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

[AussieAV]

The unfeasible solution I was referrig to was the formation of the State of New England, which I now realise you weren't saying. Lets drop this part, obviously its just about us thinking that the other is referring to something else and getting further and further from what we originally meant.

As to the Regional government part I get what you are saying ( at least I think so). I'll put it in my own words so you can set me straight I'm on the wrong track.

Basically you're suggesting Regional Government bodies the size of what would currently be a few local councils amalgamated together, but with greater power over the running of their region and how their funding is spent. These regions also have direct parliamentary representation as they are also Federal seats. This bit I get, not saying I agree with it entirely, but some positive concepts in there.

The bit that I'm questioning is when you say "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."

What is the process the Fed will use in deciding how much funding each region gets? Isn't this going to be just as likely to have some areas complaining they are the poorer cousins to other regions, and aren't being treated fairly. What I'm trying to say is won't having one entity (The Fed) determining how much goes to each region be even worse than the States doing it. The Fed can't possibly be "more in touch" with each region's needs than the current State Govt, when it is, by definition, "further removed". Surely the need for the State Level still exists, even in your model?

[Jim Goose]

Ok yes i think we were poles apart !! lol

Ok... I'll give an example of how the funding "should" work.
Which is really not much different to how it happens now only the State is out of the picture.

The regional council collects income from its rates etc... as it does now.
So nothing changes there.
Obviously there will more then likely be a shortfall in having enough money to provide its community with services.
This is where the Fed comes in.

The regional council submits its budget (via its Federal Member) on the running of its own community.
As an example: They collected $50million in rates, fees etc etc...
The council then says in order to provide its basic services it needs $70million
The Fed then provides the shortfall in GST money/taxes what ever....

However when it comes to major projects, such as a footy stadium, airport upgrades, major road upgrades (other then the national highway) etc... then the council does the same thing it does now (so nothing changes there)... and beg for the money to be allocated.

Remember that the Fed takes over the national highway funding, major projects like International airports, ports, rail , electricity, phone services etc etc are all looked after federally.

Also remember to that a lot of our services are corporatised already. Some rail services for instance, electricity providers, most airports are private (yet get federal money).

In reality the middle man (the State Parliament) is gone.
However State borders will remain for "paper work" purposes, land tittles, birth certificates, maps, etc etc....

One set of national road rules
One drivers licence
One set of rego fees
One set of Criminal laws

Yes of course there will be the usual issues of becoming a "king pin" and creating a regional empire, but that happens now.

They have mooted for NTH QLD to form its own state (yet again) because we arent served well by the State Gov we have (ever since QLD formed). However as i pointed out in my responce in the previous pages of this thread, it wont solve anything because we arent ready to form a state capitol for a start!

[AussieAV]

OK, see where you are coming from, but I think that it falls down in one major area. The assumption that the Fed is going to give the regions whatever they say their budget needs are. They'll have as many issues with funding allocation as the States do. Governments (State/Federal/or Local) do not go out of their way to p*** people off. If they had enough money to grant everyone their wishes they would - guaranteed way to get perpetually re-elected.

You appear to be suggesting a monumental change in government structure based on the assumption that its the type of representation an area has that will determine their funding.

I think there are certainly ways that the current system could be tweaked to be more effective, efficient and equitable, and better service rural Australia. Maybe greater representation of rural areas in the State Govt.

Some of your ideas have a lot of merit like National Road Rules, National Criminal Code, but IMO the need for State Government still exists. I think there are certainly many areas where the scope of the State Govts power/responsibility could be adjusted (a whole new debate). Maybe some handed down to the current local govt level, some up to Federal level, but the State level still has its place.

The needs of Tasmania would be very different to those of WA, and wouldn't want some politician in Canberra being the one telling either of us what they were!

[Jim Goose]

Yes I understand the funding issues, but currently (and im not 100% sure how it works) each council receives a sum of money in order to run things now from the State government.
Essentially all that changes is where the money comes from.
A government denying council money for essential services is political suicide.
It could resolved in legislation im guessing (more then likely this is written into state law now with council funding?)

The "pork barrelling" of what would be described as "nice to have" things like a sports stadium etc is where the begging comes into effect.

As an example (and I wont go into too much detail as I dont want other people to start a political slangging match) a few years ago the state allocated millions (a 100 or so) on a whim to fund a new footy stadium in the south east corner of the state. Yet all the while our hospital was crying out for more funds as it had (and still is) at crisis point.

