This has been developed in the section on regions and powers, where Charles went through a list of powers the regions would have. Here we further develop Charles' ideas. Charles' summary : > 1. State Gov'ts are abolished. > 2. A National Gov't takes on full responsibility for Defence, Foreign > Affairs, Quarantine, Trade, Immigration, etc and POLICY responsibility > for 'everything else'. > 3. Regional Gov'ts are established and they have responsibility for the > implementation of 'everything else'. > 4. The Constitution guarantees the Regions a % of gross revenue. > It would be good if we could agree on the above or work out what it is > we do agree on. I know Max does not agree with the above but so long as > he focuses his objections on an agreed model, we can only benefit from > that discussion. > 5. There be 100 Regions. > 6. The regions have an AVERAGE population of 190,000. > 7. The Regions be guaranteed 80% of gross revenue. > 8. Regional Gov'ts be largely autonomous. That is, the revenue they > get is not tied. They can use it as they see the needs of their > particular Region. > 9. Regional MPs are elected from 'single member' electorates of approx > 5000 voters giving an AVERAGE of 25 MPs in each regional parl't. > 10. Constituents would have the power to recall their representative in > the Regional Parl't and to hold a new election. Charles also suggested a spread of facilities. Of the following list, he asked Max : > Could you please advise what you have available now and where it is > located? Distance would be sufficient. > The idea is to find out how much better off Berrigan would (or would not > be) if these facilities were located in the Shepparton Region. General Hospital Psych Hospital Nursing Home University Tech College Tax Office Centrelink office Employment Office Lands office Live theatre Large general entertainment venue Large Public Library Public Art Gallery Public Museum Public Sports Stadium Covered Olympic Pool District Court Supreme Court Vehicle Registration office Television Station Radio Station Prison Airport Simon added : Charles, Of course the size might influence our picture of these. Eg airport for what sized aeroplanes? Cinema?? Ice skating rink?? Roller skating rink?? Fair & show grounds with covered pavilions?? Railway?? Botanic gardens? Zoological gardens? Primary Schools? High School? TAFE College? University??? Dance/dramatic arts school?? Garbage tip or disposal incl recycling facility? Green waste facility? Bus terminus & depot? Charles writes, in reply to Simon : I like the addition of : Fair & show grounds with covered pavilions, Botanic gardens, and Zoological gardens I disregarded the others because one would hope that there would be several of them in a region of approx 190,000 people. One of the hopes generated by the adoption of regionalism is that there would be a university in each region if the region wanted that. Certainly I would imagine an airport in each region at least capable of taking Fokker Friendship sized aircraft. -- This prompted some discussion of what sized facilities corresponded to what sized region. The Discussion which follows, unless marked otherwise, has David > and Charles >>. > There's no point giving every 200K segment of Sydney its own airport. > This is the issue I have with most regional approaches: they're written > as though population density has no impact on infrastructure > requirements, when in fact it's top of the page in important factors. > Any approach that starts off by dividing the country up into units of > equal population, and then adopts a paradigm that they can all be run > more or less the same way, is doomed already. >> David scoffed at airport in each region. It seems to me that a regional >> parliament in Ashfield would put constructing a heli-port high on the >> list of infrastructure projects. However, the point is that a regional >> parl't would be looking at the requirements and priorities of the >> Ashfield region - and would have the recourses to do something about it. > This is the issue I have with most regional approaches: they're written > as though population density has no impact on infrastructure > requirements, when in fact it's top of the page in important factors. >> We have already been down this track. It is acknowledged that it is >> unlikely all regions will be of similar population. And yes, of course >> population density and infrastructure requirements are intertwined. >> This is a powerful argument FOR regional parl'ts - they will be better >> positioned to assess the requirements of their particular region. > Any approach that starts off by dividing the country up into units of > equal population, and then adopts a paradigm that they can all be run > more or less the same way, is doomed already. >> I think dividing the country up into units of equal population is a good >> START POINT. From that we should be able to see what are and what are >> not viable regions for one reason or another. I thought we had already >> decided that some differences in pop is acceptable even though this may >> lead to some degradation of the principle of one vote/one value in the >> National Parliament so long as it does not go to the extreme we now have >> with the Senate. >> I am not suggesting that all regions should be run