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

[Jim Goose]

Umm.... we went from talking hogwash... to inferior.

Im still waiting for you to explain the hogwash comments

If you have nothing to contribute, why comment?

Seemingly Europe must be inferior to.

Still I wont hold my breath for you to come up with a better system or tell me why "my" system (er that is the system which works in Europe) is inferior.

[SteveJH]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Yes but that is the idea of having a regional government/ council.
It would take care of the same thing that councils provide now and a few other things.
They would still collect rates, building permits etc... keep the usual council by-laws etc...

The region would then get its GST money direct from the Federal Government.

Yes convincing the polititions would be difficult (though im sure some local ones would be interested). However if you got the majority of Australians behind the idea and yelled loud enough im sure it would happen (thats the hard bit!)

Yes its all pie in the sky.. but one has to dream sometimes??

I'd rather have the current system, but fixed up a bit.

The problem with your idea is that there would be either two outcomes. Roads, Infrastructure, Hospitals etc all funded on a local area basis, resulting in little or no benefits from scale, or everything run federally, which would result in scale, but little or no local input.

I like the current system, which is in the middle ground.

What would a highway be like if every 50-100km it entered a different state/county/shire area who is responsible for upkeeping it? What would a hospital system be like where every hospital tries to do everything, even if the person only has a patient of their speciality come into the hospital once a month?

[castellan]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Umm.... we went from talking hogwash... to inferior.

Im still waiting for you to explain the hogwash comments

If you have nothing to contribute, why comment?

Seemingly Europe must be inferior to.

Still I wont hold my breath for you to come up with a better system or tell me why "my" system (er that is the system which works in Europe) is inferior.

I am not on about an alternative, the system we have is the best.

"Hogwash" is your council board governor or head man, would have less sway and power to deal with the federal gov. and the system would be less united to sway one all powerfull leader. you would be like a ant that could be swept aside a lot easier then a state gov.
Europe has a lot of countries that would fit into Australia. she is a big country hear mate. go have a looksee.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by SteveJH

I'd rather have the current system, but fixed up a bit.

The problem with your idea is that there would be either two outcomes. Roads, Infrastructure, Hospitals etc all funded on a local area basis, resulting in little or no benefits from scale, or everything run federally, which would result in scale, but little or no local input.

I like the current system, which is in the middle ground.

What would a highway be like if every 50-100km it entered a different state/county/shire area who is responsible for upkeeping it? What would a hospital system be like where every hospital tries to do everything, even if the person only has a patient of their speciality come into the hospital once a month?

Umm.. you obviously didnt read what was typed....

The National Highways system, doesnt change.
Presently the bulk of national highway is paid for by the Federal gov with the states putting in the rest.

Instead it will revert to 100% funding by the Feds.. again this is what Europe does.
Local roads will be the responsibility of the regional council, as is the case now.
In effect nothing will change except we wont have a state main roads dept.

The hospital system would be Federally funded. (as is the case in Europe).
Nothing will change except where the money comes from. The Hospitals will be run locally... Sorry but I seem to remember that most of the doctors and nurses of this country complaining about the state run hospital system and how the current beaurocraps ;) are not hospital/patient orientated people.

Most of our ports are now corporate entities, some of our rail system, electrcity, airports etc....

Major capitol works would be the responsibility of the Feds (as it should be)
Roads, Rail, ports, hospitals, airports etc etc..

The regional council is there to support and provide local infrastructure in the same way the current council does now. Local roads, parks, malls, sewage, rubbish collection.... nothing changes there.

[SteveJH]

Not all major Intertown roads are National Highways.

Coffs Harbour --> Armidale/Tamworth
Port Macquarie --> Armidale/Tamworth

Quite a few cars and trucks drive roads like that, as they are not national highways, the quality of roads like these would be quite variable under a system like you suggest.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by SteveJH

Not all major Intertown roads are National Highways.

Coffs Harbour --> Armidale/Tamworth
Port Macquarie --> Armidale/Tamworth

Quite a few cars and trucks drive roads like that, as they are not national highways, the quality of roads like these would be quite variable under a system like you suggest.

Im really mystified as to why people keep saying/implying its "my system".
I am saying we adopt the same sort of system in Europe.

Please tell me who currently looks after those particular roads?

If its fully state funded road then the federal government pays for it.
It its currently looked after local council, then local council keeps looking after it.

