Hmmmm. No comments at all eh?

I wonder why that is. Surely there would be OLO respondents interested in this subject.

I guess it is for two reasons:

1. No one can make a judgement on how real or significant the gains mentioned in the article might be and

2. The concept of Tasmania as part of Victoria just doesn’t sit at all well with the psyche, especially given that it is such a discreet place, being an island, and would still be referred to as Tasmania by one and all. The idea of merging it with Victoria, while possibly pragmatic, just seems completely fantastical.

I agree that it really is too small both in area and population to constitute a state, compared to the other states. But then there is enormous variation in size and population among the mainland states.

I would like to see a complete revamp of our governmental system from three tiers to two, with the lower tier comprising populations averaging on about 300 000. That would mean about 70 states, provinces or whatever we may call them.

Those in the major cities would have considerably more than 300 000 people, while those in the sticks with very large areas could have perhaps as little as 100 000. Thus a combination of area and population, and perhaps other factors such as landuse, rural/urban composition, productivity, environmental health and future projections for growth, could be used to define new states.

This would hopefully lead to a better provision of services and an elimination of the perception (or perhaps reality) of expenditure being concentrated in population centres to the detriment of the bush.

Qld Premier Beatty has launched a review of local government in Qld, with the strong suggestion of many amalgamations.

Well perhaps it is time for this to happen on a national scale, along with the elimination of current state governments!