Launceston is a special case, as you would be aware.
The radar was quickly shipped down there as a temporary measure for political reasons, as a mitigator against dangers revealed when amateurs started playing with the tried and true.
I have no problem with tower controllers using radar, ADS-B or any other tool that would make the job easier*. In the case of LT tower though, you might want to get enough controllers there so that the place isnt closed half the time before you worry about what ratings they have.
*Note use of the word easier. In the same way you used the words "advantage of radar".
The oz system is efficient for oz airpsace. That has been shown to you on pprune before. Why you think you can continually ignore inconvenient truths is puzzling. Can it be done better? For sure. But the US way is not better (transplanting that system into oz), given oz conditions/traffic levels/surveillance capabilities/manning levels etc.
AsA is a monopoly in as much as the FAA is. It depends on how you look at these things. Is Sydney Airport a monopoly? Is Maq a monopoly after they tendered and won SY? IS SY 'efficient'. Lets not confuse "Ownership" with "Operator". Otherwise we might have to talk about the charging regime.
To me, this line says it all
why would our system be efficient when traffic densities are low
What possible difference could traffic levels have on efficiency? AsA cant change the traffic levels in order to produce more 'efficiency'. You are efficient or not based on what you have- surely you can see that? You have a traffic level. You work
that traffic efficiently or not.