Is it time for a New State of New England/Hunter Valley??

[flappist]

Originally Posted by |||

do you have any more info on these points? not paying taxes is one thing, but i am very interested to see if any developed nations have accepted his passport.

Google is your friend.

Australia of course does recognise them but then again there are a lot of things that the Australian Government refuses to recognise.

[pottery beige]

Sounds easier to just start your own wacky cult... thirty whinging wives... errr.. maybe not......

[|||]

Originally Posted by flappist

Google is your friend.

Australia of course does recognise them but then again there are a lot of things that the Australian Government refuses to recognise.

google is my friend i couldn't find a list of any countries accepting his passport.

[Jason[98.EL]]

Originally Posted by |||

google is my friend i couldn't find a list of any countries accepting his passport.

aca or today tonight i think as well as the one on chanel 2 did an artical on him about 5 months ago and from memory his pasport is accepted in 90% of countries

His son inlaw is the trade minister or simular and travels the world on the passport selling the wheet that they grow

Just my 2c worth

Jason

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

Really?


HRP is a defacto sovereign state and Prince Leonard has Australia by the balls as the only way that his claim can be disputed is under International Law and there is a bit of a problem with the validity of Western Australia being part of the Commonwealth as it was never a British Colony.

For HRP to be found illegal it must be proven that WA is legally part of Australia and the mere fact that this has never happened gives you a bit of a hint.

Best you do some more research.

Yes the dutch did land on WA shores long before the british did, most notably of these were William de Vlamingh landed in the south west in 1696 and Dirk Hartog in 1616 off the coast of shark bay. Both these did extensive charting and exploration but neither claimed the land for their sovereign or did anything with it. Dirk Hartog reported back that the land was barren and worthless, pity he was not a geologist as he might have worked out it had more to it.

Claiming of the land for a sovereign and subsequent settlement did not happen until 1829 when Captain James Stirling and the Endeavour settled on the banks of the swan river. A settlement was also established 3 years earlier than this at King George Sound (now Albany) in 1826.

The establishment of Western Australia as a British colony did happen and therefore WA is just as legitimate as a part of Australia as any other state.

A bit off topic I know but I could not let it go.

[bungarra]

Every state should go independant and just have a friendly border like the US and Canada. The ACT could be split between the Vics and NSW. Then you couldn't have people complaining about which state gets more or less. Defence is easy, every former state and territory puts in 1/7th cost of defence and the forces are split evenly across the new nations as a joint operations force. Similar to how the US and Canada run the Northern Air Command.

Bit for a little bit of interesting reading, have a look at this: http://www.thecheers.org/Opinion/art...ependence.html

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Claiming of the land for a sovereign and subsequent settlement did not happen until 1829 when Captain James Stirling and the Endeavour settled on the banks of the swan river.

Oops. tired after work. That should be Captain James Stirling onboard the Parmelia.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Best you do some more research.

Yes the dutch did land on WA shores long before the british did, most notably of these were William de Vlamingh landed in the south west in 1696 and Dirk Hartog in 1616 off the coast of shark bay. Both these did extensive charting and exploration but neither claimed the land for their sovereign or did anything with it. Dirk Hartog reported back that the land was barren and worthless, pity he was not a geologist as he might have worked out it had more to it.

Claiming of the land for a sovereign and subsequent settlement did not happen until 1829 when Captain James Stirling and the Endeavour settled on the banks of the swan river. A settlement was also established 3 years earlier than this at King George Sound (now Albany) in 1826.

The establishment of Western Australia as a British colony did happen and therefore WA is just as legitimate as a part of Australia as any other state.

A bit off topic I know but I could not let it go.

So you say, but the original attempt to remove HRP was withdrawn for "legal reasons".
Like the Mabo case et al., what is law is not always what you expect.

