In the big mix some people are good, some people are corrupt, some people play politics, and some people sit there scratchimg their bums and let it happen.
In this case the story so far hasn't got any traction, probably because people checked the facts and took out GA Aircraft, Paragliders, Crop Dusters etc. from the emotional claim and saw that just 6 people had died in RA.
In this case it appears the media may have released what was given to them by the interviewees. If that's the case it would be of concern to all RAA members.
If the 6 is correct and the 9000 paying members are correct, that's a fatality rate of 6 per 9,000 thousand for the 12 months, and I would think some of the other sections of the Industry might require more urgent action than RAA, but that's another story requiring all the figures to be pulled together in 12 month Jan-Dec blocks.
Certainly if you move to PPL standard flying you need PPL standard training, but you can't afford to lose grass-roots training or you'll have no grass roots.
Arguing that one section is safer than another requires the collection of a lot of data; no point in any one person making judgements based on what they alone have seen.
There would be no point in having one specialist journalist because aviation is a huge industry spread all over Australia, and reporting usually starts with a phone call from one of the services that "there's an aircraft crash out at the eight mile etc." so the journalist needs to get there, a photographer needs to get there, and the journalist asks questions then writes the story. If the journalist asks what brand of aircraft it is and the local firey says "Cessna" that's what's in the story. Investigative journalists, usually employed only in the Capital Cities will research the Industry they are investigating, seek out specialists, find data on processes, and track a corrupt person etc.
Parachute results fit into the Aircraft Specification research, and if that's done correctly there will be an answer one way or the other.