Hopefully then you will stop spouting on in such a negative way about a system that can bring safety advantages to our country without being modified in the way that Blockla does not like.
I certainly don't like making workarounds where no workaround is required. Either E is safe enough or it isn't; if it isn't which appears to be the case as 'enhanced E is necessary' then there are perfectly good options available, namely D or C airspace; we have good knowledge about how these structures can be used safely; this little experiment is not justified nor required when other options are readily available.
Your VFR vs IFR East of Broome is a furphy; changing the airspace category in which the conflict occurs does nothing for the safe resolution of that conflict. If the VFR can't see the traffic, it doesn't make it safe or obvious that they are nowhere near each other...
The same manner in which the VFR 'can separate/segregate itself in E' is available as the standard applied in D or C only another standard is used until one or both sight each other.
The difference is that in C or D the VFR is known to all parties 'and visual acquisition must occur before the verticals are given away'. and nobody is relying on the VFR monitoring and making the right decision or simply ploughing on as I couldn't see the traffic so it must be safe.