P-Dubby,
That's in line with the points that quite a few have been making.
There seems to have been a recent fixation on VFR 'access' by the regulator. Why this variance to the prime responsibility regarding the 'safety of passenger transport operations' has occurred, as enunciated in the AAPS, is beyond me.
Surely, if VFR are knocked back for a clearance in C, or are given alternate routing/ altitudes, it's because they are in conflict with IFR PTOs. If ATC considers them 'in conflict,' then that must mean that there is a collision potential.
The rationale seems to be one whereby, if we introduce E, the 'problem' goes away.
In my mind, the collision potential must still exist but, by downgrading the airspace to E, CASA has effectively announced that a collision potential, heretofore established by recognised ATC procedures and standards, is myth.
I continues to scratch ma' head.