Be careful when reading recorded history, it is always written by the "winner' and tends to be somewhat biased and anything that may be a bit "embarrassing" just fades away.
When I was young (1960s) I knew an old man who had a license to hunt Aboriginies. I have seen the license and his rifle and he told me stories of hunting trips around the turn of last century. When he died it was given to a muesum along with a lot of other chattels and has not been heard of since i.e. "it never happened".

[Jim Goose]

I believe that there are still laws regarding interfearing with ones horse!
i.e: you cant cut fences or unhitch a horse which is tied up in order to make it run away etc...

There is (and i cant remember why I was reading it) a legal reason why you name has to capitolised out a certain way too... ie: Jim Goose, JIM GOOSE, GOOSE Jim.. etc... even this is cause for a warrant/ contract to be made void etc.. and it all stems from old British Law from centuaries ago which we adopted.

I would not doubt at all the story about WA not being a legitimate state.
Its just that its been forgotton after a few centuaries.....

[bungarra]

The first proclamation of claim for Western Australia was by Major Lockyer of the Royal Marines aboard the Amity at King Gearge Sound Albany. A couple of years before Stirling arrived. This was to to claim the land for King an Empire to prevent the French from claiming the Western portion of New Holland.

Flappist, I have also seen one of the hunting licences you mention, it was given to the WA Museum and has also been forgotten. Probably hidden with the first car built in WA.

[glavas]

if you read wiki that guy delclared war on australia for a couple of days then stoped "hostilities". so really this guy is a enemy of australia and his land needs to be invaded. i bet me and a couple of mate could eaisly do the job and reclaim this land back to australia were it belongs!!!!!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by glavas

if you read wiki that guy delclared war on australia for a couple of days then stoped "hostilities". so really this guy is a enemy of australia and his land needs to be invaded. i bet me and a couple of mate could eaisly do the job and reclaim this land back to australia were it belongs!!!!!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River

Does he have a massive oil reserve??

[glavas]

its just a weat farm i think

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by banarcus

I see good points raised. A lot of federal politicians are also calling for an end to the states too. Firstly, the constitution doesn't allow this and to alter it would need a 2/3 majority in a referendum. If the people want it, they will vote for it. The main catch cry for this change? Save money and duplication of powers as the federal government could do what the states already do.

Canberra can dream all it likes, leave the States alone commies:-)

Sure if NEW ENGLAND wants to get up and go, then great. I can then bring about (//) !!!

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by glavas

its just a weat farm i think

Then it isnt worth the effort...

[flappist]

Originally Posted by glavas

if you read wiki that guy delclared war on australia for a couple of days then stoped "hostilities". so really this guy is a enemy of australia and his land needs to be invaded. i bet me and a couple of mate could eaisly do the job and reclaim this land back to australia were it belongs!!!!!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River

So you are threatening military action against a foreign state?

That is called terrorism and even if you could murder people as well as you murder the english language I suspect you would not last long.
Such actions are against Australian law and even if you managed to defeat the entire population of HRP with your high powered semi-automatic keyboard (especially lightened for combat by removal of spell checker) you would end up spending the rest of your life in prison.

[banarcus]

You have a sharp wit flappist, I love your humour

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Sure if NEW ENGLAND wants to get up and go, then great. I can then bring about (//) !!!

I see the issue will always be whether the Sydney government will let the people of New England/Hunter Region vote on it. As usual and I guess, justifily so, they would measure up what it would cost them to let us go. This is a flaw in the Australian Constitution. If a portion of an existing state wish to go it alone but still remain in the Commonwealth, they must get permission from the state affected rather than petition the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth cannot intervene.

I've read that during the '60s, when the New England new state movement had the support of most of the New England population, it had at least 60%. The Lower Hunter-Newcastle area were totally in reverse which swayed the 'referendum' towards union with Sydney.

A older gentleman committed to a new state once travelled around New England in 2005 and handed out mock ballot sheets to just over 900 people and recieved 20% favour for a new state. History has been mostly forgotton but not totally erased. Five years later, if this little experiment were to be done now, I dare say that the Newcastle-Hunter Valley area would be the ones that lead the way in agitation.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by bungarra

The first proclamation of claim for Western Australia was by Major Lockyer of the Royal Marines aboard the Amity at King Gearge Sound Albany. A couple of years before Stirling arrived. This was to to claim the land for King an Empire to prevent the French from claiming the Western portion of New Holland.

