Today (over 18months since my last post) I'm going to be writing about the prospects of Australia gaining a 7th state (and not through the 'promotion' of the NT or ACT). A movement I have been following silently online for the past three years. The media over the past couple of years has run stories on the Northern Territory and North Queensland on becoming the 7th state, yet they have forgotten that 45 years ago a referendum was held in northern New South Wales. I'm not going to dabble any more into the history of that, for I am just someone that has been following the developments of this movement in modern times. If after reading this post you'd like more information, I point you in the direction of Jim Belshaw and his blog. New England native (that long ago migrated to Sydney).
New England is well overdue for a referendum on this issue. The reason it was defeated in 1967 was largely due to the Newcastle region voting "No". (in fear they'd lose their share in the sale of milk to the Sydney market; of all things!!).
I've recently surveyed everyone I know in Newcastle that was 18 and over in 1967. They either can't remember what they voted (disinterest, usually means "No") or they remember voting "Yes". When I asked them wether they'd still vote Yes, they all replied Yes. The ones that don't remember all said Yes also.
So that issue that was holding New England back (according to the Ophir Poll of 2011) seems to have extinguished. What's holding the Northern New South Wales (NNSW) region back now? Oh.. the government. That same government that can't even run a city efficiently let alone an entire state the size of France.
So how do we sell the NSW Government the idea of separating?
The state of NSW will be in deficit until 2016/2017. From previous attempts to correct this, we can know that both sides of politics LOVE the idea of selling off assets. Labor wanted our power to be sold off, and it had the liberals divided.
If NNSW was to pitch to the NSW government a plan to purchase all of New England's public assets (schools, hospitals, emergency services) for the right of self government, NSW may bite. This would help NSW with their debt problems despite losing some income. They weren't afraid of losing income when they sold off NSW lotteries so why should this tactic scare them?
It would bring NSW two great advantages
- receiving money for their assets
- having less expenses in the NSW budget
Now, to those nay-sayers who think this can't work because New England technically doesn't have any money to purchase their own assets back from NSW; the NSW government can loan New England the money it needs in which they pay NSW back between 30-50 years. We can't expect something for nothing and it would be unrealistic to buy it all in one big bulk and start off in deficit - we would perish faster than a snow man in hell.
The Sydney Harbor Bridge loan from mother England wasn't paid off in one day (about 23 725 days roughly). Keep that in mind.
Then there's also those who say "Well what about other facilities, such as the Police College in Goulburn which has millions of dollars with of training facilities, we can't afford to rebuild that and everything else we need".
That I also have a very simple (practically FREE) plan for, but it will have to wait until next week as I have splurged more words then I intended.
4 comments:
What you are suggesting, Mitchell, is the equivalent of a battered wife being made to "buy" her own fair share of the joint assets as a condition of the granting of a divorce to escape an abusive dysfunctional relationship.
You forget that we, as taxpayers of northern NSW, have already paid, indeed overpaid, for the limited infrastructure we already have.
I'm not saying this suggestion is the one and only way to accomplish self government, in my opinion it's a last resort at very very best.
But keep in mind that in rare occasions some "beaten wives" leave abusive husbands with nothing in order to start fresh so that there is no connection left with their terrible past. It's never the right way to end terms, but for some unfortunate it's the only way.
Leaving with nothing is one thing, Mitchell, but going into debt to pay for the exercising of a fundamental right is tantamount to unconscionable conduct. And the fact that some are willing to consider such an option is evidence of the extent of the democratic abuse that we are being subjected to.
When the Australian Constitution was drawn up it was accepted that a spouse, no matter how they behaved, had a right of veto over whether a divorce could take place. Our community has come a very long way since then but our Constitution has not. The existing states can still exercise a veto over the legitimate and well justified desire of a region to bring an end to an abusive dysfunctional relationship.
I would imagine that a New England secession from New South Wales would actually involve the new state of New England taking a pro rata share of existing NSW public debt. Surely it would naive to think otherwise. Look at the proposal for Scottish independence from the Britain, this is what is likely to happen there. So the battered wife has to buy her way out regardless.
Post a Comment