For the record, I live and work on both sides of the NSW/Qld border and more than a million Queenslanders visit northern NSW every year. And aside from the usual "clock molestation", and the fact that "P" platers from Qld have to either drive at 80km on the NSW side or take their plates off altogether, there is not the slightest impact of a change of state.

There is more evidence of a lack of their own state for that region than there is evidence of good governance from Sydney. The new state of New North Wales would already have reactivated the Murwillumbah rail line and extended it to the Gold Coast line. The list is endless.

Yuyutsu "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"

Small could be even more prone to oppression, as it encourages people with extremist views to *accumulate* in those areas, making reform impossible.

A large population means any extremist tendencies can be countered by other more sensible people, especially under proportional representation.

"they can move to another."

Why should they have to move? This is supposedly a liberal democratic *nation*, not a collection of just-for-my-kind mini-tyrannies.

"won't it be refreshing....where you don't have to wear a helmet and seat-belt?"

Indeed. So promote your reform to the voters (not the bureaucrats, Lance).
Regional variants mean you have to (a) know what all their laws are and (b) keep taking your helmet/seatbelt on and off and on and off...

"so unpopular that it will have no "international" trade"

If there's only one state growing sugar cane, you buy its sugar, death penalty be damned.

"extensive international agreements on the free passage over linking roads and rail."

The existing states couldn't even create a universal rail gauge.
Good luck with 37 states agreeing on anything.

"Whenever all the property-owners consent.
You can contest where your own property lies."

Back to the propertied gentlemen franchise?
Party like it's 1899!

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

"Then they may join a commonwealth."

Been there, done that.

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

"Exactly, Allegedly, but it happens all around."

The problem there is the Tweedle-biased electoral system.
Solution: PR and CIR

"They [UN] have no right to impose..."

But won't "Australia" still be a member?
You are arguing for more *states*, right, not "nations"?

"No, it's a continent!"

Hilarious!
We're the *only* continent that's a nation.
There's a reason for that. One predominant ethnic population. A community.

Lance Boyle "incapable of distinguishing between forming a new nation under the UN and the simple formation of a new state within the Australian Commonwealth"

I know the difference (and you don't need UN consent, just guns).
What you ignore is that *seven* such nations have already been declared, and you would only be encouraging more.

Lots of mini-states encourages ghettos of alternate societies.
You think they'll be content to just be a "state" for long, when they don't identify with their neighbours?

Newsflash: there are separatist movements all over the world, calling for new *nations*, not just new subdivisions of nations (many of those separatists *already have* self-governing regional districts).

"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."

Never mentioned drugs.
Actually, capital punishment is very popular with your oppressed-by-Sydney country people.
It's those limp-wristed city folk that don't like it.

Speaking of tourists, you're ignoring the impact of 37 different legal systems on foreign tourists (a major source of GDP).
They also need to know the laws.
A singular national legal system makes it a little easier, yes?

"all the existing laws of the old Qld or NSW would still apply and remain intact until.."

Duh! They would also remain intact until the new singular national government supersedes them. What's your point?

"their own fair share of GST"

Oh really. Tasmania is notorious for requiring financial support from the rest of us.
And you want to create 37 Tasmanias!

National funding doesn't need to be "apportioned" per capita/per square kilometre/etc.
It can be spent where it's *needed*, regardless of regional population or land size or wealth-generation.

"For the record, I live and work on both sides of the NSW/Qld border...there is not the slightest impact of a change of state."

Wait until you have *six* adjacent borders (at least one ruled by self-ghettoising extremists) and see the impact.

Dear Shockadelic,

<<A large population means any extremist tendencies can be countered by other more sensible people, especially under proportional representation.>>

Proportional representation is excellent in any case, but what if you ARE an extremist? even that won't help you then!

(extremists are those who wish to lead an extreme way of life, not necessary to impose it on others)

<<Why should they have to move?>>

One can and should struggle for a while against injustice, but there are many who don't select fighting-windmills as their vocation.

<<This is supposedly a liberal democratic *nation*, not a collection of just-for-my-kind mini-tyrannies.>>

*SUPPOSEDLY* is the keyword. *Nation* is what kindi-teachers tell their little subjects. By the age they understand that Santa doesn't exist, they understand the same about that "nation" business.