This true but the year of settlement of WA is recorded as 1829, hence the 150 year celebration in 1979. The state of WA is older than QLD, Flappist!

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Sure if NEW ENGLAND wants to get up and go, then great. I can then bring about (//) !!!

Il help you put up the signs Keepleft!!

[glavas]

Originally Posted by flappist

So you are threatening military action against a foreign state?

That is called terrorism and even if you could murder people as well as you murder the english language I suspect you would not last long.
Such actions are against Australian law and even if you managed to defeat the entire population of HRP with your high powered semi-automatic keyboard (especially lightened for combat by removal of spell checker) you would end up spending the rest of your life in prison.

how am i a terrorist? this guy is a enemy to our country. i did 12 years in the army so i think of my self as a patriot =) if i lead a force against this guy id be a national hero. be awarded the victoria cross became the australian of the year blah blah blah. would only take a small section and about 20 minutes. get some aussie pride in ya people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

oh and dude your really hitting me were it hurts ie my spelling skills horay!

[flappist]

Originally Posted by glavas

how am i a terrorist? this guy is a enemy to our country. i did 12 years in the army so i think of my self as a patriot =) if i lead a force against this guy id be a national hero. be awarded the victoria cross became the australian of the year blah blah blah. would only take a small section and about 20 minutes. get some aussie pride in ya people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

oh and dude your really hitting me were it hurts ie my spelling skills horay!

You are not a soverign state, you are a private person therefore any military action on your part is terrorism.

You will also be arrested for murder by the West Austrailan Police, as you would have premeditatedly murdered people in Western Australia.

If you had murdered people in Australia then the Australian Government would have recognised that HRP is not Australian land and you would have achieved what Prince Leonard has been trying to do for more than 30 years.

Of course then you would have commited a terrorist act against a foreign state and again get locked up for ever.

Martin Bryant claimed to be a patriot and was defending Australia against "the japs".

Julian Knight was ex-army.

It did not end well for either.....

[fordel]

Keep it on track, else the thread will disappear just like many thing you have all mentioned have in history.

[russellw]

Some interesting commentary.

It is practically a lot easier for a small wheat farm to secede from Australia than for an entire region if only because on a small scale it is feasible to provide your own infrastructure. On a larger scale it would be much more difficult to do so and the issues about who had rights over what would keep the courts busy for decades.

As far as I can see the worst downside of it would be having the possibility that Kevin Moonface would want to make a diplomatic visit!

Cheers
Russ

[banarcus]

Ok, there are those who believe that Australia has too many levels of government and also believe that in reality, we only need two. Why do people believe this? I know that federal politicians speak about it and I can understand why. The states are a hinderance to their goals. But why are there people in the electorate that also believe we don't need states anymore?

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

This true but the year of settlement of WA is recorded as 1829, hence the 150 year celebration in 1979. The state of WA is older than QLD, Flappist!

Redcliffe was settled in 1824. So

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by irlewy86

Redcliffe was settled in 1824. So

That is true, but it was a not recognized as a colony separate from NSW.

Later, Queensland was made a British Crown Colony that was separated from New South Wales on 6 June 1859, a date now celebrated state-wide as Queensland Day.

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

That is true, but it was a not recognized as a colony separate from NSW.

Details,

Redcliffe was a colony of NSW
WA was a colony of Britain.

But both took orders from somewhere else.

Back to the original question I don't think people of the Hunter region and NQ have ever really thought through the statehood question through. If they were to de-centralize the beaurcracy from Sydney there would still be a great deal of (expensive) re-organisation into another Urban centre (so would the people of Maitland be any better off having services administered from Sydney or Newcastle). Also given tax revenue is biased towards GST (more of which will be generated out of Sydney rather than the Hunter Valley) Also I wonder how they will seperate the infstructure given that the "new state" will have 90% of NSW power generation.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by irlewy86

Details,

Redcliffe was a colony of NSW
WA was a colony of Britain.