the same way. The >> main argument FOR regions is that each region will be able to run its >> own affairs to best suit that region. Simon : > It seems some of you wish to "create" regions before or at the same time > that they get regional powers and abolition of the States. Perhaps we > need another Gough Whitlam to establish some regional development > authorities like he tried in Albury-Wodonga and Bathurst-Orange. >> It seems to me that a regional >> parliament in Ashfield would put constructing a heli-port high on the >> list of infrastructure projects. > Here's my understanding of the logic behind Charles' paragraph above. > "A region in the country like the one around Berrigan needs an airport > capable of taking F-27s. Therefore the region around Ashfield needs an > airport, because it is also a region. However, an F-27 airport won't > fit and wouldn't be useful. Therefore we must add some piece of > infrastructure that will fit, and is somehow analogous to an airport, > like a heliport." > This strikes me as an appalling way to make a decision, the sort of "we > must do something, this is something, therefore we must do this" > approach that Humphrey Appleby so despised in politicians. Whether a > heliport would be useful is never addressed, and practically every > syllogism is a non sequiter. The last line in particular is one step > from sympathetic magic. But this is the logic that the regional model > leads us into. >> David, I agree. What you outline is an appalling way to make a >> decision and certainly was not my reasoning. >> Having now had a look at where Ashfield is, I now think that an Ashfield >> regional Parl't would not see a heli-port as a priority because Mascot >> is reasonably accessible. However, if Mascot is closed, or restricted >> to international flights (for example), and the new domestic airport >> ends up out at Badgerys Creek or somewhere, a heli-port might be >> appropriate. >> A regional parl't would be looking at the requirements and priorities of >> the Ashfield region and would have the recourses to do something about >> it. > In which case beginning the conversation with "every region should have > an airport capable of ..." is inconsistent. The region will have as > many such facilities as its government thinks appropriate and can > afford. >> I think dividing the country up into units of equal population is a good >> START POINT. > I don't, and I'm unclear what motivates it. It seems to be the first > line of Charles' model, an assumption motivated by faith. I'd much > rather see something based on an analysis like this:1. Identify major functions that need to be performed by government. e.g. "railways" (without prejudice as to whether railways should be privatised). 2. Separate Australia into regimes, e.g. rural, provincial town, city. The definition of a regime is that one can reasonably expect any administration within a regime to be interested in roughly the same problems as any other administration in that regime, so we can assume the same type of government across a regime as a first stab. I've borrowed the term "regime" from physics, and it sucks, I'll listen to suggestions for different terms. We may want more than three regimes. Some would argue we need aboriginal reserve areas, for instance, as a regime in themselves. 3. For each pair of (function, regime) try to decide at what scale of administration one would wish the power to be held. For instance, railways might be relevant at a city level within Sydney, and also at a more-or-less state level outside the big cities. 4. In each regime, look for clusters. If many important functions need to be carried out at, for instance, the town level, then we probably need a town-scaled level of government. Create "administrations" (which at this stage could mean governments or administrative areas reporting to larger governments). Assign each function to a type of administration, perhaps via an administrative area. e.g. "The responsibility for railways within the large city regime is assigned to the administration of that large city." 5. Determine nature of responsibility of each kind of administration. This may be to its people alone (like a present state) or to a higher body (like an administrative area today) or a combination of the two (as in local government today). e.g. "Large city governments will be elected by their residents, but are subject to the policy decisions of the national government, and can be abolished unless they were elected by a two-thirds majority, or there's an R in the name of the month." 