Got a bit of a retention deficit there Shonkadelic, have we?

Regional communities can make their own laws if they have their own state. And this is too much for you to grasp? We could return police powers that would stop them being treated as punching bags by street thugs. We could put school bullies who comit the crime of assault to weekend detention, but in solitary, so they cannot be further criminalised by other inmates and deprive them of the chance to big note themselves to their mates on weekends. In short, a smaller bureaucracy with fewer layers can respond faster, and consider more alternative solutions, than a large multilayered one.

Suburbs of country towns may look just like city ones but the consistent difference in voting patterns is absolute proof that we do not share your values and do not accept that you have a right to impose them on us. If you don't like our values then stay in your city state and we'll stay in our regional state. Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

"Regional communities can make their own laws if they have their own state."

They shouldn't.
You're the one with comprehension difficulties.
I'm responding to your hypothesis. And rejecting it.

"police powers that would stop them being treated as punching bags by street thugs."

Really? Regional police can't arrest someone who punches them? Like hell!

"We could put school bullies who comit the crime of assault to weekend detention"

And....
If that's such a good idea, why would you only want it in this or that regional area?
Wouldn't you want that nationwide?

If something's such a brilliant idea, surely its proponents goal would be to introduce it *everywhere*.
A national government allows that.

With 37 regional governments, you have to convince 37 different populations and/or ruling parties to support it.

"a smaller bureaucracy"

37 governments is not a smaller bureaucracy at all.
A single national one would be.

(Don't have a spastic over the number 37. I just picked a random number, mmkay?)

"consistent difference in voting patterns is absolute proof"

That the Nationals have a long-standing agreement with the Liberals to not compete.

It is quite understood by voters that they are a coalition.

Where regional districts had a Liberal rather than National candidate, they still voted Liberal.
In QLD the parties have merged.

Australians in general consistently vote for one Tweedle or the other.
Does that mean all alternatives are irrelevant to Australians?

The Democrats, the Greens and One Nation have all received at least 10% of the national vote, but there's usually no regional concentration sufficient to win single-member districts.

Your regional governments would effectively eliminate political choice forever!
Here always Labor, there always National, over there always Liberal.
Forever after (but not "happily" if you're a political "dissident").

A national vote with proportional representation would mean *all* voices, everywhere, are reflected in the result.

Breathtaking mindset, Shonkadelic. By what perversion of logic does the existence of additional states equate to more bureaucracy for a person within a state. Would the residents of Sydney have anything to do with the government of a new state of New North Wales? NO.

And what on earth makes you think it is incumbent on anyone with a good idea to then seek to impose it on everyone else in the country. The very essence of freedom of choice is the freedom of different communities to choose the options that suit their own needs best.

And in any event, your ranting is totally fatuous. It is entirely the prerogative of regional communities to determine their own status. Nowhere, in either the pre-existing British law, nor the UN Conventions on human rights, is a community's right to self determination subject to the veto of people outside that community. The provisions of the Australian Constitution that allow for such a veto are an abrogation of this fundamental principle.

And for as long as it remains in place then metropolitan Australia is relying on the abhorent "wife basher's veto" to maintain their political dominance of a serially abused regional minority that wants nothing more radical than to simply go their own way. The fact that you are so threatened by such a notion merely highlights the squalour of your intent.

Lance Boyle “By what perversion of logic does the existence of additional states equate to more bureaucracy for a person within a state.”

More bureaucracy in total, genius.
Something you argue would result from a *singular* national government.
Talk about perversion of logic! Less is more!

“Would the residents of Sydney have anything to do with the government of a new state of New North Wales? NO. “

Yes, if they're visiting their relatives, going on holiday, driving to Brisbane.
And didn't know that something in their car, which is perfectly legal in Sydney, gets the *death penalty* in NNW.
Or one of the 13 other districts they passed through!

People will also live in *adjacent* districts.
Other side of the street: different laws.