[castellan]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Umm.. you obviously didnt read what was typed....

The National Highways system, doesnt change.
Presently the bulk of national highway is paid for by the Federal gov with the states putting in the rest.

Instead it will revert to 100% funding by the Feds.. again this is what Europe does.
Local roads will be the responsibility of the regional council, as is the case now.
In effect nothing will change except we wont have a state main roads dept.

The hospital system would be Federally funded. (as is the case in Europe).
Nothing will change except where the money comes from. The Hospitals will be run locally... Sorry but I seem to remember that most of the doctors and nurses of this country complaining about the state run hospital system and how the current beaurocraps ;) are not hospital/patient orientated people.

Most of our ports are now corporate entities, some of our rail system, electrcity, airports etc....

Major capitol works would be the responsibility of the Feds (as it should be)
Roads, Rail, ports, hospitals, airports etc etc..

The regional council is there to support and provide local infrastructure in the same way the current council does now. Local roads, parks, malls, sewage, rubbish collection.... nothing changes there.

I don't agree with feds running the hospitals.
Just you what and see! the out come of this schmozzle, with the feds running it, they are still run by the same type of bureaucratic halfwits.
People have been coned in to believing the problem had to do with it being state run and that is bulls@$t.
In Europe a lot of hospital systems are nothing to wright home about.

We hear in QLD had a very good hospital system under Sir Joh.
But that was before before the feds forced us to get rid of our type of free hospital system and what the feds done was the beginning of the destruction of it ALL!
And my mum said so in the verey begining of it all, because she had experinced it's destructive ways in back in her country of Europe.

[Jim Goose]

We hear in QLD had a very good hospital system under Sir Joh.
But that was before before the feds forced us to get rid of our type of free hospital system and what the feds done was the beginning of the destruction of it.
And my mum said so in the verey begining of it all, because she had experinced it's destructive ways in back in her country of Europe.

When you come up with a good arguement let me know...

The references to Sir Joh really are an insult to the rest of the state.

Seriously bring a decent arguement and stop telling us how wonderful it was under your fav "premier"...

This isnt going to turn into a slanging match about which party and which premier are the best....

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by bungarra

The ACT could be split between the Vics and NSW. Then you couldn't have people complaining about which state gets more or less.

The United Nations tried the same thing with what is known as "Israel" and "Palestine" in 1947. They don't like each other, very much...... at all.

[Jastel]

Four pages about abolishing the states and nobody has mentioned daylight savings, what we will have on our number plates or what our national football code will be.....

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by Jastel

Four pages about abolishing the states and nobody has mentioned daylight savings, what we will have on our number plates or what our national football code will be.....

Im hoping your joking right?

More important things then footy...
It wouldnt be the end of the earth as we know it.

Lets see.... NRL... AFL.... what in the title needs to change?
As I said, the State Borders remain in order to save costs to maps,post codes, land tittles, birth, death and marriage certificates etc...

Um.. we could put.... AUSTRALIA on our plates. We are after all, one country.

[castellan]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

When you come up with a good arguement let me know...

The references to Sir Joh really are an insult to the rest of the state.

Seriously bring a decent arguement and stop telling us how wonderful it was under your fav "premier"...

This isnt going to turn into a slanging match about which party and which premier are the best....

Your obviously off ya tree ya goose,
I am not idolising anyone but just stating facts.
You are just waffling on with eliminating the states will fix all the problems, you are a goose.
Like i have stated competence is the key mate and nothing other will fix the problems.
Did i just see a box going into the hole.

[AussieAV]

No matter what you do, there will always be some groups who want to change the system to better benefit themselves, without regard for the inevitable fact that the same change will disadvantage someone else.

Lets face it, WA would be way better off financially if we seceded from Australia and formed our own country, but where would that leave the rest of the country without the mining dollars. And in a hundred years or so (whenever the ore runs out) we could rejoin and leach off the east. (insert sarcastic tone of voice here!)

Work within the system for fair and equitable change, we are all one country!

As for the continual reference to Europe, we are roughly 75% the land area of Europe. How well do you think Europe would go under one continental government. One could take the view that the individual Countries of Europe are like the States in Australia. We are certainly geographically different enough to need to handle our own unique issues state by state.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by castellan

Your obviously off ya tree ya goose,
I am not idolising anyone but just stating facts.
You are just waffling on with eliminating the states will fix all the problems, you are a goose.
Like i have stated competence is the key mate and nothing other will fix the problems.
Did i just see a box going into the hole.

