Just where does regional Australia fit into the economic scheme ? How does
this compare to government ? How about cities ? What about city (urban)
vs. rural / regional development ?

AJ asks the following question :

> To what extent are your ideas aimed at a better system to fit the social
> and economic structure of the society we have TODAY, and to what extent
> aimed at the society we might LIKE to have?

> Two reasons for the question: (a) it changes very much the basis of
> issues of territory and political distance, for example, if it is a
> system designed to better deal with the unusually centralised urban
> reality of most of Australian society, is this because we believe that
> this centralised urban reality is a good thing?  Or something we want to
> further entrench?  

(David asks :)
>> Is there an implicit assumption here that a system which reflects our
>> current settlement pattern will lead to entrenchment of that settlement
>> pattern?  I'm not sure that follows.

> Similarly, if we design the system to give greater
> political weight to huge empty regions (something we in Queensland know
> much about) is this because we think there should be more people in
> those regions...  etc etc.  I'm all for a system that is basically more
> efficient FOR TODAY but constitutional design has always also been
> intrinsically linked to visions of political economy, national
> development and destiny (even if a bit in short supply recently). 

> (b) the problem with some constitutions is that they may freeze things
> at a particular time.  The buzzword is 'institutional adaptability'.  If
> a particular population threshold is right for a regional govt, or an
> electorate, what is going to happen over time?  How soon might the
> system have to be rejigged, and if it's cheap and easy to change then
> does that leave it open to political manipulation i.e.  national
> government treating regions much like most states currently treat local
> governments?  Given there's no chance of a new structure NOT having new
> political, economic and social effects, it's important to think about
> how to ensure these are desired ones.  Surprises are a good but only
> if the unexpected happens to be positive!

I wrote (with David's comments as >>) :

> You seem to imply that issues of managing growth, and
> urban planning (regional planning, too), are perhaps issues with
> "constitutional" significance, so managing growth also
> means managing population growth.

> One way of managing these issues would be a "autonomous development
> levy" charged against councils which do not want such development.  This
> levy would be used to promote development in regional Australia, with
> the levy being "tied" to such development.

> This has some echoes of "Land Value Taxation", but is more related to a
> refusal to develop, and is tied to regional development rather than
> dissapearing into consolidated revenue.

>> You're saying that a council would pay a fee to the state government so
>> that they couldn't build an airport (say) in their area?  Wow.  It
>> reminds me of hiring substitutes for 19th century conscription, or a
>> protection racket.  "Nice street, mayor.  Isn't that a nice street,
>> Arnold?  Pity if someone built a cement factory on it."

> If you tie the funding to regional development, and implement a
> uniform scheme, then it is not really a protection racket.

>> Why, because the money is going to a cause the government thinks worthy?
>> Maybe I should have made an analogy with the IRA.

> Rather than the mob analogy, I suggest one of an industry polluting a
> river.  Polluting the river is something which needs correction, a mob
> naturally does things which themselves need correction.

> People live at Sydney's fringes and commute for hours to their jobs.
> Clearly, in terms of personal decision making, it must make sense for
> them.

>> Are we in the business of telling people these choices are wrong?

> The next problem is : should we (more generally) be promoting city
> Australia, or regional Australia ?

> Cities have escalating land values. While some seem to
> celebrate it, I think it is a tragedy.  But its happening, as a
> result of economic activity.  If that economic activity is misguided, we
> need to say why it is.

> Its "bad" to pack more people into Sydney, the
> infrastructure has trouble dealing with it, and there are fundamental
> limits as we pack ourselves between the coast and mountains.

> People live at Sydney's fringes and commute for hours to their jobs.
> Clearly, in terms of personal decision making, it must make sense for
> them.  You could justify it as some sort of economic solution.  But it
> still seems pretty wasteful, in broader terms.

> Separately to jobs being in the city not the country, there's a further
> local tension between the city and surrounds.

> But what do the cities have ?  Jobs ?  Education ?  Cultural Activities
> ?  Why do they have a monopoly on this ?

>> There are some economic advantages of having all these people in the
>> same area.  After all, it's a nuisance to commute in from Blacktown to
>> the city, but it's not as bad as from Albury-Wodonga to Tamworth.  So
>> it's easier for employer and employee to come together in the city than
>> in the country.  For two-income households, especially, that's a big
>> factor.

> Active promotion of regional Australia would be good, though I don't
> know quite what this means.  Not "subsidies" in the sense of promoting
> "artificial" economic activity outside of the cities, but rather
> activity which could be in the city or country, with just a gentle
> "nudge" making it feasible in the country.

> "Historical context" is important If an industry is large enough to
> achieve an economy of scale, it could be located anywhere.  This could
> just as easily be city as country.  But, once located in the city, it
> may be expensive to move.

> The big "industry" nowadays is not "static factories", but rather
> "services".  And for some reason it seems easier to grow services in the
> city.

> The "autonomous development levy" is not so much a subsidy as "sharing
> of the load and responsibility for broader issues", that is to say,
> population growth.

> There's a difference between regional autonomy of small populations and
> the influence of those regions on higher levels of government.

> You could have a smaller autonomous region nevertheless having 1V-1V
> with respect to the rest of Australia in influencing higher levels of
> Government, through the joint election over several regions of a single
> representative.

> The motivation for small autonomous regions would be a notion of minimum
> standards of accessibility of local government for an individual.  This
> is assumed to be a "good thing".