6. Divide up each regime geographically. Assuming administrations are geographic, which I guess is likely. But Charles' approach seems to be to start at stage 4 and then skip to stage 6. OK, that's a slight exaggeration, but there's a lot of analysis and justification that Charles sees as obvious and I see as the real meat of the problem. -- Max had questions about Charles' model. In what follows, Max's paragraphs are marked as >, Charles as >> > Most of these facilities are already were they are > because of demographics and putting a line on a map and saying this > region should have these facilities when in most cases they are already > there and is of no gain. Of the list I have used only four, being TV > station, Radio Station, Vehicle Registration Office and District Court. > None of these, that I use are in Shepparton and the Radio and TV come to > me ,so it does not matter where they are and the other two are within 22 > KM of Berrigan. >> I gather that a region based on Shepparton would be OK for airports, >> District Courts and Vehicle Registration Offices. >> The idea with Radio & TV Stations is not that you can receive broadcasts >> but that you have a local station concentrating on local issues. And >> no, it is not intended to take away the State and National coverage you >> already have. > I do not understand this statement but your original idea was for the > Shepparton region to have an airport, the reason there are 18 airports > across this region is that it is the size of Victoria. >> Max, a region with a population of 190,000 based on Shepparton and >> including Berrigan would NOT be the size of Victoria. > How local is local for a radio station, and some years ago Shepparton > GMV 6 was a local TV station but now its part of the national system. >> My "original idea" was to ask you which of the listed facilities >> existed within a reasonable distance of Berrigan and how much better >> would it be for you if the remaining facilities were located within 100 >> kms of Berrigan. > Are you suggesting closing down the 18 working airports in the > Shepparton region, and have one in Shepparton, or just keep the 7 that > can take a Fokker open, or does every area of 5000 people get one. > At present I have representation of 1 in a 1000 to fix the barking dog > so how is it better to go to 1 in 5000, when that one will also be > running hospital, schools, police, airports, etc. >> The advantage is that you will have intimate representation on all those >> other facets of society plus the fact that you will be able to hold him >> accountable. Charles expands on the above point : >> If I am right and Max lives at Berrigan, there are six towns that could >> become the hub of his region. These are: Albury/Woodonga, pop 67,000 distance 200 kms Deniliquin, pop 8,000, distance 100 kms Echuca, pop 12,500, distance 160 kms Griffith, pop 14,000, distance 200 kms Shepparton, pop 32,000, distance 100 kms Wangaratta, pop 15,500, distance 100 kms >> (Total pop not including all the towns and villages in between is approx >> 160,000) >> Bearing in mind that the average pop of 100 regions is 190,000, I would >> guess that the most likely hub of Max's region would be Shepparton which >> is approx 100 kms distant. >> A Regional Gov't 100 kms from Max in Shepparton will be more acessable >> to Max and much more responsive to Max than a State Gov't located in >> Sydney or a National Gov't located in Canberra. We are talking about a >> hell of a lot more here than roads, rates and rubbish (or barking dogs). > How will it be intimate when these representatives will be spread over an > area the size of Victoria, and at the moment I have eight within 31 km? >> The electorates in your region would 5000 voters strong. That means >> that your representative on the Regional Parl't would probably come from >> Berrigan - it could well be you! If so, you would be one of only 25 >> MPs. This is very intimate representation. This will be balanced with >> accountability, with the electorate having the power to recall them and >> have another election. >> Additionally, the number of _decreases_ from the current 6500 (in Local, >> State and Federal Govt's) to 2800 (That is 2 MHR's per region and one >> Senator = 300 in Canberra and 25 MPs x 100 regions= 2500. That is 2800 >> all up. > Regional cities end up sponge cities. They attract people from around > them to them and destroy the small communities around them. As with > Canberra these cities are propped up by the large number of public > servants that accumulate in them. >> There is a lot of truth in what you say. However, the difference >> with regional gov'ts is that, instead of there being 9 centres as at >> present, there would be 100. I think it likely that a lot of >> Shepparton's growth will be sucked out of Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney >> because that is where the pool of bureaucrats currently is, as you say. >> However, the hub would create a lot of employment in the region, >> employment that is currently being drained off to Canberra and the >> Capital cities. >> On the question of 'boundary anomalies', it is my intention that, once >> we have decided on some 'norm', that a map be drawn up as a talking >> point and that this map be distributed to all regions with a view to >> getting feedback. > Get to some 'norm' and show how it fixes border anomalies, and as a > second, how does it fix the different laws in different states/ regions. >> Max, perhaps you could list the 'border anomalies' you have in mind. We >> can then address those and see what can be achieved by regionalism. >> My suggested model would have a national parl't with sole law-making >> power. Thus there would only be one set of laws across the whole >> country. I see the national parl't also establishing broad policy >> guidelines for major issues such as health, education, law enforcement, >> the environment, etc. but with the regions having great flexibility and >> autonomy in implementation. >> The objective was to find out if