It seems the need, based on your assertions Dick, is for aircraft to be able to transit coastal rather than go up over the hills. Is that right? Or are you after some sort of blanket clearance to plan through Willy airspace as and when required?
The whole accident / blame / change needed thing is too vague. What exactly do you want, clearance and planning wise?
It's the cities and air traffic around RAAF airspace that have grown hugely in recent decades - the old story of a suitable place becoming less suitable as time goes by. However, multi-multi-millions have been invested in places like this and to move them lock, stock and barrel is hardly feasible, and taxpayers are hardly likely to wear the cost of having places like Willy and Richmond up stumps and move out to the back of Bourke.
RAAF airspace has changed greatly around places like Pearce - 30 years ago it was basically a 50 nm circle, now it's a relatively tight funny-shaped setup in response to changing civil air traffic needs. Willy has extreme requirements because of the type of aircraft and flying that need to happen at the country's main fighter base.
How about instead of playing the hyped emotion card, you say what you want specifically, ie heights, routes, etc (I guess it's some kind of blanket clearance for IFR flights coastal at appropriate heights, given what you've been going on about with the 'sending to death' paid political message), and let the RAAF respond regarding what their operational requirements are with the airspace they need to get their job done?