No WARRP changed a lot. It gave us a system that can't cope with traffic levels/type mix, instead of a system that couldn't cope AND was going to kill people sooner rather than later. No route structure can handle ~40 departures in an hour, ranging from F50 to B717 into 135 degrees of arc requiring 5nm separation.
The RAAF were involved in the first 2/3(?) WARRP schemes, which was why they failed. The final WARRP was implemented because it adopted a fundamental design philosophy of "the RAAF are going to give us nothing, deal with it". (As an aside, rumor has it there is only one northbound SID, GURAK# for all types, rather than one for jets and one for turbos because the RAAF thought two SID's was too complicated.)
However, to be fair the RAAF have nothing to do with the morning outbound push, they are still in bed at that time of day
.
As for consulting industry, why bother. They will all say they want unrestricted climb/descent, minimum track miles and no vectoring off track. We don't add height requirements and track miles for fun.
Sorry to whine on and on, but I think if we can't provide a perfect service then we should try to explain why (even if it does sound like a typical Public Service 'Not my fault' ).