Berrigan would be better off with the >> listed facilities in the region rather than where they are now (be it >> because of demographics or our current system of gov't). > Most of the things listed would be within 300KM of Berrigan and I dont > see how putting a line around them and calling it a region will make the > use of these facilities any different. >> There are two points here. The first is that one of the advantages of >> regionalism is decentralisation and another is autonomy. Secondly, the >> facilities listed would be within 100 kms of you, their offices >> having a great deal of autonomy, with control of 80% of the National >> Budget. They would not just be a post office. You would be able to >> talk to the person who has the power to make a decision. > How are the roads, barking dogs, pot holes, water supply, drainage, > street cleaning etc. going to be organised in every small town? >> A region could well be a catchment area. Whether or not we can achieve >> that, the water supply would be controlled by the regional Water Board, >> funded by and accountable to, the regional parliament. All these other >> sorts of things would be organised and executed by the regional body >> charged with that responsibility. These bodies would be accountable to >> the regional parl't in Shepparton. If the pot holes in Berrigan are not >> fixed, the local Mp would be on the the issue in parl't. If everyone >> had the same complaint, the head of the pot hole org would be called up >> to the parl't to explain. > My area has a 17 inch rainfall and an evaporation rate of 32 inches, so > we are the opposite of a catchment. [Sure, but there's a river of economic significance flowing into the region, so while Charles' approach may need fine tuning, and utilise other notions for drawing boundaries, water is nevertheless an issue - JA] > I am on the Murray flood plain, "pain" committee, the Lower Murray > Darling advisory committee, the Western Riverina vegetation committee. >> Max, if you get elected to the regional parl't and can still do all >> these things, you will report to the regional parl't instead of the >> council. The parl't would then make decisions and talk to other regions >> in the catchment. Whenever the regions came to some agreement on what >> should be done, the regions would have the power and the funds to >> implement. > Locally, I'm on the Berrigan skate board committee, the Berrigan tidy > towns committee, the Berrigan District Development committee, the > Suicide prevention committee, the Berrigan tourist committee, and some > more, as a representative of council, to report back to council. How in > your system is this sort of thing going to be done? >> These committees would ask the regional gov't for funds to do what they >> want to do and then getting on with it. Otherwise, these organisations >> would ask their MP on the regional parl't to act on their concerns, >> wants and suggestions. >> I'm under the impression that council and/or committee must take their >> findings to a State gov't who then conduct an inquiry and eventually >> submit their recommendations to the Fed Gov't who then conduct an >> inquiry and four years down the track come back to say, there is no >> money - and that is when an election at State or Fed level hasn't >> changed a gov't in which case it is usually all back to square one and >> start again. > Who is going to make the decisions when a lot of heart has to go into > them? Where will the local knowledge come from? >> The local knowledge would come from the local Member of the regional >> parl't. He probably lives in or around Berrigan. The point is, he is >> one of only 5000 voters so that is the radius of his electorate. He is >> personally involved. Even more to the point, he is one of only 25 MPs >> in a regional parl't that controls 80% of the expenditure in that >> region. He is a very powerful person but his constituents are even more >> powerful - they can sack him! > I am one of eight councillors, and the general manger tells me > the council has 31 committees that it has councillors representees on > and none of these meet in our shire, so there is considerable travelling > time involved. The general manager wants to know if his job will still > be there with your system? As the general manager is the person who > organises the roads,barking dogs etc, in my shire and it is a full time > job, as there is a work force of 74 people to do this, how and where is > this going to be done. On the subject of Charles' model, Max did agree it would be a simpler system of Government : > any of the states powers, state's powers (should) go to the federal > government which may not be any better, but it would be a simpler system > of government >> OK! Now we might be getting somewhere. What you are advocating WOULD >> be a simpler system of gov't BUT >> The current National Gov't has very limited powers but most people are >> very unhappy about 'government from Canberra'. It is not just the >> politicians, we also have the bureaucrats that are necessary to support >> the politicians. Bureaucrats who have lived all their life in Canberra >> (and we are now on to third generation Canberrans in the PS in large >> numbers) have no idea what life is like in, say, Kalgoorlie/Boulder. >> The politician from