From: leanne@DIALix.oz.au (Leanne Archer)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: The Alliance for Democratic Reform
Date: 22 Jan 1993 08:55:10 +0800
Organization: DIALix Services, Perth, Western Australia
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.dialix.oz.au
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.4.19 #1

In <1993Jan21.065509.18970@cs.su.oz.au> mrj@cs.su.oz.au (Mark James) writes:

>In article <1jkqbiINNrj1@manuel.anu.edu.au> johng@cres.anu.edu.au writes:
>>
>>1.	Why was the word "Alliance" chosen as part of the name? An
>>	alliance of what/whom?

>As our brochure states: "The ALLIANCE for DEMOCRATIC REFORM aims
>to UNITE the dozens of small groups and thousands of individuals all
>desirous of changing the system.  Our platform is deliberately LIMITED
>in order to unite as many groups as possible and allow room for regional
>additions and variations."

>That is, strength through cooperation.

    Who are the actual groups which make up the political structure of the
    alliance? Are they minor parties amalgamating as one?

>>
>>2.	On page 5 of the brochure there is a sentence "ADR's policy is
>>	that State Governments should be abolished". This is not
>>	presented as being part of the Core Platform. I'm not asking for
>>	a defence of this policy, but I would like to know the status of
>>	this policy, and, more generally, what is the difference between
>>	"policy" and "platform".

>We certainly believe State Governments should be replaced by regional
>governments, but as this would require a referendum we aim to build a
>consensus for such a change through debate.  It is therefore a long-term
>goal (in contrast to our economic policies and our referendum policy).

      In terms of "regional" governments does that mean like local
      governments as we have now or would new areas be drawn up for the
      sake of administration?

>Our platform is ADR's complete set of policies -- our manifesto.
>ADR candidates can present an expanded platform by adding other
>policies or by holding different opinions on some of our core platform.

>I'll give a brief defence of State->regional government anyway.
>The advantages I see are:
>	- Greater diversity of public policy solutions.  Will have
>	  competitive regionalism rather than competitive federalism.
>	- Will cut out one level of large bureaucracy.
>	- Greater local autonomy and responsiveness.
>	- Will stimulate decentralisation.
>	- Fits well into a multi-member constituency national
>	  electoral system.
>Of course the major challenge is to determine the division of
>responsibilities between the national and the regional governments.
>We must balance diversity and autonomy with efficiency and the concept
>of a "common-wealth" (cross-subsidation and coordination between
>regions).  I don't think the change would be valid if the total
>bureaucracy grows.

>I can progressively post our policies if there is interest.
>Alternatively I'll cop a debate on a policy of your choosing:
>government structure, the electoral system, electronic referendums,
>industrial relations, tariffs, taxation, employment, exchange rate policy,
>rural support, and the environment (though I'm not an expert in the last two).

>Mark 

       What is the Alliances policy on equal opportunities or
       immigration?

                                             - Leanne

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  |      _                                 Ms. Leanne Archer             |
  |    _//                                                               |
  |    /    _  __.  ____  ____  _       email: leanne@DIALix.oz.au       |
  |   /___ </_(_/|_/ / <_/ / <_</_                                       |
  ________________________________________________________________________