Good luck when the mineral deposits are just holes in the ground and the wheatbelt has turned to desert.

I think you should secede.

I'll give you 'til Tuesday to repay all the money from the Eastern states that has propped up WA before the recent mining boom.

What's that? Forgotten about it already? OK, I'll go easy on you. 6% interest, compounded over 100 years should be fair.

Next step is to use the Aus Government's ties to Isolate WA from the US and China, and then a military invasion. I'm sure you'll be happy to work in those mines for free, while paying off your debts.

Yes let them go. It is only a matter of time before the Mining boom goes bust. Then they will have trouble living their profligate lifestyle, of Swimming pools in every garden, Desal plants for water, Bigger and better freeways with the price of oil about to explode.
Yes they will manage very well in their self made desert working for their Chinese masters.

sure sounds fair, after you return all the money we paid propping up the industries in the east with tariffs etc.
price the so called benefit we got , at world market cost, not east australia costs, a quite different figure.
west australia made its money from the world market, with primary production, but had a domestic regulated cost of production imposed on it, a defacto subsidy.

as for the recent mining boom, it’s been going for years/decades and with world market costs applied to cost structure, WA has more then made its contribution to the national interests

As a matter of international law, the idea that secession requires the permission of the original state is not correct. If it was correct, obviously the USA would not exist. Australia and the US are party to UN treaties that declare the fundamental right of self-determination of peoples. This is the basis on which Australia supported e.g. the secession of East Timor.

So it's not true that the right of secession is a moot point.

Also, the argument that the Constitution doesn't permit it is rubbish. (It doesn't permit much of what the federal government does, but that doesn't stop them does it?) In 1900 when the Constitution was adopted, the voting population was about 3 million, of which women and blacks couldn't vote, and only a majority of the men voted for. So by what logic does a minority of the population in 1900 get to decide that a possibly larger number of future people are to be denied the same fundamental human right of self-determination of peoples, and freedom of political association, that the 1900 voters exercised in adopting the Constitution? Such arguments are only confused. They could only make sense if people were a kind of chattel owned by governments.

Interestingly enough, international law does not state how big a seceding group must be. What makes a secession result in a recognised state, as distinct from a group of people merely not obeying the law of the original state, is recognition of the seceded state by other recognised states.

Snake Hill Principality (Google it) is an example of a recently seceded state inside Australia, that is recognised by the US and Canadian etc. governments, and is in the process of seeking UN recognition.

Houllebecq is apparently arguing for the killing of people who disagree with his political opinion.

"As more people become aware of the positive effects of secession, let it not be said that it is an idea only supported by the 'loony right'."

Shhh, don't tell them that. Google searches for 'secession' and 'WA' are likely to lead to information about the glorious Principality of Hutt River - and once folk realise what a brilliant tax dodge secession is, everybody will want to be doing it, and where will that leave Australia?