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

[banarcus]

I'm trying to gauge opinion from those here on the forums about a subject that was explored in New South Wales and voted on in the '60s: a formation of a new state in the northern part of NSW. For those who care to read about some recent history, a piece has been written here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Eng...State_Movement

NSW, like other states in Australia, is made up of regions and people who identify themselves as Australian but want greater representation. Australia existed as the colony of New South Wales as we all know and then Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and finally Queensland each seceded from NSW for the same reasons.

Come Federation time, the colonies joined to form this country. Also a constitution was written to protect the citizens. Part of this constitution allows the formation of new states, as the population grew, to be formed from existing states or a combination of existing states. Chapter six of the constitution explains this: http://australianpolitics.com/articl...r-6-new-states

There are certain parts of Australia that want a greater say in how they are governed. Take North Queensland as an example. A new political party, the North Queensland Party, formed to better represent the people of that region in what is a large geographical area that has to compete with the South East of Queensland for its share of services, spending etc.

There are now murmurs here in the north of NSW about the revival of the establishment of a new state of New England. Here in the Hunter Valley, we are putting in a greater percentage of what is being returned. Our political masters in Sydney treat us as a bunch of hill billies. They allow big business to take land off our farmers for natural resources and they reap the royalties but will not reinvest that money back into the community from where it came. The constant meddling in local affairs by overriding local council decisions by those who govern in Sydney without any consulation or due consideration. This is just a couple of many issues that have revived old feelings.

I have no bad feeling for people who choose to live in Sydney. It is truly a great place but our politicians choose to pork barrel within the Sydney basin rather that regional parts. I believe it is time to revive discussion and thought about this issue for other persons here that may or may not believe the same as me.

[DJM83]

There are smaller parts of the state of NSW that have to fight harder for the $$$ and services then the Hunter/New England area (I used to live in Albury) so IMO its a big ask and wont happen.

[geckoGT]

In short I will say no. Every state has examples of rural regions contributing the bulk of the states income yet the city area requires a higher level of expenditure (also the vast bulk of the population).

Look at WA, imagine if the Pilbara and Kimberley regions formed their own state, taking all the revenue from mining (about 80% of the nations mining GDP), gas and oil with them. Then the wheatbelt area separates to their own state, taking the bulk of the agriculture dollar with them. Perth would end up a ghost town and each new state would have to form its own new government. The result is we end up with many smaller states, with a much larger, more complex and more expensive government and services system with no increase in money coming in. That would be economic suicide for the nation.

If the Hunter region was to do this, it would set a dangerous precedence that if other areas were to follow, would cripple the nation. I think this idea should be put to bed, permanently.

What is wrong with our country the way it is, I love it?

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

In short I will say no. Every state has examples of rural regions contributing the bulk of the states income yet the city area requires a higher level of expenditure (also the vast bulk of the population).

Look at WA, imagine if the Pilbara and Kimberley regions formed their own state, taking all the revenue from mining (about 80% of the nations mining GDP), gas and oil with them. Then the wheatbelt area separates to their own state, taking the bulk of the agriculture dollar with them. Perth would end up a ghost town and each new state would have to form its own new government. The result is we end up with many smaller states, with a much larger, more complex and more expensive government and services system with no increase in money coming in. That would be economic suicide for the nation.

If the Hunter region was to do this, it would set a dangerous precedence that if other areas were to follow, would cripple the nation. I think this idea should be put to bed, permanently.

What is wrong with our country the way it is, I love it?

Here here

[Brazen]

I have a feeling that this is one of those topics in which people who live in cities will say 'why change it?' and rural and remote people will say 'it needs to change'.

I think with a growing population, Australia grows by 400,000 people every year, looking at how the country is divided is probably a good thing. The current model of having half a dozen capital cities dotted around this vast country where the population and decision-making is focused maybe needs to change.

The problem of having the decision making parliament so far away from the rural areas, is that you get laws and decisions made which have little benefit for how the regional and rural areas live (e.g. applying metro road safety principals to rural road safety laws). Having more states could potentially put more parliaments closer to the action and this could give greater representation to these areas which receive little or misguided government attention.

Living in rural QLD, Brisbane may as well be on the moon as its that removed from how we live and work out here. The lifestyles, challenges, opportunities, and events in metropolitan Australia is a world away from outback and regional Australia. The laws and decisions that apply to me are hardly ever made with people like me in mind. I think more regional or rural zoned states (kinda like the Aussie equivalent to the state of Arizona or New Mexico) would give a lot greater representation to a lot of people.

