Dear oh dear - this is a worry.
I have just explained in a previous post how the descent restrictions work.
I don't really get what your problem is. I'm not talking about the letter of the law, I'm talking about what any responsible ATCO should be doing when he knows he has an IFR inbound on a visual, and the possibility of other traffic in the area. Maybe you aren't allowed to give traffic advice any more, I don't know, but I do know that the more I see of NZ ATC since I got back from Europe, the more I despair. I mean, what is wrong with giving a descent restriction if you even
suspect there might be VFR traffic tooling around with no transponder? And requiring a 5 mile final for IFR inbounds, even on a visual? That's what happens in Welly, why not in Palmy? Surely the idea is to ensure as much protection as possible? I don't get it. Help me out.
Suggests your not up with play there Remoak.
Quite the reverse. It is normal throughout Europe (probably in the US too, I don't know) to pair a primary and secondary radar together so that everything gets seen, and to provide redundancy - certainly everywhere I have been over there. So, for example, in the Edinburgh ATC centre you have secondary displays with a selectable primary overlay, and you can suppress targets that do not meet various criteria. There is also and ancient 1960's primary radar display that acts as a third backup. Maybe it is OK to remove a primary radar from a reasonably busy chunk of airspace in NZ, but frankly I think it is crazy unless you make all the airspace that might in any way be a factor, transponder-mandatory. But that's just me.
So I would suggest that Airways isn't up with the play.