There are a lot of similarities in terminal air traffic issues, regardless of national boundaries. Small, low traffic volume fields with no radar coverage and occasional instrument and large aircraft traffic. How best to serve the users at these locations should be driven by what the user needs, not by what can be provided, as Ferris indicated:
In Australia ATCNorth, due to cost cutting, efficiency gains, or whatever you want to call it, combined with relatively low traffic loadings, controllers can provide 3 or 4 types of service to different aircraft simultaneously
The aviation culture of a given country drives the need a lot. In the US a pilot only expects mandatory participation in an air traffic service when in an area of higher density traffic, such as in the vicinity of a tower controlled airport. Once clear of the traffic pattern and out of the surface area, they know they are increasingly responsible for seeing and avoiding other traffic. In my AT culture, its difficult for me to see what service I could possibly provide to a VFR aircraft more than 5 miles from the field. In response to SM4 Pirate -
It's ok to have a crash at 3 miles(10, 20, 30), as long as it's not on your precious bit of TAR, oh please, take your hand off it....
Its not that I think we should dodge responsibility, but I only think I should be responsible for what is reasonable. US Class D airspace ends at 3nm. If two aircraft get together at 10, 20 or 30 miles, what could I have done with a pair of binoculars and a radio?
We have demonstrated a high level of safety with minimal air traffic intrusion, for a long time. Before the alphabet airspace came along, our airport traffic areas were no larger than 5 miles. As an outsider looking in, I think you would relieve yourself of a level of risk and responsibility, without degrading safety, while allowing pilots the freedom to do their pilot thing, by reducing the size of the airspace your responsible for.
Just for the record, I am a tower controller. Have been for 26 years.