I am certainly open to public debate in how we govern this land.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Brazen

I have a feeling that this is one of those topics in which people who live in cities will say 'why change it?' and rural and remote people will say 'it needs to change'.

I think with a growing population, Australia grows by 400,000 people every year, looking at how the country is divided is probably a good thing. The current model of having half a dozen capital cities dotted around this vast country where the population and decision-making is focused maybe needs to change.

The problem of having the decision making parliament so far away from the rural areas, is that you get laws and decisions made which have little benefit for how the regional and rural areas live (e.g. applying metro road safety principals to rural road safety laws). Having more states could potentially put more parliaments closer to the action and this could give greater representation to these areas which receive little or misguided government attention.

Living in rural QLD, Brisbane may as well be on the moon as its that removed from how we live and work out here. The lifestyles, challenges, opportunities, and events in metropolitan Australia is a world away from outback and regional Australia. The laws and decisions that apply to me are hardly ever made with people like me in mind. I think more regional or rural zoned states (kinda like the Aussie equivalent to the state of Arizona or New Mexico) would give a lot greater representation to a lot of people.

I am certainly open to public debate in how we govern this land.

I do see your point and agree with some of yours views but have to ask at what cost?

Is a more local focus worth an threefold increase in government expenditure across the nation? That is what it will cost when regional Vic, NSW, QLD, NT and SA form their own states because the precedence has been set so it is easier for another state to do it. Do we really want to follow the US model where they have crap social security, poor public health and a failing economy?

I do not have a city view, yes I live in a city now (as many country boys do) but I grew up on a 20,000 acre wheat farm. Having said that I can see the mistake in this idea and I personally would never support such a notion.

I am not against change just because it is change, I am against change that has no benefit for the good of the nation.

Lets take it further, WA is far removed from the rest of the nation and there is popular opinion that although WA produces more GDP than any other state due to the wealth of the natural resources there, more money is spent on the other states (this idea has been thrown around before). Should WA separate from the rest of australia and become its own nation? If it did, it would be an extremely wealthy nation and the residents would enjoy a more locally focussed government expenditure. It would be a pity about the rest of australia.

[Jim Goose]

We have already too many levels of Government.

The idea of splitting QLD has been spoken of dozens of times.
It simply wont work because it will just add more expense, because we simply dont have the population base to warrant more states.

An idea would be to remove the state government as we know it.
(But state borders remain)

Instead have several councils/ shires amalgamated to form larger districts.
These district boundaries then also become the boundaries for the seats in Federal Parliament.

This would in effect mean that you vote for Mayor (and seats for the councillor) in local elections. And then vote for your district Federal representative who then has a seat in Federal Parliament.

Budget wise the Federal Government then allocates monies directly to each district (meaning your Federal Member is held somewhat accountable for begging for money).

Councils also still raise revenue the usual way from rates etc.....

The only issues would be State Law, Police, and the Electricity grid!
Ambulance and Fire would then go back to like it was in the old days when they had their own districts etc... money would be funded by both Council and Federal Governments.

Obviously the plan has its flaws and the finer details would take forever to work out.
It is just an idea after all........

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

We have already too many levels of Government.

The idea of splitting QLD has been spoken of dozens of times.
It simply wont work because it will just add more expense, because we simply dont have the population base to warrant more states.

An idea would be to remove the state government as we know it.
(But state borders remain)

Instead have several councils/ shires amalgamated to form larger districts.
These district boundaries then also become the boundaries for the seats in Federal Parliament.

This would in effect mean that you vote for Mayor (and seats for the councillor) in local elections. And then vote for your district Federal representative who then has a seat in Federal Parliament.

Budget wise the Federal Government then allocates monies directly to each district (meaning your Federal Member is held somewhat accountable for begging for money).

Councils also still raise revenue the usual way from rates etc.....

The only issues would be State Law, Police, and the Electricity grid!
Ambulance and Fire would then go back to like it was in the old days when they had their own districts etc... money would be funded by both Council and Federal Governments.

Obviously the plan has its flaws and the finer details would take forever to work out.
It is just an idea after all........

To me that idea gives local districts more of a voice and more power in their own district without creating a government system that is too complex and expensive. Obviously needs a lot of work and honestly we have more chance of hell freezing over than it ever being implemented but I would vote for that before I would vote for the creation of more states.