But both took orders from somewhere else.

Back to the original question I don't think people of the Hunter region and NQ have ever really thought through the statehood question through. If they were to de-centralize the beaurcracy from Sydney there would still be a great deal of (expensive) re-organisation into another Urban centre (so would the people of Maitland be any better off having services administered from Sydney or Newcastle). Also given tax revenue is biased towards GST (more of which will be generated out of Sydney rather than the Hunter Valley) Also I wonder how they will seperate the infstructure given that the "new state" will have 90% of NSW power generation.

The added expence would outweight any problems there are now.
Someone would need to pay for it all.
Guess who that would be?

Police, Fire, Ambulance, Hospitals, Schools, Water, Electricity, Railways, Roads and Rego, Courts, Prisons, A Parliament, and what elver else is state controlled would all need to be handed over to the "new state" and then have its umbilical cord cut.

I would rather have 2 levels of Government, then waste time and effort creating more fat cats

[banarcus]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

The added expence would outweight any problems there are now.
Someone would need to pay for it all.
Guess who that would be?

Police, Fire, Ambulance, Hospitals, Schools, Water, Electricity, Railways, Roads and Rego, Courts, Prisons, A Parliament, and what elver else is state controlled would all need to be handed over to the "new state" and then have its umbilical cord cut.

I would rather have 2 levels of Government, then waste time and effort creating more fat cats

I understand this, this is a very reasonable concern. If Tasmania can have its own government, services etc, why cannot this be re-created? If some services could be run in a similar way to ACT with Federal Police etc this would curb duplication of services. There were two NSW Royal Commissions into this with these questions explored and answered in full. I'll find out more about this. Much would still be relevant today, like the Australian Constitution.

Does having two forms of government mean that one particular form has failed you Jim Goose? The people here have been let down by the current government in NSW.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by banarcus

I understand this, this is a very reasonable concern. If Tasmania can have its own government, services etc, why cannot this be re-created? If some services could be run in a similar way to ACT with Federal Police etc this would curb duplication of services. There were two NSW Royal Commissions into this with these questions explored and answered in full. I'll find out more about this. Much would still be relevant today, like the Australian Constitution.

Does having two forms of government mean that one particular form has failed you Jim Goose? The people here have been let down by the current government in NSW.

My orginal post to this thread started the idea of getting rid of state governemnts and having large regional councils.

I live in north QLD where the idea of a seperate state has been mooted for decades simply because the State Government doesnt look past the South Eastern part of the state.

The majority of QLD revenue comes from anywhere north of Gladstone and yet most of the budget is spend in the south eastern area of QLD.

Our Hospital here is dangerously understaffed (the staff are great no two ways about it), we lack Police (by as much as 70 officers), our roads are substandard, most of the states policy is centered around the south east.

We get a pityfull amount of money allocated to us for any "good" projects, yet we get money given to us for "dumb" projects just to appease the morons and those lacking in any form of IQ

All of this sounds familier doesnt it?

What will state hood achieve?
Nothing
We dont have the population base (nor does Tasmania) to warrant the massive expense to start a new state, nor do we have anyone with any intelligence here to run for a newly set up parliament (and how do i know this? simply by looking at the candidates that run for council here, who are hoplessly ignorant, pathetic, lack any form of vision, who couldnt run a chook raffle if it meant saving their lives)

We have too much government as it is, too much red tape, too many laws and bylaws, too much wasted money.

Look at Europe, how many countries there have 3 levels of Government?
They run just fine without the states.
And they have countries with tripple our population, yet here we are with 28million (?) people and we have 3 levels of government.

If I was to fork out money to change things, Id rather it be to remove the States and have regional councils which had its own federal representative who sat in federal parliament so he/she would then be somewhat more accountable.