Again, I agree with the paucity of facts-based risk analysis and cost/benefit in these decisions. I'd also suggest that the bane of airspace reform, in particular, is abysmally poor industry education and implementation management.
I'd also suggest that there are cultural differences between e.g. the USA and Australia. In the USA, the citizens allow the government to use their land and taxes for e.g. military purposes to benefit the citizens. In Australia, the citizens are subjects of the Crown and exist to be taxed and governed for the benefit of the Crown (or, increasingly, the mates of governments). Hence, it is, as you say, incumbent on humble citizens in Australia to petition governments to condescend to share or give up some of 'the government's' airspace.
On the facts/opinion issue, it seems to me that the volumes of airspace, the number of movements, the topography and climate at various places are facts. It seems to me that valid inferences may be drawn from comparisons of those facts. But maybe that's just my opinion.