By the way, why did one person vote twice, one for yes and one for no?

[bathurst77]

I think we dont need 3 levels of government (federal state and council).
And ithink the states are too big and diverse. I suspect the people of Moree NSW have more in common with the people of Longreach etc as far as community is concerned than they do with Sydney or Wollongong.

The states shoudl be broken up into about a dozen or so regions such as Sydney, Central West,Central Australia, The pilbara etc. But councils should be abolished.
The new regional governments woudl take care of all functions currently run by council and some of the states issues, but major things liek electricity, trains, hospitals and schools, highways and the law would be federal.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by bathurst77

I think we dont need 3 levels of government (federal state and council).
And ithink the states are too big and diverse. I suspect the people of Moree NSW have more in common with the people of Longreach etc as far as community is concerned than they do with Sydney or Wollongong.

The states shoudl be broken up into about a dozen or so regions such as Sydney, Central West,Central Australia, The pilbara etc. But councils should be abolished.
The new regional governments woudl take care of all functions currently run by council and some of the states issues, but major things liek electricity, trains, hospitals and schools, highways and the law would be federal.

So more like the european model of government than the american model, gets my vote if we must change.

[Jim Goose]

Well we can always just keep dreaming! lol

I actually had this same discussion about the three levels of government with a work mate. He also agreed that the state governments needs to go.

Funding for the national highway is already a federal thing.
Hospitals are soon to go this way as well.
A school system which has national parity would help to!
As each state seems to do its own thing?

But like I said before the harder issue would be the Police/ state courts and laws/ the electricity grid, the rail network (id rather keep them government owned then sold off!)

[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.

Should Canberra call the shots with this scenario, there would be no more commonwealth heads of government meetings and no more direct representation of the states at a federal level. If there are regional governments thrown in at the expense of the states and local councils, would Canberra allow the regions the same powers as the states? I hardly think so. What this has the potential to do is replace Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide etc with Canberra doing what Sydney in particular are doing with NSW local councils.

geckoGT, I respect what you say in regards to Australia, anything that makes this nation a better place for all is what we should strive for. Having a central metropolitan area within each existing state that commands the bulk of the spending at the expense of regional areas is not a fair go.

Take Camberwell Common for example. Camberwell is a small Hunter Valley town that exists just to the north of Singleton in amongst coal mines. A major mine next to the community wants the Common as there is coal under it. The town has had this Common for many, many years but it exists as the only buffer between it and the open cut mine. The Sydney government has come in and said that the ground will be explored by the mine and cut up if there is coal. What about the people that live in the town though? Would Canberra do the same to Melbourne if there was a known gold seam under the MCG(bit extreme I know)? Would the pollies in Canberra that represent Queensland and other places in Australia care so much for a bit of ground in another part of Australia, would they?

[BOSHOG]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

In short I will say no. Every state has examples of rural regions contributing the bulk of the states income yet the city area requires a higher level of expenditure (also the vast bulk of the population).

Look at WA, imagine if the Pilbara and Kimberley regions formed their own state, taking all the revenue from mining (about 80% of the nations mining GDP), gas and oil with them. Then the wheatbelt area separates to their own state, taking the bulk of the agriculture dollar with them. Perth would end up a ghost town and each new state would have to form its own new government. The result is we end up with many smaller states, with a much larger, more complex and more expensive government and services system with no increase in money coming in. That would be economic suicide for the nation.

If the Hunter region was to do this, it would set a dangerous precedence that if other areas were to follow, would cripple the nation. I think this idea should be put to bed, permanently.

What is wrong with our country the way it is, I love it?

i love it too, but it does need improvement in areas, and repair in others. i live in the area mentioned by the OP and i dont think this is nesecary

[Raptor]

+1 for do away with the states altogether, 2 levels of govt is plenty.

Major regions/districts whatever you want to call them focus on local issues. Federal looks after health, security, infrastructure etc and stops medling into our daily lives. Decentralise the population from the existing capital cities (we need a major new one in the far north west IMHO, Broome?)

Simpler is better

I'll vote for that.

[fg_nitro]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

What is wrong with our country the way it is, I love it?

A part from the douche bag Politicians who seem to think they can put everyone over a barrell? Nothing really.

