What we need is a system based on sound reason and logic not based on emotional reaction and fear. In this sense Dick is as bad as his opponents, however...
In the USA they don't teach you how to fly through Williamtown or transit Avalon or land at Bankstown. They teach you how to deal with each of the different classes airspace. This then means that every bit of class C(or D) airspace is exactly like the other in what you have to do, who you have to talk to and how and if you will get access. Even the Class B zones the have are very similar and it doesn't take long to work out the minor differences. This consistency is what we should aspire to.
Also in the USA they have clear logic to their airspace. For instance you never find a class D tower with radar in the tower. If the tower has access to radar then the airspace will be class C, this is per the definition. This simple logic helps in making decisions about upgrading and downgrading airspace classes as traffic volumes change. If an airport becomes busy enough to warrant radar then it becomes class C. If the radar becomes unserviceable and there isn't the traffic to justify upgrade/replacement then the airspace becomes class D. We should aspire to this too.
Generally, the FAA has allocated its resources to areas where there is the greatest risk. The greatest risk of collision is in close to the airport and at lower levels and hence this is where they control VFR traffic and further away or directly overhead they do not. Directly overhead a regional airport, 6000 feet above is a location that has a very low collision risk and so they do not bother to control this area. For some reason in Australia we do. Why do we have class C at say Tamworth that goes all the way to the base of the class A? Unless you ave unlimited resources you need to focus your efforts on where they will do the greatest good. This is a principle we should also aspire to.