and economics alone will mean the creation of new generations of aviation solutions to land-based problems, as was the case in any previous iteration.
Does it mean less flying hours for pilots ? Yes, drones will carry freight, and pax GA aircraft will have more seats.
Does it mean less work for engineers ? Yes, equipment is more reliable; ask avionics techs about that.
Does it mean less money for aircraft owners ? Do you mean drone owners
? Maybe. Maybe returns on the dollar will go up for owners of actual new-gen aircraft.
Will I be able to buy AVGAS drums for the boat ? What's AVGAS ?
Why doesn't China, People's Republic of, fall apart because it has no GA ? They've found other ways to get things done and some of those will find a home in Australia despite our low population/distances ratios.
Will commercial interests support GA at the expense of ignoring new technologies and opportunities ? As much chance as a new car manufacturer starting up and making new 70's era Ford Falcon's, instead of a range of new battery powered 4 or 5 seat city cars.
For decades it's been a good run, but there are legit reasons for it to turn into something else.
It's easy to look at Greta Thunberg and any of the dope smoke-marinated Greens and think they are to blame for this (why do 'progressives' always look like freak show employees ??), but they are passengers in this move as much as (most) pilots are.
I'd suggest that the real movers in this change will be the owners of the intended replacement technology and not the social progressives who coincidentally seem to have obtained unlimited funding from somewhere.