[aussie muscle]

The problem with having a northern nsw state would be they don't have a big major city to generate the need tax revenue. that said i support abolish state level govt. i often wished we could join the ACT (i'm southern nsw, same issues apply).

[banarcus]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

The problem with having a northern nsw state would be they don't have a big major city to generate the need tax revenue. that said i support abolish state level govt. i often wished we could join the ACT (i'm southern nsw, same issues apply).

The Hunter Valley/New England area has twice the population of Tasmania and not far off South Australia. It would also contribute more to the nation's GDP than either state also.

I believe what Rapter says will be accepted by most. Why concentrate all of our population into small urban areas dotted about the coast? Decentralise what we have and spread out. Advanced European nations also have states within their national borders which is basically what we have, although over there, many of the states were actually countries or principalities in their own right.

What you say Brazen is how many in my area feel. Take for example the newly introduced hike of car registration fees in NSW to fund metropolitan transport infrastructure: http://news.smh.com.au/drive/motor-n...0222-org7.html

This is yet another example of what we face.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by banarcus

geckoGT, I respect what you say in regards to Australia, anything that makes this nation a better place for all is what we should strive for. Having a central metropolitan area within each existing state that commands the bulk of the spending at the expense of regional areas is not a fair go.

I have lived in rural WA for a lot of years and I have to say I do not see the huge difference between what rural and metro get. The roads are just as good in most country areas, if not better than Perth. Perhaps WA just does it better than NSW (WA does a lot of things better than NSW)Yes there are shortfalls in areas of schools, public amenities, hospitals etc but these shortfalls are predominately in areas of very small population that simply can not justify a hospital in a town of 500 people etc. In such areas this infrastructure has to come from a regional basis and breaking a state up to two smaller states will not change this fact.

What makes you think that when the Hunter Region becomes the State of New England, the new state government is not going to mine the same land? Of course they will because they will need the money.

[rodderz]

For an interesting story google Hutt River Province, which is in the wheat belt of WA, near Geraldton way I think. Years ago a family was sick of the government and started their own micro-nation, they have their own currency, rules, council and is ruled by a king and queen.

http://www.principality-hutt-river.com/

[banarcus]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I have lived in rural WA for a lot of years and I have to say I do not see the huge difference between what rural and metro get. The roads are just as good in most country areas, if not better than Perth. Perhaps WA just does it better than NSW (WA does a lot of things better than NSW)Yes there are shortfalls in areas of schools, public amenities, hospitals etc but these shortfalls are predominately in areas of very small population that simply can not justify a hospital in a town of 500 people etc. In such areas this infrastructure has to come from a regional basis and breaking a state up to two smaller states will not change this fact.

What makes you think that when the Hunter Region becomes the State of New England, the new state government is not going to mine the same land? Of course they will because they will need the money.

I'll have to take your word about WA doing it better than NSW. I don't think I have a basis there to disagree with you there.

Yes, the expense of another state government is a very good point. A new state government in the 21st century could be more like that in the ACT and not necessarily like the state governments of today. Having the Australian Government look after essential services with locals administering it. Having a smaller population DEMANDS less bureaucracy too. Less ministers and departments and less duplication with Federal administration. Adpotion of existing NSW state law but with a greater say in how these laws apply to local communities. Federal police and hospitals, education etc. It needs to less of what we have now and more efficient for tax payers. Is this a challenge too great for the 21st century? I hope not.

For the record, I have no issue with mining. The issue that I have is that we have local government that represents local communities that ultimately gets steamrolled by the Sydney government without proper consultation with locals. Also, the money(royalites) that are gouged out by the Sydney government are not repaid to the local communities. Once upon a time, it was local government that was paid mining royalties.

We have a more recent issue come to light over the minister for planning give my local council 21 days to show why it shouldn't have its planning powers seized by the Sydney government. Why cannot the people of NSW give the Sydney government 21 days to explain why it should continue to mismanage and fragment the state? These feelings are across the state and not just in my area.

It is the lack of representation because of the ever widening of the "city-country divide" that makes these issues harder and harder to get heard because metropolitan areas increase in size and influence. At the beginning of Federation, it was the other way around but as time went by this balance has tilted towards central cities leaving those in regional areas without a voice.

It's about locals controlling local issues.

[castellan]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

We have already too many levels of Government.

The idea of splitting QLD has been spoken of dozens of times.
It simply wont work because it will just add more expense, because we simply dont have the population base to warrant more states.

