It's all about the Airlines being able to make more money and AsA being able to reduce staff so bonuses are bigger!
Oh my goodness, well it must be a worldwide conspiracy then.
The current system maybe safe, but what about future proofing it? Many are willing to jump on the bandwagon to bash ASA and CASA when they do something that "should of been done years ago" (and perhaps rightly so in some instances) but when they do something that is proactive they get bashed again. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Has anyone that is so against the roll out of ADSB thought about the future safety benefits it can provide in addition to the ATC seperation standards? Accurate TCAS systems that can be fitted to light aircraft that can give you greatly improved situational awareness when approaching a busy uncontrolled aerodrome. Improved "radar" coverage across our large, sparse country so that if an aircraft was to go down rescue authorities can be given a better idea of where to look (I know ADSB will not provide 100% coverage at low level and that 406MHz beacons also help reduce the search area, but if it was to happen every bit of information helps).
Apart from reducing seperation standards between aircraft so that more aircraft can use their optimum levels, I don't really see how mandating ADSB will "make the airlines more money", unless they own avionic manufacturers.
Some people have alluded that this is being implemented so that ADSB aircraft can simply get direct-to tracking, well to these people I can tell you ADSB aircraft still fly the published preferred routes the majority of the time, and even when given track shortening it doesn't really save a great deal of fuel and time. I doubt after the December deadline comes in that this will change, but if you hear an aircraft departing Perth for Sydney get given the instruction "track direct SY" or similar feel free to let me know.