Quote:
|
Originally Posted by banarcus
Hey guys, there are others that have a different solution to the problem of capital city states that we have today.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-1225850074371
Note comment 35 of 40:
" The idea of decentralising population centres and moving the NSW capital has ALOT of merit. Incidentally it was proposed nearly 40 years ago to have Newcastle become the capital of a new state called New England. As it stands, the Hunter region (both lower & upper, Lake Macquarie, Port Stephens & Maitland) has 10% of the NSW population, provides 22% of the GDP, 30% of the exports & $600M in mineral royalties. When it comes to services such as policing, health, education, art, roads & courts our return is on these metrics a pathetic 2-5%. Pathetic. Propping up Sydney should no longer be tolerated. We deserve our fair share or a new state. Or even no states altogether.
Our forefathers believed that we would have more states that what we started off with at the time of Federation. As regions grew, they envisioned more states so that each region, as it grew, was to be established as a new state within the Commonwealth. This is what regional government in todays language meant in 1901, more states to represent regional growth and identity. More "regional governments" to represent growing regional populations. |
I have no arguments there, however a small "state" would bog down simply because it cant support the paper weights required for a council and state in a small area. Its a duplication not worth paying for.
Regional government is worth a go, as the current system is killing us.