An idea would be to remove the state government as we know it.
(But state borders remain)

Instead have several councils/ shires amalgamated to form larger districts.
These district boundaries then also become the boundaries for the seats in Federal Parliament.

This would in effect mean that you vote for Mayor (and seats for the councillor) in local elections. And then vote for your district Federal representative who then has a seat in Federal Parliament.

Budget wise the Federal Government then allocates monies directly to each district (meaning your Federal Member is held somewhat accountable for begging for money).

Councils also still raise revenue the usual way from rates etc.....

The only issues would be State Law, Police, and the Electricity grid!
Ambulance and Fire would then go back to like it was in the old days when they had their own districts etc... money would be funded by both Council and Federal Governments.

Obviously the plan has its flaws and the finer details would take forever to work out.
It is just an idea after all........

I think there has only one model where such a government actually worked and prospered and that was in the 1930's Germany. but it was run by a genius. not just some dumb schmuck or the likes of Starlin.

Councils would not have any where near the power of a state to curb or kick out a ratbag in the federal government.

But the far right and the far left would love to get rid of the states for there radical nonsense. and always have.
The number one thing they use is the "we will save money spiel."
How many times have we been told that line
I have a old mate in the liberal party who is a far right toss pot who pushes getting rid of states, he is in love with work choice and starts flapping his wings and crowing about no one will be worse off under it. but in the 19 years i have know him he is just a miserable con artist who does not give a toss for anyone but him self.
One of this country's biggest threats is political correctness.
"Political and truth don't mix." it never has and never will.

[T3man]

Yeah - go for it - but only if you do a package deal with Queensland! We'll get rid of all you troublesome northerners in one hit.

[T3man]

Originally Posted by castellan

"Political and truth don't mix." it never has and never will.

Oh dear, I don't think you can post things like that on this forum - I had a whole thread deleted last week for less. And all I did was quote a pollie!

[fg_nitro]

When you read something like this you have to wonder.

http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-...-1225870850363

So what are we paying for then?

[EgoFG]

I voted Yes, but did not mean it

I Believe that NSW stands for Newcastle Sydney Woolongong.

Everything not included in that should be another state

[banarcus]

Originally Posted by EgoFG

I voted Yes, but did not mean it

I Believe that NSW stands for Newcastle Sydney Woolongong.

Everything not included in that should be another state

Yes EgoFG, when I lived in Orange, many people said that aswell. Believe me, people in the Newcastle-Hunter Region feel just as ripped off as anyone else. Have a look at the Sydney government website and see what has been spent on "stimulus snapshots". The bulk of it is a state wide school computer upgrade funded to the tune of $119M. Other projects haven't even started that are mentioned. Even look at the Tillegra Dam project which the Sydney government states that it is paying for the project. This is wrong. Hunter Water is paying for the dam by charging its customers. The money is not coming from NSW treasury.

[glavas]

Originally Posted by rodderz

For an interesting story google Hutt River Province, which is in the wheat belt of WA, near Geraldton way I think. Years ago a family was sick of the government and started their own micro-nation, they have their own currency, rules, council and is ruled by a king and queen.

http://www.principality-hutt-river.com/

that guy is an idiot!!! there not even recognized by anyone...

[flappist]

Originally Posted by glavas

that guy is an idiot!!! there not even recognized by anyone...

Really?

He has not paid tax or rates for longer than I suspect you have been alive.
HRP passportes have been accepted on various occasions for international travel.

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.

It would be more than funny if it were shown in law that WA is actually still a Dutch colony that has been illegally occupied by Australia since 1901 .

UN peace keeping forces setting up border crossings.
Official language change.
The list is endless and potentially very amusing.

The most important observation is that I am fairly confident that should HRH Prince Leonard of Hutt make a public statement such as yours he would at least try and use somewhat more correct punctuation, spelling and grammar.

[|||]

Originally Posted by flappist

Really?

He has not paid tax or rates for longer than I suspect you have been alive.
HRP passportes have been accepted on various occasions for international travel.

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.

[Jim Goose]

Lord Howe Island is an other isn't it? Tax free zone etc.....
And im sure i have heard of other "principalities" in Australia.
I recall one set up in New Zealand too ? (During the Targa New Zealand it was mentioned they needed passports to enter)

How about it folks??? We all declare ourselves independant? wooo hoooo