Enroute Separation 101 (for Dick)
It's very clear in the US ATC Handbook that the link between C airspace and radar is because (for reasons best known to themselves) a "protection area" (a predicted area that will contain the possible positions of the flight) can be put around an IFR flight, but not a VFR flight. Hence C airspace where there is radar, and nothing beyond E (in Enroute airspace) if there isn't. Under their rules, if a VFR flight was given clearance through C airspace without radar contact the only separation standard available with IFR flights would be vertical.
Here it works (worked) differently, if a pilot indicates O on the flight plan we know he has and can use a VOR and we can use the appropriate tolerance. There are published tolerances for visual flight. The towers that Dick feels so sorry for when they were separating IFR from VFR in C airspace were doing something the Yanks COULDN'T (despite their fabled "Can-do" attitude that Mike Smith slavered about on the road.) For every VFR flight moved from his god-given flight path on one of these teary encounters there was an IFR being moved also. I don't hear them complaining.
You are fixing something that isn't broken. The majority of towers that have had their workload reduced operate with a duty staff of one anyway, so nothing has been saved. They'll just be a little more out of practice and a little bit less capable next time a complex separation problem arises, and will get less capable as time goes on. This whole project (and the others you have tainted or provoked) merely indulge your blinkered fetishes.
Thank you anyhow Dick, for not hiding behind the "chart simplification" flag. It is sabotage of the radio-separation culture that Australian pilots seem to expect. I have no opinion either way, I'm not a pilot, but it's nice to hear somebody come out from the bunker and say why the green lines have gone.