that electorate is just one voice against thousands >> of PSs in Canberra. [see more on Canberra in access and country-identity] >> Regional Gov'ts would be making decisions on issues from their own area >> and would be supported by bureaucrats also from that area. (The people >> in your region who are 300 kms from the centre of the region would not >> feel alienated. The people who are 3000 miles from Canberra or 2000 >> miles from the State gov't in Brisbane certainly feel alienated, >> ignored, unappreciated, unrepresented and disenfranchised.) > Why remove local government which has a real close relationship with > its communities, and does work to a fair degree >> The idea is not to remove LG. The idea is to enhance LG by giving it >> the powers and the funding so that it can make a real difference to >> peoples' lives. > Ok I am now in a region with a regional government that is only half the > size of Victoria and a population of 165,000, how do we get the garbage > collected, the streets cleaned, and the barking dog next door attended > to. The building application that is out side the policy but still need > to be passed. >> The same way as it is now achieved. The 'gov't' calls for tenders, >> awards contracts and the work gets done. The sleepless neighbour calls >> the police and the barking dog is attended to by the local police >> station. The building application is processed by the regional PSs >> (including referring it to the responsible politician in the regional >> parliament). If the applicant is not satisfied, he can raise the issue >> with his local member of the regional parliament who probably lives in >> his town or village but certainly in the close neighbourhood. > On the issue of electorates, the WA government has a system to make the > country electorates have an advantage, and the government >> The fact that a partisan gov't is trying to get rid of a system they see >> disadvantages their party is no reason to believe it is not an >> appropriate system. However, my proposal is that, in fact, there WOULD >> be one vote/one value in regional gov't. Let's say there are 400,000 >> people in the Gold Coast Region and only 160,000 in Albury/Woodonga >> region. GG region could have a regional parl't of 40 MPs (one rep for >> every 10,000 - each person with equal voting power). A/W region could >> have a regional parl't of 16 MP (one rep for every 10,000). However, >> Kalgoorlie/ Boulder region might have a pop of only 10,000 so the >> regional parl't could be 10 MPs (one rep for each 1,000 people but still >> each person would have equal voting power.) > Charles how is the local member of the regional parliament elected, do > we have a ward system? >> I see the local member of the regional parl't being elected from a >> single member, 5000 voter electorate using voluntary preferential >> voting. > If, when I am elected to the regional parliament, I will be one against > the ten that come from Shepparton, so what will change from the present > system were those in Sydney out vote us now? >> Max, the differences will be as follows; >> 1. Currently your voice is one of (how ever many voters there are in >> your State electorate). This voice is further diluted by (how ever many >> MPs there are in State Parl't). Under the proposed model, your voice >> will be one of only 5000 voters diluted by only 25 MPs in Regional >> Parl't. >> 2. The Regional Parl't will be many times more powerful than the State >> Parl't because it will control 80% of the expenditure. >> 3. The Regional Parl't will be many times more effective because it >> will tailor expenditure to better meet the needs of your particular >> region. >> 4. Yes, you will be up against the 5 MPs from Shepparton but you will >> have on your side the 20 MPs who come from other areas in the region >> just like Berrigan. --- There was a discussion between myself and Max on decentralisation. Max is indicated as >, I'm not indented : > Charles claims there are many advantages in his proposed > decentralisation; I won't ask what they are, but the point you are > missing is that this is centralisation not decentralising, you will be > taking away my close to the people stuff and centralising it in some > distant regional town. The system you propose with remove 600 > politicians replaces them with 2500. Well, centralisation and decentralisation are not bad in themselves, merely more appropriate in different circumstances. Be it centralisation or decentralisation, the scheme Charles suggests has the potential to improve economic efficiency (though Max, you have reasons to doubt this), while at the same time moving the centre of power a further distance away for more people. You use the label "distant town", but its not clear that will automatically mean it is less accessible. I'm talking about the "centre of gravity" of government. Max is moving the "average" location of government more towards Canberra. > I see problems in large city regions, and in a lot of cases if these > councils were smaller these problems could be overcome. Brisbane is an > example. Your position seemed to ignore the "meddling" of state government in local government affairs, and seemed to ignore this particular source of tension. Of course, council's view of meddling could be a larger government's