Dick, I am confused.
As I understand it, the reason for different classes of airspace (and hence the control service applied) is to reduce risk to an acceptable level. The higher the unmitigated risk the higher the level of control applied - from 'G' to 'A'.
Radar or other surveillance airspace is not safer than non-surveillance airspace, it just allows more traffic t be processed in the same volume of airspace. Separation is still 1NM + the positional uncertainty.
We could impose class A to the ground everywhere, with blanket Mode S coverage. Approach and tower at all airports! This would be expensive, and would massively over service most locations.
Yet you are arguing here and in the Ballina thread for higher service (and it will be higher cost), yet at the same time you are fighting against increased surveillance coverage, and against actions that would help to increase efficiency, safety and service.
Which do you want? Higher cost and higher service, or a level of service commensurate with the level of risk?
To compare Hobart and Canberra is not a valid comparison. The airport layout, traffic mix and traffic density and route structure are different, so of course the type of service required is different.