The problem with all the underlying arguments for airspace access is that evidence is used on a selective basis to push an agenda.
Years ago, during NAS, we were told that Australian airspace was 'unique,' that the restrictions happened nowhere else and that we were a bunch of troglodytes.
NZ was held up as the shining example for regulatory reform by the zealots. Leady, are you listening?
In 2002/2004, or thereabouts, the NZ CAA put out an airspace booklet, now offline, that depicted the beloved MOAs with no restrictions on access to civil traffic outside the 12-mile limit - I still have a hard-copy.
It's illegal, isn't it Leady, to deny access outside territorial waters? Let's get this straight to start off with. Because you believe NZ should be our model.
Our military were pilloried at the time by the zealots for having airspace off the coast that is regulated.
Check out page 10 of what was released by the NZ CAA in 2008 and which still stands as regards access to MOAs in international airspace. Read it for yourselves and ask why the NZ CAA changed the rules to regulate access beyond their territorial limits.
Airspace is 2/3 of the way down.
https://www.caa.govt.nz/airspace/airspace2.htm
The zealots will never reveal this stuff as it's an inconvenient truth. It's selective information that doesn't support the agenda.
Also look at Class F airspace off the NE coast of Canada in international airspace that's used by the military. You need a clearance and their AIP is pretty direct on that one.
We are fed less than honest arguments to support less than honest agendas; and the chooks suck it all in.