> Max has suggested this being thought of in terms of travel time via a
> personal motor car.

> How much this threshold change ?

> First, transport might change.  We might run short on oil, making
> transport a lot more expensive.  Regional roads might improve.

> Second, communication technology, expectations and approaches might
> change.  There's the internet.  Face to face communication is good to
> complement email discussion of issues.  Together with email, you get a
> "result" which is much better than either alone.

> With time perhaps technology and the way we perceive communication
> will mean we do not have to be face to face to communicate effectively.

> The problem is, I think people are too influenced by matters outside the
> communication channel. Face to face communication has more impact.
> With lots of people feeding into one point of contact, its easy for
> concerns to get lost is the mess.  Perhaps the way government approaches
> communication has to change, but I don't know how.

> How might the whole context change ?

> Perhaps we run out of oil, so that the city based urban form becomes
> less valid, spreading the population evenly becomes the way to go.

> Perhaps the population grows to the point where "natural economics"
> means the population spills into the regions, though the more readily
> seen extrapolation is a growth of urban sprawl.

> Perhaps the country population continues to dwindle to the point where
> it makes more sense to invest in communication to more distant centres
> of power rather than provide geographically close centres of power.

> How might this structure change over time ?  The population density has
> to be drawn in terms of the "inputs" to democracy as outlined above, so
> there is some flexibility.  The threshold could be reviewed by an out of
> government authority, like the high court.

> To prevent the system being too open to expedient political
> manipulation, we would need a separate out-of-government authority
> administer the changes.

Jim writes :

> Local government should be based on what are considered as viable
> regions - socially, economically, environmentally viable.  With full
> time members the territory, or by whatever name, councils, need to be
> given certain powers such as industry, employment, domestic migration
> and (in association with the central government international migration)
> so that they are encouraged to initiate, innovate and attract people and
> industries.  I have no doubt at all that a major reason for our
> overpopulated cities is the fact that the cities have the power.  Some
> critics of 'regionalism' have said that there is no evidence that regions
> can put forward great initiatives.  How true - they have no latitude,
> no encouragement, no incentive, no freedom to develop their own ideas
> and projects.  Local councils are almost totally reactive.  State
> governments tend to be proactive where it suits cities and the national
> government is too distant.  Regional councils with a direct link to the
> Senate can have real power.

> What is wrong with a small territory based on Mt Gambier and Portland
> and a large one encompassing the whole of Sydney?  Large 'whole of city
> territories' are not a bad concept - take Hong Kong, Singapore,
> Canberra, Brisbane and ancient Athens.  A city territory may have to
> have more than one planning division and all LGA's should include local
> advisory groups - as many councils have now.  Democracy can be better
> entrenched in the system to satisfy the critics of Brisbane for example
> but I won't go into that now.

Bob writes in reply :

> Jim I agree with your concept of mutual interests in regions when
> considering changing local government, having Mt Gambier and Portland as
> regions would really only be viable with the removal of states.

> The mega city concept offers challenges to local government and your
> examples, Singapore is already a nation and excluded, Canberra is a
> territory within a nation while Sydney metro has dozens of local
> governments within its boundaries.  Brisbane is the only city, possibly
> in the world, that has one administration looking after population
> greater than Tasmania.

> Combining two electoral divisions to form one local
> government region has merit, except for some rural and outback regions.
> Present state capital cities and Canberra could
> be separated from the electoral division and created with it's own city
> government.  I think that is similar to most cities in the western
> world.  This will see Brisbane City with its own government and all
> other divisions, within the accepted Brisbane city boundaries, being a
> number of separate councils based on electoral divisions.  That would be
> different.

Jim replies :

> Living next to Canberra (also 2 electorates and now down to 40%
> government employment) I see nothing wrong with city territories.
> Singapore may be a nation but people are struggling for small viable
> states (Scotland, Basques, Armenia, Kurdistan, Kashmir, Chechnya).  Even
> Sydney is struggling towards larger LGA's [Local Government Areas] and
> the Labor backed Country Party Government of Victoria in the 1940's
> wanted a Greater Melbourne Council. It took 50 years for Kennett to
> start to move in that direction.  We should move with the trend and
> encourage the formation of territories or regions whether large cities
> or smaller rural areas - with emphasis on viability, democracy and civic
> responsibility rather than on population.

Charles writes :

> Our "ideal design" be enshrined in a constitution to ensure that

> a.  The will of the People is adopted.
> b.  The politicians can't alter it without the consent of the People.

> Also, The system for ALTERING the constitution be established in such a
> way that, not only the Parliament but also the People, and the Head of
> State can initiate a referendum to alter the constitution.

Charles here focuses on "top level principles", in accordance with his
view about the nature of the relationship between people and government.

> For example, all the advantages accruing from the delivery of gov't
> services by orgs close to the People and the advantages from more
> intimate representation and accountability would apply in a regionalised
> city.

> There are some areas where "regionalising" big cities would not
> help.  These are public transport, water supply and sewerage and the
> environment.  There are probably others.  However, it seems to me that
> these issues could be handled in a regionalised city by the use of 'City
> Water Board', 'City transport authority', etc.  and these orgs would
> have reps from the regional parliaments sitting on them.

> The alternative is that the bulk of the Australian population would not
> enjoy the advantages to be had if cities are just categorised as one
> region.