<<Indeed. So promote your reform to the voters>>

Is has been tried, not once, but when the system doesn't even allow you to bring about proportional representation...

Say my dream is to one day ride a bicycle (without a helmet of course), then I may wait that many years, but unless I have a politician's blood, there comes the day to leave for greener pastures.

<<If there's only one state growing sugar cane>>

Unlikely for small states. Just grow it elsewhere.

<<Solution: PR and CIR>>

Yes, but who will let you?

Moving such a big country is too heavy, especially if you have no patience to wait for your next reincarnation to ride a bicycle.

<<You are arguing for more *states*, right, not "nations"?>>

Either, but I was more thinking in line of a confederation of independent countries.

<<We're the *only* continent that's a nation.>>

The Soviet Union had a larger area and claimed the same.

<<A community>>

I am over the age of 6-7 to believe in fairy-tales, thanks.
http://www.mydfz.com/Paxton/lyrics/wdylis.htm

There appears to be very little of value to be gained from further discussion with Shonkadelic. On one hand he claims we are all just one big homogenous community while at the same time arguing that regional communities with their own state cannot be trusted to refrain from introducing the death penalty for minor breaches by passing tourists from existing states.

And he has also provided unambiguous evidence that he is just a squalid old metro tyrant who hasn't the faintest hesitation in imposing his will on anyone else with a callous disregard for whether it even works. We should thank him for giving regional Australians such a clear demonstration of why the urban majority is unfit to govern anyone but themselves.

And it is all so boorishly predictable. Some urban punter seriously believes he has the right to impose a particular mix of local and state level powers on every one else. As if there is some sort of critical intellectual capacity to be gained by spending the first hour of each working day with your nose up a buses muffler.

Readers should also note that what new staters have been talking about is a couple of new states within the commonwealth while this goon raves about the supposedly insurmountable problems caused by having 37 states. As if there was the slightest advantage or logic to busting up Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth into separate state level units of 500,000 people each?

Such an extrapolation to absurdity is evidence enough of a reluctance to discuss the issue in good faith. But he then goes on to imply that they would all rip up their existing rail systems and, contrary to their own obvious interest, perversely install incompatible track. Does he not realise that the existing rail differences are due to the fact that railways were in their infancy when those colonies were founded?

Enough with you now. You have babbled on for far longer than any good that you might have contributed. I have regional voters to talk with.

Fairytales? Santa?

What exactly is your philosophy, Yuyutsu? Nihilist individualism?
If so, you are the extremist, and will never achieve your aims in a million reincarnations.

If “community” and “nation” are just bedtime stories, what's with your proposed confederation?
On what basis do you divide the map? Arbitrary lines drawn while blindfolded?

“Proportional representation is excellent in any case, but what if you ARE an extremist? even that won't help you then!”

Good. But you still get your input.

Our society is liberal. You can be quite extreme in lifestyles, beliefs, opinions, provided you don't break the law.

You could ride without a helmet before.
The law changed because a *handful* of people's opinions changed.
It could change back again too.
Nobody lives forever or stays in power forever.
There's always new kids on the block.
Kids who hated wearing helmets growing up.

“Just grow [sugar cane] elsewhere.”

That's the problem. You don't have many options in Australia.
We have a handful of cities with any industrial infrastructure and a small strip of arable land for farming. Crops need the right climate.

“Moving such a big country is too heavy”

It's a big continent, but not a big population.
You only need to convince a certain percentage (not a majority) to get the issue moving.
Look at gays. A few drag queens on Oxford Street or Stonewall Inn, and Whammo! Everything changes almost overnight.

Also, court decisions can overturn laws or policies.
One case and everything changes. One.

Or in the case of 37 governments, 37 cases. Yikes!

“I was more thinking in line of a confederation of independent countries.”

Like the European Union? Everyone loves them.

“The Soviet Union had a larger area and claimed the same.”

Union of Soviet Socialist *Republics*, plural.

It was a continuation of the Russian Empire. Only the ideology changed.
Empires are not nations.

They could never be truly unified, that's why they had so many ethnically-based administrative districts.

Australia has one predominant ethnicity, virtually everywhere.

Only exception: Aborigines in and near NT.
And we've seen how well self-administration works there, eh?