Decentralisation was replaced by Social- Economic- ethical value destabilization; - and any Idea out of that sphere is a good Idea, but 30 years too late.
I don’t know how many will survive when slamming into a mountain at speeds of Mac 8 ; I can presume – Not many.

"There also needs to be some thought given to the types of “collective goods and services” we purchase, through our taxes, from all levels of government. Sorry Maximillion, but you are a client and you are purchasing."
Hang on there Spindoc, taxes are collected in OUR name, by Gov, which in our so-called Democracy is supposed to be OUR Representatives, acting in OUR name, for OUR good. If I have an employee or agent, and give them money to perform a function, I am NOT buying anything from them, they are acting FOR me. How can I "buy" a service that I already own, as a tax-payer, and that is funded by MY money, administrated by MY "servants", it just doesn't make sense. Unless you hold to the "business model" of Gov', and that is precisely my point, when did the ethos change, and why, since it HAS changed, are we all now receiving far less "services" that our taxes fund, yet massive, profitable, private businesses are getting huge hand-outs of OUR money?

Spindoc and others
Banjo I remember Monarto, The Multi Function Polis outer Adelaide, Albury- Wodonga et al the lot. My take on decentralization is that it’s a Great idea was killed by the concept that “big (markets) is best”(economic rationalism).

What was missing at that time was awareness/realization that:
1. Absolute anything has both +&- . In those days the minuses were simply not recognized. Incl. causes for the latest financial crash.
2. There is a difference between centralized control and centralized service delivery.
3. That Australia/ world aren’t Magic puddings i.e. they have finite limitations.
Among these limitations are Ecological ones (all of them).
4. That “economic”, “big is best” “efficiencies of scale” aren’t always the best for the above reasons or necessarily for the people. Clearly the “business model’s” first criteria is to minimize expenditure and increase $ for the owners (government). In this model service delivery is towards the more efficient areas. Fine in theory but ask some of our decentralized population about reliability of power, medical services, and phone services.
5. To facilitate large commercial “set up” expenditures uncalculated offsets were offered and hidden costs (3) were ignored.
To me the tetradactyls are coming home to roost.
In recent posts I have suggested several times that a linked but self sufficient decentralized hub system of some industry, services and infrastructure is better than Megatropolis’. I would argue that there are a number of long term advantages with decentralization, amongst which are social, environmental, financial, environmental and reduce single point failures

You are sort of right Maximillion but far too literal. Just because you are a member of the public and something is described as "public ownership" does not mean you own it. You can be a shareholder, you can have equity, you can even have a vote but you don't actually own anything.

You contribute through your taxes to the creation and operation of government ministries. The government creates public ministries to provide say water, electricity, education, public transport, libraries, hospitals etc., etc. You don't own them, its fee for service, you pay for what you use. You are therefore a customer or client for the collective goods and services that government provides.

Yes you have contributed to the establishment costs but you do not own it. If as you say,"If I have an employee or agent, and give them money to perform a function, I am NOT buying anything from them, they are acting FOR me". Of course you are buying, you are buying whatever product or service you have contracted to purchase. You do own the contract, you can dictate the terms of that contract, you can specify the required outcome and you can determine if it meets your expectations. But you do not "own them", they are not your servants and they will provide you with absolutely nothing outside your contract with them. So why should it be any different with government?

Spindoc, what you are describing IS the "business model" of Government, exactly what I'm disputing. We all ARE the country, we DO own it, we are not "shareholders", we cannot sell our holdings, nor buy others, mostly.And as for our "contributing" to the Ministries, why else do they even exist if not to service OUR needs? They were set up, by US, to provide a service to US, and are funded by US, through taxation, why should we then be expected to purchase a service we paid for in the first place, and continue to do so? The way you describe things is as if Government was in some way a separate individual, that owns the lot, not dependent on us, but taking the right to rule and tax us.
This is supposedly a Democracy, "The Rule of the People", Government is supposed to be US, acting through our elected rep's, run by OUR Public Service, isn't it? It's NOT a corporation, a "corporate citizen", (another subject I may pursue in a later thread), it's NOT a God-given Right to Rule of the rich. It's all of us, even you.
And I feel you've entirely missed the point about servants and agents, if I hire someone to perform a function for me, I expect it to be performed. If that function is to purchase a thing for me, it does not then belong to them, it's mine. I pay them, that's my contract with them, the goods and services they purchase in my name, using MY money, ARE mine, not theirs, to re-sell to me! The government IS me, and you, and acting in our names, under the "electoral contract", as it were.
"Why should it be any different with Gov'"?
Because it IS! "The Government" does not own the country, or the services, WE do, as a nation, they are hired to run it FOR US, that's the contract, making them OUR employees.

Or, for those with realllly long memories, Whitlam's attempts such as Bathurst-Orange/Armidale-New England even Albury-Wondonga. All such ideas fail when there are INCENTIVES to implement them
As with EU farming subsidies, people farm the grant not the cow.
Instead why not try the much vaunted (but much more ignored) claim to let the market decide, providing of course that the hidden subsidies of staying in the nega cities are dealt with. Little things like transport infrastructure, water supply and that little thing of labour supply. All currently over featherbedded on the coast, first for historical reasons then later and NOW for pusillanimous political reasons - are there any other?