And you just proved your only here to insult people when they bring forward an idea without coming up with a decent arguement or alternative in this discussion.

A typical responce from someone who has nothing to bring to the table....
Well done, my hat goes off to you.

[RG]

So what exactly do any of the recent posts have to do with the original topic of the thread?

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by AussieAV

As for the continual reference to Europe, we are roughly 75% the land area of Europe. How well do you think Europe would go under one continental government. One could take the view that the individual Countries of Europe are like the States in Australia. We are certainly geographically different enough to need to handle our own unique issues state by state.

Yes we are a bigger land mass, but we are only 25million people.
New York city holds roughly the same population.
Most European countries have 100million people and only have two levels of government to serve them.

Look at QLD and see how for decades the state government has spend the bulk of its money in the Brisbane area. And also look at how the state government interfears with Brisbane affairs.

Most state governments are only concerned about the state capitol because that is where the majority of voters are. They are not concerned how the rest of the state brings in the cash to fund a project in the capitol city.

Yes we are supposed to be one country, but its a fact that rural areas are often treated with contempt and completely forgotten about when the times comes for allocating money.

[russellw]

Can I add a reminder that we will not tolerate insulting comments toward other members.

If you cannot debate your views in a civil manner then there will be some warnings handed out.

I'm reluctant to close the thread, the topic is a valid dicussion and even though it has diverged from where it started, I think it's worth pursuing.

Cheers
Russ

[AussieAV]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Yes we are a bigger land mass, but we are only 25million people.
New York city holds roughly the same population.
Most European countries have 100million people and only have two levels of government to serve them.

Thats why I said we were geographically different enough, not demographically different enough.

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Look at QLD and see how for decades the state government has spend the bulk of its money in the Brisbane area. And also look at how the state government interfears with Brisbane affairs.

Most state governments are only concerned about the state capitol because that is where the majority of voters are. They are not concerned how the rest of the state brings in the cash to fund a project in the capitol city.

Yes we are supposed to be one country, but its a fact that rural areas are often treated with contempt and completely forgotten about when the times comes for allocating money.

You are talking about reducing the number of levels of government, and then state that the current system doesn't allow specific enough government for different areas. You really think a federal government will provide a better level of understanding in regard to money allocation to different rural areas than a state one?

[Jim Goose]

You are talking about reducing the number of levels of government, and then state that the current system doesn't allow specific enough government for different areas. You really think a federal government will provide a better level of understanding in regard to money allocation to different rural areas than a state one?

Please re-read what I said....

There will be a regional council/ government or what ever you decide to call it.
They will decide what is best for their own region, instead of someone 1000km away who has never bothered to visit a rural region.

An area for instance here in Nth QLD could be set up to capture Townsville, Ayr, Home Hill, Bowen and Ingham. Most of the sugar cane of this region is exported through our port and Bowens.

Brisbane for instance would remain isolated as its already a large area with a large population, however a regional council/ government would swallow up the surrounding areas etc...

Those regions will then also encompass a Federal seat within the same boundary as the regional council.
This means DIRECT representation in Federal Parliament.

The Fed then allocates the GST money in basically the same way, but instead of the states collecting it, each region get its money directly from the Fed.

Each region still collects its own rates, building permits, water etc etc as they do now.

[castellan]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

And you just proved your only here to insult people when they bring forward an idea without coming up with a decent arguement or alternative in this discussion.

A typical responce from someone who has nothing to bring to the table....
Well done, my hat goes off to you.

There is noting wrong with the system we have.
We had competent government before 1987 that looked after all of QLD not just Brisbane.
Faith in local councils

[AussieAV]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

The Fed then allocates the GST money in basically the same way, but instead of the states collecting it, each region get its money directly from the Fed.

My point exactly. How can you proclaim that a single authority based in Canberra will better allocate funds to regional areas than the current State based system. Is Canberra somehow more in touch with the needs of, for example, Far North Quennsland, than Brisbane is??? Will they have a better grasp on the infrastructure needs of the Pilbara region than Perth???

Forgive me but I just don't get it.

