By definition, all regulations are an impediment to participation in aviation. Otherwise they're pointless.
The taskforce also has responsibility for ensuring "known or likely safety risks continue to be effectively addressed by the licensing regulations".
The taskforce is not competent to discharge that responsibility. The decision as to whether "known or likely safety risks" have been "effectively addressed" is a political decision, not a technical decision. That's because no activity is risk free, and wherever the standard is set there will be costs and benefits to individuals and the community as a whole. Being a hotshot pilot or a big-brained engineer does not render someone competent to decide where the balance should be struck between the risks and costs and benefits.
How do you or the taskforce decide that the removal of the flight test requirement will produce a benefit that outweighs the increased risk? How do you or the taskforce quantify the probabilities of the risks, and the comparative benefits and costs to individuals and the community as a whole, of requiring the test on the one hand and removing the test the other? Absent that data, the decision is little more than an *rse-pluck.
And that is one of the main reasons for Australia having the bugger's muddle that it has.