VOTERS NETWORK ACTION FORUM
Latest Topics Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 5      1   2   3   4   Next   »
Bruce

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 38
 #1 
Maybe the first step is to ensure that for a minimum of 5 or 10 years the heads of the departments are guaranteed not to be moved from the current location. Then only those who follow them have to go to the decentralised location to do the HOD jobs.



Bruce

0402537480 (M) +61-2-94030532 (H)
0
Angus1

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 16
 #2 
     What I would say now is an addendum to my comments on this subject of 25 Sept '18. And it relates to the much maligned Gough Whitlam, who having been out of office for so long, was keen to introduce a whole raft of progressive legislation - one of which was decentrlisation.
     Much of that govts. efforts fell by the wayside, but a few remain, such as the Mapping Authority in Bathurst. But the biggest problem Whitlam faced was not having staff, infrastructure, accommodation etc. but the sheer intransigence of the very top people in the Govt. departments that were scheduled to be relocated. Being(relatively) powerful people in the public sector, they lobbied, dragged their feet, impeded, and did enough damage that the entire scheme never eventuated. Such a shame.
     So what can be learnt from this 1970's initiative ?  Whitlam, as I state was in a hurry to introduce the legislation he wanted as quickly as he could, and this was the basic problem. With any new move in this direction, the first (not the last) matter is to involve the heads of Dept's and their senior people where the aim is to decentralise such dept. This may take many months, and involve costs - such as providing accommodation and sightseeing over several weeks, so that these people can see that country cities have a pleasant lifestyle (at least when they have some water).  And much, much more.
     What I'm saying may or may not be realised by the current crop of idio, sorry federal politicians, who may not even remember the Whitlam days, or were just too young. Any lobbying that Voters.Network does, should emphasise this little piece of history, and what can be learnt from it.

 
 
0
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 175
 #3 
The Federal Government is being asked to fund massive transport infrastructure like underground tunnels. How inexpensive would it be to develop cities like, in NSW,  Wagga, Orange, Tamworth, Armidale at a tiny fraction of the cost; move government department there with schools and hospitals and give  10 year tax breaks to those moving there from capital cities.  Transport corridors are cheap there. Now is the time to do it.
0
Bruce

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 38
 #4 
i firmly believe that the congestion problems, high density living and eventually the growth of inner city crime will be much alleviated by developing the non-capital city areas [decentralisation].  This would take the pressure off roads around the capital cities; give people more time with families; boost the economies of the country towns; reduce the need for more water supplies for the city; slow down the reduction of productive farmland  east of the divide, and generally be good for our living styles and the economy of Australia.  it would be one of the biggest benefits to us as a nation.  it needs us to pester our MPs both state and federal to take action on this by doing things such as financial incentives for business to move out the the Sydney/Melbourne/Brisbane areas and into the remoter communities. 
0
Pat1

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 21
 #5 
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/migration-under-review-amid-growing-congestion-concerns-20190813-p52gks.html
0
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 175
 #6 
Let's have your thoughts on why we should expand facilities for existing Australians including inland and regional areas before inviting in more immigrants and should insist that the government insist on a 3 year mandatory English language course be passed so that we can all communicate with each other, particularly in case of an emergency or disaster.
0
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 175
 #7 
Many aspect of immigration have been put on the agenda - jobs, wage levels, home prices, congestion, regional development, water management, domestic, family and sexual violence, mental health, health care and education resources generally, language barriers, cultural understanding. If people are interested form all viewpoints we could put together an action hub on this.
0
Roger2

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 30
 #8 
That is correct! It is not racism just politicians' stupidity! Greed and Growth are Good!
0
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 175
 #9 
Barack Obama speaking in Germany made the point that people concerned about immigration should not be branded as racist. In Australia it is not that Aussies don't want immigrants. Many don't want our beautiful cities destroyed and turned into high-rise slums like in the countries some of the immigrants come from. The fault lies not with the immigrants or other Australians but with the politicians who are thoughtless enough to invite the immigrants without thinking about who is going to provide them with housing, health care and education and working out where they will live in order to retain the beauty and our enjoyment  of our capital cities. There is a lot of space in Australia. Newcomers do not have to live on top of us and nor do longer term Australians have to live in capital cities when politicians can develop many more cities.
0
Sharon

Registered:
Posts: 5
 #10 
Saying that Australia needs these immigrants to look after our aging population is extremely short sighted. What has to happen when all our immigrants age? We can not sustain perpetual growth! The tighter we pack people in, the higher (and more violent) the crime rate.
0
Pat1

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 21
 #11 
For those of you who have forgotten, please don't forget to vote on proposals on this topic as voting closes by the end of the month.


MPs need all the encouragement they can get in doing what the voters want.  Let us steer them in the right direction.

0
Roger2

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 30
 #12 
All coming home to roost now after 6 years of unrestrained greedy growth. Poor workmanship in buildings, high immigration and high foreign (mainland Chinese government and non government) investment in the 'lucky country' that politicians can't live without. New car sales are down too! Forecasts another 10% fall in Sydney property prices by more than one economist. Also Melbourne falls predicted. More likely to be units (profit boxes in the sky) built in the last 8 years.
Remember how good it was in the Olympic year? Especially transport. We were united as a community with common purpose regardless of bad government and bad politicians.
0
Bruce

Hub Leader
Registered:
Posts: 38
 #13 
dear Margit1,  
what i meant by my response to you was not clear.  i was suggesting that we are so inefficient in so many areas that if we could concentrate on becoming more efficient we would not need so many immigrants.  e.g. 3 levels of government  moving to 2 levels would be a terrific start.
0
Greg

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 175
 #14 
IThere is a question that I know not everyone thinks important and that is language.If we want a "Tower of Babel" type community where we all spek different languages then we should adopt a common second language like Esperanto and everyone should learn to speak that. if not and immigrants do not rapidly learn spoken and written English then we will not be able to speak with one another. Not only will the Chinese person not be able to speak with the 4th generation Australian, They may not be able to converse with immigrants from France, Germany, Argentina, India, Palestine, Syria, America, none of whom may be anble to speak fluently with any of the others.
If we want a cohesive multi-cultural society then the first skill needed is the ability to communicate with one another.
What about our democracy? Those who cannot speak English will mostly be dependent on someone else to tell them who they should vote for because they cannot understand what our politicians are saying to the people. What about their susceptibility to fraudsters and interaction with police, judges, juries? Translators are a very second rate way of protecting a person's rights. What of the contracts written in English that they are required to sign?

If we want immigration to work well for all then we have to understand each other, talk to each other, resolve our differences by discussion, not with weapons. Everybody has to be given a fair go to live a decent life free of poverty and neglect. We also need government to provide reasons and opportunities to mix much more than we do and that requires a common language. Slowly is often the best way to go.
0
Margit1

Registered:
Posts: 4
 #15 
Japan is very clever. They have very controlled immigration, what is good for them.

Margit
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.