Talk:Proposals for new Australian states

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ending something magical[edit]

OK, I've gone through and wikified and copyedited the whole article now, but I'm still struck by the fact that there is, nowhere, in the entire thing, a single notable verifiable citation. I would appreciate it if some could be provided by some editors "in the know"... Tomertalk 13:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it is correct (in fact, most of it is correct AFAIK. Might want to try WP:AWNB. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's all correct. While references are ideal, there's nothing in this article that isn't particularly obvious. I'd heard of all of these statehood movements long before this article came along. Ambi 13:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some further reading links - the SMH article should fulfill the N, V, and CITE criteria. Natgoo 14:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thanks. This is exactly what I was looking for. To clarify, I wasn't calling doubt upon the veracity of the claims, I was simply pointing out that there were no citations for any of the assertions made in the article. Tomertalk 15:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum...in case anyone mistook my intent based upon the way I chose to entitle this section of the talk page, let me clarify by pointing out that it was the end of what I started with my first edit to the article, the edit summary of which was "starting something magical"... Sorry for any misunderstandings... Tomertalk 15:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How are states formed?[edit]

The article explains historic proposals for new states and subdivisions, but it doesn't actually cover how a state is formed. Is it a referendum or something to pass into law? --Breno talk 12:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that in the case of Australia, it hasn't been done since the 19th century, and most are from the original English colonies. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From my recollections of studying the Constitution in high school, the state/s out of which the new state would be created would have to have a referendum passed by a majority of it's/their own citizens, and then the citizens of each of the other states must pass referendums by a majority, before the original state passes legislation to form the new state. I don't have time to write something for the article at the moment, but maybe someone else does (or I can get back to this later). Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 02:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, the relevant part of the Constitution is chapter 6. Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 02:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the theory perhaps. I suspect that the reality is that Canberra would have to back any such move... --MacRusgail (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC) p.s. The other problem is that both Canada and the USA have far more precedent for this kind of thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacRusgail (talk • contribs) 22:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some information about what the Constitution says about the formation of states, and yes, the Federal Government does have to approve the formation of a new state. Apparently there is no requirement for referenda of the states either, just the approval of the state/s involved. Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 05:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was editing the same section at the same time, caused much confusion, lol.WA Burdett (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow thanks for the prompt response. Much appreciated. --Breno talk 05:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation[edit]

In several places 'state' and 'states' were capitalised. 'The State' requires a capital only where it is being used in the same way as 'the Crown', not when it is similar to 'the country'. I've corrected those that were wrong. I've also removed the incorrect capital on 'parliaments of the states'. A capital on 'the parliament' may be correct in the singular (if it is being thought of as a legal entity), but not in the plural. Klippa (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Links in part 2[edit]

I might have got it wrong but, the links in part of the article are suspect - they not actually linking to information about the proposed areas - but names associated - I might have got it wrong - but it seems spurious SatuSuro 12:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seperating past and present proposals.[edit]

I'm doing it Phil Ian Manning (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not completely convinced some of these are past proposals. From what I hear, the New England proposal is still ongoing. These things often have a long afterlife, or a low level campaign.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well feel free to move any which you believe are present proposals.Phil Ian Manning (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias around New Zealand becoming an Australian State[edit]