[DJM83]

Do any of you guys realise that there is more to NSW then Sydney and the Hunter? I used to live in the south lof NSW and i can tell you this area is a little more neglected then the
N= Newcastle
S=Sydney
W= Wollongong areas

[AussieAV]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

A government denying council money for essential services is political suicide.

Good point, and just as valid for the current State system.

Any area can improve injustices or inequities by taking some action. Write to your local member (State and Federal if you like). Tell them what issues you think need addressing. At campaign time, write to the main political rival as well. If you can get like minded people to sign a petition, all the better. You are right, politicians worry about re-election and we need to be vocal about what we expect them to do to earn that re-election.

Look at all the different groups that seem to get funding for ridiculous ventures, or some of the stupid laws that activists manage to get passed. This happens because they make noise about what they want, they get in the politicians faces until they give in.

The problem is most of us (me included) complain about whats not being done, but don't exercise our right to hassle our local members until they do something about it.

[castellan]

One set of national road rules. = it can't be done.
One rego fees. = some are going to loose out.
One set of criminal laws. = more injustice to those who need help.
Sounds good on the surface to the average dude, but when ya get into the depths of it all, it's just nonsense.
Just like communism.

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Yes I understand the funding issues, but currently (and im not 100% sure how it works) each council receives a sum of money in order to run things now from the State government.
Essentially all that changes is where the money comes from.
A government denying council money for essential services is political suicide.
It could resolved in legislation im guessing (more then likely this is written into state law now with council funding?)

The "pork barrelling" of what would be described as "nice to have" things like a sports stadium etc is where the begging comes into effect.

As an example (and I wont go into too much detail as I dont want other people to start a political slangging match) a few years ago the state allocated millions (a 100 or so) on a whim to fund a new footy stadium in the south east corner of the state. Yet all the while our hospital was crying out for more funds as it had (and still is) at crisis point.

And thats because the seats that surrounded that Stadium had the power to decide the fate of the government.

Maybe if North Queensland could turn over its seated pollies a bit more often they'd reap the benifits.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by castellan

One set of national road rules. = it can't be done.
One rego fees. = some are going to loose out.
One set of criminal laws. = more injustice to those who need help.
Sounds good on the surface to the average dude, but when ya get into the depths of it all, it's just nonsense.
Just like communism.

And yet again your unable to tell us why....
So you cant have nationwide road laws?
Sorry... I suggest you do some research.
Standardised road rules across the country was something which was decided many years ago.

Someone will loose out on rego fees?
You mean its fairer that some states charge double the rego of other states?
More injustice because? Why?
Again the laws across the country are already pretty much in line with each other....

Ahh.. we went from Hitler, to Liberal Communist, to Sir Joh to Communism..

Tell me 10 nations which have 3 levels of goverment, apart from the USA.

And again, just in case you missed it : EUROPE (and most of the third world) does not have 3 levels of government.

France, England, Germany, Spain, Italy... by your standards are then "Communist" nations....

So again, if you dont want to provide a basis for your conclusions, why post?

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by AussieAV

Good point, and just as valid for the current State system.

Any area can improve injustices or inequities by taking some action. Write to your local member (State and Federal if you like). Tell them what issues you think need addressing. At campaign time, write to the main political rival as well. If you can get like minded people to sign a petition, all the better. You are right, politicians worry about re-election and we need to be vocal about what we expect them to do to earn that re-election.

Look at all the different groups that seem to get funding for ridiculous ventures, or some of the stupid laws that activists manage to get passed. This happens because they make noise about what they want, they get in the politicians faces until they give in.

The problem is most of us (me included) complain about whats not being done, but don't exercise our right to hassle our local members until they do something about it.

I found that writing letters to public servants/ politicians a waste of time and im sure others have as well.

You are 100% right about how some minority groups are heard more (its their right after all to protest) because they havent lost their will to fight, because they are fighting for something which directly affects them.

And yes I think you hit the nail on the head there with your last paragraph.

I can remember in the 70s and 80s seeing protest after protest march on TV here in QLD. Now?

[castellan]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

And yet again your unable to tell us why....
So you cant have nationwide road laws?
Sorry... I suggest you do some research.
Standardised road rules across the country was something which was decided many years ago.

Someone will loose out on rego fees?
You mean its fairer that some states charge double the rego of other states?
More injustice because? Why?
Again the laws across the country are already pretty much in line with each other....

Ahh.. we went from Hitler, to Liberal Communist, to Sir Joh to Communism..

Tell me 10 nations which have 3 levels of goverment, apart from the USA.

