I can't see for the life of me why direct tracking under a RADAR environment is not allowed in Australia.
I think it comes down to the mentality of management and the unwillingness of the customers to push the issue.
I have worked in Australia and currently work in one of the busiest centres in Europe. From day one when training in Europe we have been encouraged to offer direct tracking to all aircraft depending on Military restricted areas etc.Oh, and there is a lot less restricted airspace in Aus than in Europe. It definitely is a satisfying experience to realise that you are doing your best to help the customers. It is not uncommon to have 29 to 30 aircraft on frequency and all of them tracking direct to the best point outside of my airspace.
The problem here is that 90% of breakdowns have one or both aircraft involved with track shortening; conclusion don't do it unless for specific separation type reasons
Sorry, but I disagree with this totally. It only takes a short amount of time to learn the conflict points when tracking normally and when tracking direct. The more times it is done the more times the conflict points will be determined. Last time I looked Brisbane,Sydney and Melbourne have been at the same lat/long everyday of the year since they were settled. Therefore aircraft tracking direct will go over the same conflict points every single day. By direct tracking , yes , you may make a conflict in your airspace but who is to say that you haven't alleviated 2 or 3 in someone else's airspace.
Australia has one of the best systems in the world but in not being used to its full potential by this I mean TAAATS and the controllers.