<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: We need more than a new government</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.alicespringsnews.com.au/2012/09/06/we-need-more-than-a-new-government/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.alicespringsnews.com.au/2012/09/06/we-need-more-than-a-new-government/</link>
	<description>The freedom of the press still furnishes that check upon government which no constitution has ever been able to provide - Chicago Tribune.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 04:41:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Taylor</title>
		<link>http://www.alicespringsnews.com.au/2012/09/06/we-need-more-than-a-new-government/#comment-4178</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Taylor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2012 06:37:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alicespringsnews.com.au/?p=9515#comment-4178</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What an important, complex and interesting article, obviously with no easy answers to all the issues and problems touched upon. Here is my initial &quot;two bobs&#039; worth&quot; or should I say one Bob&#039;s worth? Probably the starting point is the Australian Constitution and the section that gives states equal representation in the Senate. The so called &quot;states house&quot; (The Senate) does not function as the authors had planned, ie. it is really divided along political lines, but it appears that most of the Senators are residents of, or come from the state capital cities or larger towns in those states. The Northern Territory being predominately remote only has two Senators compared to the founding states&#039; twelve. Maybe a remote area bias is required and/or a change to the Constitution so the emphasis is placed more on regions, areas or divisions of the nation with a common interest, but not necessary based on population. (Note: Divisions were obviously thought of by the authors of the Constitution and are mentioned in Part 2 section 7 as an option for Queensland.)
 
&quot;We need more than a new government&quot; is spot on, ministers and bureaucrats will also need to learn from previous (ALP and CLP) governments&#039; mistakes and/or poor decisions. What we also need is a more robust private sector, investors and developers with vision and their own money (not taxpayers). Legislation that facilitates development and at the same time protect community interests and the government to think strategically and long term (more than one or two election cycles) may also be required. Existing legislation and regulations that are not used, followed or enforced already exist, new legislation may not be the answer. The complex processes outlined in this article will need time for consultation, organisation, planning, bedding down the details and action. Something China and other totalitarian governments can do in an undemocratic way, but is not so easy in a democracy.
 
Decentralisation is a classical example, it must be a long term (maybe forever) policy, any short term fixes will not work, unplanned natural forces of economic activity seems to eventually draw people and money back to the capitals. For example, The Advocate are now going to print their paper in Darwin, listen for the outcry from the general public and small businesses when it doesn’t arrive early one morning. With all the new technologies around these days management and administrative hubs can be built anywhere - even in small communities along the lines mentioned by Hal below, but to avoid building infrastructure that maybe redundant in four years, careful planning and consultation is required. If the investments in Aboriginal education and training in remote Australia are successful, a lot of these people may wish to join mainstream Australia and move to the larger towns or SE Australia.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What an important, complex and interesting article, obviously with no easy answers to all the issues and problems touched upon. Here is my initial &#8220;two bobs&#8217; worth&#8221; or should I say one Bob&#8217;s worth? Probably the starting point is the Australian Constitution and the section that gives states equal representation in the Senate. The so called &#8220;states house&#8221; (The Senate) does not function as the authors had planned, ie. it is really divided along political lines, but it appears that most of the Senators are residents of, or come from the state capital cities or larger towns in those states. The Northern Territory being predominately remote only has two Senators compared to the founding states&#8217; twelve. Maybe a remote area bias is required and/or a change to the Constitution so the emphasis is placed more on regions, areas or divisions of the nation with a common interest, but not necessary based on population. (Note: Divisions were obviously thought of by the authors of the Constitution and are mentioned in Part 2 section 7 as an option for Queensland.)</p>
<p>&#8220;We need more than a new government&#8221; is spot on, ministers and bureaucrats will also need to learn from previous (ALP and CLP) governments&#8217; mistakes and/or poor decisions. What we also need is a more robust private sector, investors and developers with vision and their own money (not taxpayers). Legislation that facilitates development and at the same time protect community interests and the government to think strategically and long term (more than one or two election cycles) may also be required. Existing legislation and regulations that are not used, followed or enforced already exist, new legislation may not be the answer. The complex processes outlined in this article will need time for consultation, organisation, planning, bedding down the details and action. Something China and other totalitarian governments can do in an undemocratic way, but is not so easy in a democracy.</p>
<p>Decentralisation is a classical example, it must be a long term (maybe forever) policy, any short term fixes will not work, unplanned natural forces of economic activity seems to eventually draw people and money back to the capitals. For example, The Advocate are now going to print their paper in Darwin, listen for the outcry from the general public and small businesses when it doesn’t arrive early one morning. With all the new technologies around these days management and administrative hubs can be built anywhere &#8211; even in small communities along the lines mentioned by Hal below, but to avoid building infrastructure that maybe redundant in four years, careful planning and consultation is required. If the investments in Aboriginal education and training in remote Australia are successful, a lot of these people may wish to join mainstream Australia and move to the larger towns or SE Australia.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hal Duell</title>
		<link>http://www.alicespringsnews.com.au/2012/09/06/we-need-more-than-a-new-government/#comment-4144</link>
		<dc:creator>Hal Duell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2012 04:01:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alicespringsnews.com.au/?p=9515#comment-4144</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Of the different issues that swung the indigenous vote away from the ALP, thereby securing government for the CLP, the new Shire system probably tops the list.
In a discussion the other night, a novel (to me) idea was floated. Restructure the mostly indigenous populated shires along language and kin lines. Ask the locals how best to do this, and then do it.
The local governments would necessarily be smaller and more numerous, but it would empower the various extended communities in a manner that just might be acceptable and effective.
Worth a think, anyway. Maybe even worth a shot as the current system seems to be both unwieldy and unpopular.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of the different issues that swung the indigenous vote away from the ALP, thereby securing government for the CLP, the new Shire system probably tops the list.<br />
In a discussion the other night, a novel (to me) idea was floated. Restructure the mostly indigenous populated shires along language and kin lines. Ask the locals how best to do this, and then do it.<br />
The local governments would necessarily be smaller and more numerous, but it would empower the various extended communities in a manner that just might be acceptable and effective.<br />
Worth a think, anyway. Maybe even worth a shot as the current system seems to be both unwieldy and unpopular.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