And again, just in case you missed it : EUROPE (and most of the third world) does not have 3 levels of government.

France, England, Germany, Spain, Italy... by your standards are then "Communist" nations....

So again, if you dont want to provide a basis for your conclusions, why post?

You read into things to far mate, drawing radical conclusions.

Of course you can have nationwide road laws. but the reasons behind why we don't is simple and it makes sense when you look into it. but we will get there.

I do think it's OK for some states to pay more for rego than others.

Injustice! i am not going to go there but the laws are so, for a reason so go find out why yourself. why should i have to hold your hand with every thing.
I am not going to wright a thesis for you on this forum.

There are Liberal socialist around mate, but no Liberal commies.

I have never said that those countries are commie's mate.

I will give you a conclusion of your basis, you are a socialist and you are trying to undermine a very healthy democratic insurance policy that we have in the powers of "the states". you have not come up with anything worthy of any merit to justify dissolving our state powers. not one!

[Jim Goose]

See there you go again.... keep proving my point.
But thats way it is isnt it?
Keep attacking someone personally in their views (and make the usual assumptions, your a commie, your a leftie, your a socialist, your not a real aussie, blah blah blah) because you dont like the discussion.
Mate I have heard it all before
Very predicable...

Its a simple request... bring something to the discussion.
Is it too hard?
Apparently so..

[banarcus]

A little bit more to keep the thread grinding along.

There has been a fair bit of anger here in the Hunter Valley over the lost opportunity of a major commercial development based within the old Newcastle CBD. Dithering about by the NSW (Sydney) Govt over the issue of the railway that the developer wanted ripped up. The people here want leadership, not a dithering a "NSW" State Govt that is always pre-occupied in metropolitan pork barrelling poll driven schemes.

Newcastle Herald story on what our Premier says a day or two after a Herald story on Sydney Govt inaction. Reader comments give a little insight on how locals feel:
http://www.theherald.com.au/news/loc...36.aspx?page=2

An interesting piece from a Sydney academic who wrote a comment in the above story:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/societ...827-13vx4.html

There have been a few different opinions thrown up here within this thread about whether new states are solution to existing capital city states and general decentralisation. For an interesting read over old arguments and current arguments in view of the renewed push for new states, have a look here: http://newenglandaustralia.blogspot....w-england.html

[banarcus]

Well the leader of the NSW opposition has announced that there will be a Hunter Valley based infrastructure body to oversee infrastructure projects in the Hunter Valley. Now this is a good idea, a Hunter based panel that knows where the money should be spent. The opposition want to use the money that is saved from scrapping the much unloved Tillegra Dam and use this money on Hunter based infrasture projects. The problem here is that the Dam in question is being funded by Hunter Water customers. In other words, diverting water bills to this fund.

So what Barry O'Farrell is saying is that the Hunter Valley can have it's own panel to oversee and spend on projects within the area and spend money that really comes from rate payers. This in other words is a user pays infrastructure program.

What Barry O should do is get his calculator out and do some sums. Perhaps he and his cronies should properly investigate what the Hunter Valley contributes to the entire NSW economy and start putting some real coin back into the area.

We in the Hunter have really no one to turn to. Both parties, Labor and the Coalition have no real idea about this area. A true alternative to what we have is a Independant running for every Hunter based seat and form an alliance for the good of the area rather than depending on Hunter Labor and Coalition MPs serving their metro-centric masters. Maybe then, this area will start getting what it rightfully deserves!

Coal seam gas is yet another thing that threatens local wineries and farmers. Yet another reason why the people here should be governed by people who live in the area and not in some distant metropolis where the effects of polluted aquifiers will never be experienced.

[Citric GT]

My experience is that novocastrians think the whole country revolves around them and thier coal.

We already have a "minister for the hunter". Do any other areas in NSW have thier own minister?

Having said that. I have to admit that the Singleton/Muswellbrook areas have been turned into traffic filled dust holes with all the mining. I drive coal trains in the area every day and believe me the dust is a joke. At night the dust in the beam of the loco headlight looks like rain it gets that bad (especially around newdel/draytons)!

[banarcus]

I agree with your point about how Novocastrians think Citric GT. I'm not a Novocastrian though and I speak about the whole Hunter Region and not just the Lower Hunter. The major political parties play off local government rivalries and promote divide and rule. If every state seat within the Greater Hunter was represented by an independant that was aligned to the area, then we would collectively have a greater voice in parliament and maybe hold the balance of power to get then get a better deal for our area.

[Legit290]

yeah there should be...see ya mexican queenslanders