Australia complies with ICAO SARPs when it’s convenient for the Australian bureaucracy and files a difference with ICAO SARPs when … it’s convenient for the Australian bureaucracy. At least in that regard, Australian bureaucracy is consistent with other countries’ bureaucracies.
The safety consequences of drowning crew with pages of information which do not result in any practical difference to their operations? Safety shmafety.
Meanwhile, for all of the pages of Part 139 and Part 175 and the dozens of strict liability offences, the system still gets a runway closure NOTAM wrong.
(For those who may not be aware of the difference: A closed runway is relevant to a flight crew’s decision-making. A shrub which infringes the OLS by 4’ and a fence which infringes the OLS by 2’ are irrelevant to a flight crew’s decision-making. However, both are given the same prominence and space in the piles of information through which a flight crew is expected to wade.)