best compromise in dealing with wider scale issues. > The Berrigan Shire is only returned 62% of the monies it pays in taxes, > compared with 208% to some Shires. This is a broader issue. Equity suggests that those regions with a "bounty" should "share the wealth". Also, if we want uniform standards, then some regions might need some assistance. I'll admit that 208% sounds like a lot more than "assistance", where I'd be thinking of 150% - that is, not just "paying people to be where they are". While all this makes sense, from an equity point of view, it also possible for wealth to be drawn off in a parasitic fashion, in terms of getting "more than your fair share". Whether a transfer is "equity based sharing" or "parasitic leeching" needs more analysis, together with being clear on your principles and definitions. Having said that, I don't know all the details of the 208% you mention. It could be the result of capital works (investment) in that region where the benefits "spill over" into adjacent regions. # Mark made the following analysis : I wish to explore the two broad models (national-local and national-regional for want of better description). Charles writes : "Of course, a reallocation of responsibilities like this would also involve a reallocation of funding. I envisage something like 20% to the feds and 80% to the regions." At present, local government accounts for just 6% of all government spending so even if local/regional government ended up with 20% that would be a massive boost. Regional service delivery should be generally regarded as delegated national power/responsibility (rather than regional power/responsibility as such), and so my percentages would look more like 80% national and 20% local/regional. I AM open to EITHER [A] a model based principally upon national and (possibly well over 100) local governments as the two main levels of democratic government, as Max, Klaas and I have supported recently, though in such a model the regional level is far from ignored, being the level at which national responsibilities are exercised through delegated regional service delivery/outcome facilitation authorities (e.g. the Riverina Area Health Service, Gippsland policing district) OR [B] a model based on national and upwards of 30 regional governments - though in the latter there'd need to be a well developed local government system within - especially for spread out regions - perhaps to the extent that the regional government would be more of a resource distribution "shell" for its local governments within rather than a fully blown regional government. The first step would be to look at the list of powers and responsibilities as excellently provided by Charles, and, for EACH, or at least for several tailor regions of a rough size/shape/scale apt given the respective functional imperatives for effective, efficient service/outcome facilitation - this would lead to numbers of regions for purposes of service/outcome facilitation in the various functional areas. Perhaps we'd find that the size and shape of regions best suited for health, water/environment and policing/courts, would be different, making a one-size-fits-all regional government problematic. One would of course expect such regions to be different merely based on the fact of differing functional imperatives, some of which relate to variations in physical landscape. The beauty of the national government taking over state responsibilities and local governments more or less as they are (but SIGNIFICANTLY boosted in terms of resourcing) is the acknowledgement of autonomy/sovereignty of genuine localities - arguably the very essence of substantive community empowerment and decentralisation. Genuine political decentralisation means having a level of government that is close to the people, assessed through a combination of population and land area. Our local governments are large by world scale. In Switzerland, for example, the 3000 communes there [which account for 21% of government spending, have average land area of about 14 square kilometres and average populations around 2000] range in size as per the following extract : "The commune, or municipal entity, is an integrating factor. The strongest source of identification in Switzerland is the commune. Class consciousness plays a subordinate role, by comparison. In 1997 there were 2,929 independent political communes in Switzerland. The smallest is Portein in the Canton of Graubünden with a population of 23, and the largest Zurich with 341,000 inhabitants." (from http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/7_human_resources/01_stans/frame_stans_gloss ar.htm) We cannot afford (in financial and deeper social, environmental and economic terms) more than two levels of democracy, but I also believe that if we set up 30 regional government or so, we'd have to have something closer to the people within that (which we probably couldn't afford). In the past, I've suggested that regional governance, regional democracy and regional accountability could be facilitated by having national parliament regional electorates more or less coinciding with the regional areas (or fractions or multiples thereof) used for service/outcome facilitation in what would be ultimately national responsibilities, so there could be no buck passing.