There's too much bias in this article around NZ joining Australia - most of the reasons against NZ joining are immediately refuted within the body of text, at times desperately (ie, "Others argue New Zealand is too far away from the mainland of Australia, although Julius Vogel once stated, Otago was three times as far from the Auckland than it was from Victoria or Tasmania in terms of shipping days") whilst no such thing happens for the reasons for. 94.39.255.86 (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree there is bias because there is no counter argument. The following is my attempt counter argue:
  • Each country has its own currency, which would mean a common currency would have to be created before New Zealand becomes a state. It is not true that a single currency would need to be created. As an example, refer to Banknotes of the pound sterling which describes how the United Kingdom retail banks have the right to print their own legal currency banknotes which is in addition to the Bank of England. This is most commonly seen in both Northern Ireland and Scotland who have their own unique banknotes. In practical terms a Commonwealth with New Zealand and Australia can continue to produce their own coins and banknotes while limiting their geographical use as legal currency.
  • There are also disparities that would lead to conflict within social movements on either side of the Tasman. This is a broad statement. Is it referring to social movements specifically or political or economic disparities? Further, is it referring to disparities that currently exist within each country or potentially between each region? Economic disparities is the easiest to address as it would be based on money polities. For example, if New Zealand and Australia continued to produce their own coins and banknotes a fluctuating (or fixed) exchange rate could be continued so as to avoid artificial inflation within the weakest of the 2 economies. An exchange rate could exist even beyond when the point of economic parity is reached.
  • Three extracts here. There have been fears of New Zealand losing its nuclear-free status and New Zealand also has a Bill of Rights, which is not entrenched, whereas Australia does not, at least at a federal level and Same-sex marriage in New Zealand is legal, unlike same-sex marriage in Australia. Realistically New Zealanders are unlikely to merely accept Australia's Constitution and would seek to negotiate a referendum on such political, ethical and moral ideologies. As the Constitution of Australia is today a State can make any law it so chooses to. Conflict can arise when the Commonwealth and a State has the same law. The Commonwealth has the choice to decide whether or not to override a State law. For example, Industrial relations laws co-exist at both Commonwealth and State level but the Commonwealth doesn't always exert its powers. So New Zealand can have laws regarding its nuclear-free status, Bill of Rights and Same-sex marriage but it would be up to the Commonwealth to override it.
  • New Zealand has stronger administrative and political recognition of the ancestral rights of its indigenous Maori population due to the Treaty of Waitangi. Recognition of indigenous nations at all government levels is important and they do exist in both countries. Legacy issues also exist in both countries. To describe recognition as being stronger or weaker between countries is irrelevant. An erosion of ancestral rights is unlikely as they are too important to ignore.
  • New Zealand also does not have a written constitution, while Australia does. Not only is there the Constitution of Australia but every Australian State chooses to have a Constitution. An Australian State can hold a referendum on whether or not to have a Constitution. Therefore New Zealand, if it was considered a State of the Commonwealth, can maintain a Constitution-free existence.
  • Others argue New Zealand is too far away from the mainland of Australia. Distance is irrelevant. Stupid argument. Who are "others"?
Factrules (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually coming to this talk area to complain about this very thing. While I agree the section is clearly written by someone who wants a union of AU and NZ, I don't think the counter-arguments above are persuasive. If NZ does not accept the AU constitution, does not share a currency with AU and does not share AU law, then how is that any different to the current situation? But I digress.
I think this section should be removed. It is subjective and a statement of opinion. It's not possible to get primary sources to cite the claims made within the section unless a comprehensive poll is taken in both AU and NZ on the matter. Unless I get some arguments to the contrary, I'll remove this section after a brief interval.165.187.10.36 (talk) 03:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What you have noticed in this section is a violation of WP:HOWEVER. I have modified the section accordingly, noting where citations are needed. There is actually no need for polls or primary sources; all we need is a reliable source demonstrating that 'some people' have concern. And actually, at WP we prefer WP:SECONDARY sources to WP:PRIMARY ones. Please note that I only looked at the one section, List of proposed states of Australia § Disadvantages. If you think other sections need similar editing, feel free to try your hand at it - or you could {{ping}} me and let me know what other sections you think I should have a look at. Thanks so much for your input! YBG (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fiji[edit]

Wasn't Fiji considered too? --MacRùsgail (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of proposed states of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of proposed states of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of proposed states of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of proposed states of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Illawarra Province[edit]

This section of the article is unreferenced and I am unsure if it describes a real proposal. It was added by user:Bhill11 in March 2008 and little modified since. Bhill11 edited a few other articles in that month, mostly related to Wollongong/Illawarra, and has made no further edits. Their other contributions seem largely unremarkable; a seemingly outlandish claim that Wollongong city council voted to defect to France as a protest of the Iraq War is actually true, which is why I have not simply deleted the claim in this article. Perhaps it is legitimate! But it needs citations to prove this, and so I am making this call for someone to add them if they can confirm the reality of this proposal.

A simple search of newspapers on Trove for "Illawarra Province" turns up a meagre four hits, all irrelevant shipping news. I just flicked through Jim Hagan's chapter on Illawarra politics in the book he edited with Andrew Wells, A History of Illawarra, and he makes no mention of a separation movement. Does anyone have a source for verification? Axver (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proposals_for_new_Australian_states&oldid=1209885560"