I'd suggest that most VH registered experimental aircraft haw newer / better avionics than equivalent VH aircraft because its cheaper because it avoids the whole CASA certification / installation rort. If CASA reduced the regulatory burden of fitting avioincs there would be an immediate improvement in safety.
As a start if CASA allowed LAME's to sign out minor modifications (as occurs in the US) it would reduce the cost of many avioinics installations by $1,000 by eliminating engineering orders for minor hardware fitment issues.
I'd also suggest that the modern practice of VFR aircraft being actively discouraged to make any radio calls is detrimental to safety. For a while after we were discouraged to make position calls, most pilots would request local QNH as a mechanism of a) confirming that we were on the correct area frequency and b) effectively providing a traffic alert for other aircraft. But that to has become actively discouraged.
When the radio boundary map was discontinued the transition to showing frequencies on the ERC charts was bungled and even now it can be difficult to find on a map - especially in flight. It would be my observation that a large number of VFR pilots do not understand (and many do not carry) ERC charts, yet that is where the area frequencies are. The frequencies are available on GPS units, but how many VFR pilots subscribe to an update service?
There is also a developing (even if misguided) culture of not using the radio to remain unseen by CASA because of the fear of punitive action by CASA.
In the old days of DED reckoning navigation, you spent nearly all of the time looking outside and we weren't as accurate at following a track. So, the chance of being in conflict with another aircraft's track was much less and the chances of seeing another aircraft were higher and our skills at changing track to avoid other aircraft were a bit better.
So, I think there has been a reduction of skill associated with the implementation of new technology. But I think CASA / ASA have also contributed by a) discouraging / making it harder to make position calls and b) only implementing the parts of GPS / transponder technology that make life easier for them. Why don't we have the same access to traffic information through GPS systems that they do in the US?
Around airports, the traffic that worries me most is RA(Aus). The radio discipline of this segment is (in my opinion) completely inadequate. As an IFR pilot, descending from high altitude at relatively high speed into an airport with local RA(Aus) traffic scares me. I think few RA(Aus) pilots understand the speed differential and big percentage don't effectively monitor the radio at all.