How often are the boundaries redrawn, and on what basis?
What if people contest the chosen boundaries?
What of regions that don't want independence?
What of national issues like defence? We'll all chip in? What if one region doesn't?

“what on earth makes you think it is incumbent on anyone with a good idea to then seek to impose it”

Impose?
You don't impose with democracy (allegedly).

Education. Admonition. Advocacy.
Why keep your brilliant idea just for NNW?

“Nowhere, in either the pre-existing British law, nor the UN Conventions on human rights...”

So Sydney can't impose, but the *UN* has authority over us?
Shouldn't you also be telling those busybodies at the UN to take a hike?
Oh that's right, you're a hypocrite.

How far are you taking this?
There's already been SEVEN looney tunes declaring micronations in Australia.
Can everyone do this? A man's home is his castle, after all.
New nations for every family!
Only $19.99 plus postage.

Isn't “Australia” a community? Isn't that why the colonies united in the first place?

We started dividing *before*.
Then we stopped and united back together!

“wants nothing more radical than to simply go their own way.”

Really? And the vote count for the Rural Separatist Party at the last election?
Oh, no such party.

“the squalour of your intent.”

Ooh, Charles Dickens is jealous.

Dear Shockaholic,

I happen to agree with Lance, perhaps out of different reasons: smaller states are good because they can INCREASE freedom, not limit it, the smaller the better, so if people find laws in their state too oppressive (for example if they forbid some religious practices), then they can move to another.

<<And didn't know that something in their car, which is perfectly legal in Sydney, gets the *death penalty* in NNW.>>

Or vice-versa: won't it be refreshing to pass through a state where you don't have to wear a helmet and seat-belt?

A death-penalty for driving through a yellow light would make such a state so unpopular that it will have no "international" trade, so if its inhabitants want to have a modern economy, then they won't do it. If however they want to remain isolated, then you must respect their choice (otherwise you are a classical colonist).

Realistically, we should expect extensive international agreements on the free passage over linking roads and rail.

(but a bit of flogging for throwing thrash out of the car-window wouldn't be a bad idea...)

<<How often are the boundaries redrawn, and on what basis?>>

Whenever all the property-owners within the new boundaries consent to belong to a different state.

<<What if people contest the chosen boundaries?>>

You can contest where your own property lies.

<<What of regions that don't want independence?>>

Then they may join a commonwealth.

<<What of national issues like defence? We'll all chip in? What if one region doesn't?>>

Heard of NATO? if a state doesn't chip in, then others are not obliged to defend it.

<<You don't impose with democracy (allegedly).>>

Exactly, Allegedly, but it happens all around.

<<Shouldn't you also be telling those busybodies at the UN to take a hike?>>

Yes one should. They have no right to impose their ideas either on non-consenting people.

<<Isn't “Australia” a community?>>

No, it's a continent!

<<Isn't that why the colonies united in the first place?>>

I wasn't there when they did.

Shonkadelic has the kind of brain that is incapable of distinguishing between forming a new nation under the UN and the simple formation of a new state within the Australian Commonwealth, as is already provided for under the constitution of all states and the Commonwealth. They are all one and the same in his head, and all mixed with every possible extreme he can imagine.

And it is the very hyperfertility of his imagination that confirms why regional folk need their own states. He has shown that his understanding of regional community values is so limited and so perverse that he seriously believes there would be a majority vote in any new state for a death penalty for drug possession by Aussie tourists in transit.

The reality is that on the day a new state, of either North Qld or New North Wales, was formed, all the existing laws of the old Qld or NSW would still apply and remain intact until the new parliament decided that they needed ammendments.

The only change will be that the elected state MPs from the region will gather in their new capital just down the road to decide how their own fair share of GST funds will be spent on their own local priorities.

The Shonkadelics of this world would prefer that they all went to Canberra to explain to an endless number of constantly changing bureaucrats why their one-size-fits-all policy doesn't work in their region.