[xtremerus]

The GST is not distributed back to the states where the revenue originated, even now. Each State does not get back the exact GST that was generated within its own state.
Some states receive more, to the detriment of another state.
On a Fed > regional basis system, the disparity would be even worse.IMO.
Remember that the GST was legislated to go back to the states, but the Federal general major income is spent where it pleases.
That is where I think the problem would come.
If anything, getting rid of the Federal Govt would lead to a more efficient use of revenues for services etc. to the people. But then we would not be 'Australia'.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by AussieAV

My point exactly. How can you proclaim that a single authority based in Canberra will better allocate funds to regional areas than the current State based system. Is Canberra somehow more in touch with the needs of, for example, Far North Quennsland, than Brisbane is??? Will they have a better grasp on the infrastructure needs of the Pilbara region than Perth???

Forgive me but I just don't get it.

Err.. so in other words you havent read what the idea was?

Or do i yet again have to explain it?

The orginal thread is about creating a NEW state in the hunter valley region because the STATE DOESNT care about what goes in regional centres...

I agree with this statement 100%...

However forming a new state wont solve anything.

We dont have the population to warrant 3 levels of government.

Hence the arguement to abolish the state and install regional governments/ councils....

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by xtremerus

The GST is not distributed back to the states where the revenue originated, even now. Each State does not get back the exact GST that was generated within its own state.
Some states receive more, to the detriment of another state.
On a Fed > regional basis system, the disparity would be even worse.IMO.
Remember that the GST was legislated to go back to the states, but the Federal general major income is spent where it pleases.
That is where I think the problem would come.
If anything, getting rid of the Federal Govt would lead to a more efficient use of revenues for services etc. to the people. But then we would not be 'Australia'.

So please tell me where exactly the money from the states come from....

And nowhere has it been said that the exact amount each states pays in GST is given back to each state.

[AussieAV]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

The orginal thread is about creating a NEW state in the hunter valley region because the STATE DOESNT care about what goes in regional centres...

I agree with this statement 100%...

i.e. "Problem and solution identified"

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

However forming a new state wont solve anything.

We dont have the population to warrant 3 levels of government.

i.e. "Previously mentioned solution not feasible"

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Hence the arguement to abolish the state and install regional governments/ councils....

i.e. "Since you can't solve your problem, your next best solution is to impose your problem on the rest of the country"

What a brilliant attitude!!!

Edit: Just read your own statement, to paraphrase you basically said the Hunter Valley should be its own State, since it can't be its own State, Australia shouldn't have States. Are you really going to continue trying to justify this arguement?

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by AussieAV

i.e. "Problem and solution identified"



i.e. "Previously mentioned solution not feasible"



i.e. "Since you can't solve your problem, your next best solution is to impose your problem on the rest of the country"

What a brilliant attitude!!!

Edit: Just read your own statement, to paraphrase you basically said the Hunter Valley should be its own State, since it can't be its own State, Australia shouldn't have States. Are you really going to continue trying to justify this arguement?

Er.. Ok here we go again..

Seemingly some people are only posting on here to bag the idea but in no way how or why it wont work....

I have justified the arguement many times over and over and over....

I NEVER said the Hunter Vally SHOULD have its own state... is this thread so difficult to understand?
The ORGINAL poster stated that because the Hunter Valley is NOT looked after by the state government it should from its own state.

I agree 100% that the State Government does not look after its regional areas.

Please argue that point...

What I dont agree is that forming yet more states will solve the issue of centralisation.
We dont have the population to support 3 levels of government.
If your unable to discuss why you dont agree and set it out, then why post in the first place?

It never ceases to amaze me how people just say " its a stupid idea" yet have nothing to back up why or have an alternative or have any ideas of themselves. Seemingly some just prefer to post comments in order to start a slagging match.


i.e. "Previously mentioned solution not feasible"
WHY?

i.e. "Since you can't solve your problem, your next best solution is to impose your problem on the rest of the country"

My problem??? Exlain what is my problem? I dont live in the Hunter Valley and im not pushing for another state...

What a brilliant attitude!!!

Please show me where the attitude is?
Should I be like everyone else and not give a toss about rural areas?
Should I stop caring that the man on the land has less facilites and crappy roads, no local doctors, lack of schools etc etc etc...

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

And nowhere has it been said that the exact amount each states pays in GST is given back to each state.

It was in the original introduction of the GST.
But Federal Govts then start changing the rules when there is big money to play with.

[AussieAV]

OK Jim, I'm getting confused because you keep contradicting yourself!

In post #113 you state

"The orginal thread is about creating a NEW state in the hunter valley region because the STATE DOESNT care about what goes in regional centres..."

and you then immediately state

"I agree with this statement 100%..."

Excuse me for thinking that when you say you agree with a statement about creating a new state, that you mean you agree with creating a new state.

If you are now saying thats not what you meant, fine, then I understand why you took umbrage to my post #116 as it wouldn't apply. I'm not a mind reader however, was just taking what you wrote at face value.

You then state in post #116
"I agree 100% that the State Government does not look after its regional areas.", and ask me to argue the point.

I can't argue this point as I don't disagree with it. I have no doubt there are areas within each state that aren't getting treated in the ideal way.

You then quote the statements that I posted in post #115 and ask me questions about them. Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, but the statements in BOLD are me paraphrasing your "quoted" comments just above these statements. They are not my thoughts, they are my interpretation of your words as stated in post #113, so I can't expand on them.

All I initially tried to do is express an opinion that your basis of comparing us to European contries is fundamentaly flawed because of our size, and that I think our existing system works OK. Its flawed obviously, but any form of government is. It is impossible to please all of the people all of the time.

I later queried how you can say that taking the States away improves how funding is allocated to regional areas, as the funding allocation would then be decided by people even further removed from the regions than the state governments are. You have yet to answer this query!

Hope we are a bit closer to understandig what each other are trying to say.

[Jim Goose]

"The orginal thread is about creating a NEW state in the hunter valley region because the STATE DOESNT care about what goes in regional centres..."

and you then immediately state

"I agree with this statement 100%..."

Appollogies... I was agreeing with the sentiments that the Hunter Valley is not being looked after by the State Government.

You then quote the statements that I posted in post #115 and ask me questions about them. Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, but the statements in BOLD are me paraphrasing your "quoted" comments just above these statements. They are not my thoughts, they are my interpretation of your words as stated in post #113, so I can't expand on them.

You said "my" solution... (which again i will make clear, is what happens in most of Europe, so its hardly my idea) wasn't feasable? You didnt say why.

i.e. "Since you can't solve your problem, your next best solution is to impose your problem on the rest of the country"

What a brilliant attitude!!!

You then paraphrase my idea (stolen from Europe and most of world I might add) and say that since a solution to the problem cant be found it should be palmed off to the rest of the Country?? Sorry am still very much lost.

The problem is the State to begin with. Our current system doesnt work.
I am constantly hearing (and yes even on this web site) about how the state governments fail the rural areas... This is simply because the majority (I'll re-write it) of the people live in the state capitol, so the state goc is only concerned about them in order to win their votes.

I later queried how you can say that taking the States away improves how funding is allocated to regional areas, as the funding allocation would then be decided by people even further removed from the regions than the state governments are. You have yet to answer this query!

I have posted (much to everyones disgust im sure) many times over and over how the idea works. The regional council/ government (whatever you wanna call it) would cover larger areas instead of just one city.

I'll cut and paste what I said earlier

There will be a regional council/ government or what ever you decide to call it.
They will decide what is best for their own region, instead of someone 1000km away who has never bothered to visit a rural region.

An area for instance here in Nth QLD could be set up to capture Townsville, Ayr, Home Hill, Bowen and Ingham. Most of the sugar cane of this region is exported through our port and Bowens.

Brisbane for instance would remain isolated as its already a large area with a large population, however a regional council/ government would swallow up the surrounding areas etc...

Those regions will then also encompass a Federal seat within the same boundary as the regional council.
This means DIRECT representation in Federal Parliament.

The Fed then allocates the GST money in basically the same way, but instead of the states collecting it, each region get its money directly from the Fed.

Each region still collects its own rates, building permits, water etc etc as they do now.

This means that the local government is directly responsible for the allocation for their immediate district. Not someone 1000km away, but someone within their area.
It also means direct representation in Federal Parliament with the realignment of the Federal Electoral boundaries to be the same as the Regional Council area.
If this isnt fairer then what we have now, what is?

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by xtremerus

It was in the original introduction of the GST.
But Federal Govts then start changing the rules when there is big money to play with.

The states still get the GST, this is where all funding comes from.
The recent debate during the previous PM (before his departure) where the Hospital funding was going to be allocated directly to the hospitals instead of the states meant the states would loose out on allocation of the GST money that was supposed to go to the hospitals. (IE: Their GST would be cut because the Federal Government now hands the money directly to the Hospital)