Sensational-Adelaide.com

Seriously shut the fuck up, Aidan.

Aidan wrote:

JamesXander wrote:Hello everyone!

I have been brain storming for a project of mine in regards to the benefits and downfalls of South Australia declaring independence (leaving the federation). And who better then the good folk of Sensational-Adelaide to provide feedback, to the state (former?) and city they love.

OK, you asked for it...

The idea is a complete nonstarter. Most aspects of the plan would make things worse for SA, and I don't think a single one of them would make it better.

First off my reason for doing this. Simply, South Australia has struggled since the late 80's.

South Australia has struggled for a lot longer than that, despite the boom of the early 80s.

ABS figures show that this trend is not going to change in the foreseeable future...if ever. We have a brain drain, a population drain & general economic malaise. Yet we sit here and just cop it all. What changes can we do in this federation to change this? Nothing.

Actually there are several things: better infrastructure, including a railway under the City. State tax reform, with a higher proportion of the revenue from a broader based land tax. Efforts to actively reduce the cost of living (as used to be done with the Housing Trust) and state awards set lower than national and interstate awards, so that some of the benefits of the lower cost of living flowed through to business.

The mining boom has appreciated the dollar so much that manufacturing is uncompetitive, infact basically any export driven sector is now uncompetitive except for the mining sector...which SA has a pitiful slice of. WA etc complain they subsidise this state when infact they are only giving back a portion of the damage their resource driven exports are causing us (Dutch Disease...google it)

I think we've all heard of Dutch Disease, but you're misattributing the problem. Our dollar is to high because the Reserve Bank set interest rates too high, encouraging our commercial banks to borrow from overseas instead, and encouraging foreigners to park their money in Australia. Setting interest rates lower would get our dollar back to a more competitive level, though due to the mining boom it would still be higher than before. But there's plenty of mining in SA as well, even though it's nowhere near as lucrative as WA's mining yet.

Adelaide is currently the smallest mainland state capital, its size means that it is not seen as important. Not many companies are headquartered here. SA in a political sense is not seen as important and no fundamental changes have been attempted to remedy our predicaments. We are getting older, less wealthy and falling further behind in almost every category when compared to the average 'Australian. Whilst my proposal looks mainly economic in nature, we are also looking to retain and attract new peoples to this state...

Brisbane and Perth used to be smaller than Adelaide, but they didn't need to secede in order to gain important status.

So our proposal for a new country must do the following... have economic outcomes which attract business and therefore employment in South Australia. An economic future which is sustainable and realistic. Social outcomes which retain and attract people, this can be through the loosing of laws which are seen as too government involved (gay marriage, the loosening of cannabis laws, free speech, human rights bill etc...some of these being symbolic, but symbols are powerful things when it comes to perceptions) But also smaller scale planning changes... encouraging inner city living, a cafe culture etc. Political changes.... A republic , that make people feel empowered.

A republic making people feel empowered??? Thats a laugh - everyone knows republicanism's a distraction issue raised by politicians when they know they're in trouble. Most people really don't care about it. Besides, wasn't support for it lower in SA than in other states last referendum?

(individual points will be addressed shortly.)

Too complicated to answer under each one so Ill just address in a general come back.


First off you pick out the point that SA has struggled since before the 1980's, and I am assuming you accept that SA has a brain and population drain. Economically we are the weakest mainland state/territory. And all the ABS data suggests nothing is going to change. So where is the end game for SA? Just accept it? I mean seriously our population is basically going to stagnate for the next 20 years, but get ridiculously older. The wealth gap will only get wider.


I believe some of the things you suggest are highly unlikely to reverse the problems this state faces. I mean, honestly shifting to a broader land tax? I don't reckon i have ever read that suggestion...anywhere? I've heard of lowering pay roll tax to encourage employment? I believe we have some of the highest land taxes as it is..?


Brisbane and Perth are very much different to Adelaide. Perth has done well off the resources within its state. It has a competitive advantage in this regard, and will do for the foreseeable future. Brisbane being the capital of a state that although you could easily say has not been well run...well in living memory, its climate and geography has been an attraction for many Australians to move to. QLD's population growth, partly also fuelled recently by the coal boom, has been its competitive advantage.


I don't see how having a South Australian head of state wouldn't make the South Australian public feel a bit more empowered. I mean, I currently support our status quo, but for this theoretical situation i think it would have its positives.

JamesXander wrote:

First off you pick out the point that SA has struggled since before the 1980's, and I am assuming you accept that SA has a brain and population drain. Economically we are the weakest mainland state/territory.

We were the weakest mainland state before federation, which is one of the reasons why Croweaters were the leading proponents of federation.

And all the ABS data suggests nothing is going to change.

The ABS looks at where we've been, not where we're going. A change in strategy at Olympic Dam could make all the extrapolation worthless.

So where is the end game for SA? Just accept it? I mean seriously our population is basically going to stagnate for the next 20 years, but get ridiculously older. The wealth gap will only get wider.

Of course we shouldn't just accept it - I've already listed some things we should do to address the situation.

I believe some of the things you suggest are highly unlikely to reverse the problems this state faces. I mean, honestly shifting to a broader land tax? I don't reckon i have ever read that suggestion...anywhere? I've heard of lowering pay roll tax to encourage employment? I believe we have some of the highest land taxes as it is..?

The money has to come from somewhere, and land value can be taxed with almost no ongoing negative economic impact.

Brisbane and Perth are very much different to Adelaide. Perth has done well off the resources within its state. It has a competitive advantage in this regard, and will do for the foreseeable future. Brisbane being the capital of a state that although you could easily say has not been well run...well in living memory, its climate and geography has been an attraction for many Australians to move to. QLD's population growth, partly also fuelled recently by the coal boom, has been its competitive advantage.

SA is also a mining state, with a climate more pleasant than that of Queensland. Our time will come!

I don't see how having a South Australian head of state wouldn't make the South Australian public feel a bit more empowered. I mean, I currently support our status quo, but for this theoretical situation i think it would have its positives.

Why would we feel more empowered when it wouldn't enable us to achieve any more?
Did having Peter Hollingworth as Governor General make the South Australian public feel a bit more empowered?

[Shuz] wrote:Seriously shut the fuck up, Aidan.

Indeed. Making points so ridiculous, it's not even worth bothering with.

Aidan wrote:

I don't give a shit who Joe Bloggs down the road chooses to marry, and nor should he about me.

Does that mean you also support the legalization of Polygamy?

Should polygamy/gay marriage be illegal? Why should we have an official stance on it at all?

To put simply, should 'marriage' even exist in a legal context?

For the purpose of argument and for the separation of state and the church, the state should stay out of the wedding business all together. If we considered weddings to be a religious/cultural ceremony with no legal meaning (other than the wife requesting a change of surname, and becoming each other's next of kin) then the topic of gay marriage/polygamy really becomes a non-issue in politics.

Is there a reason the state needs to assign each citizen a 'martial' status? In my opinion, no.

MessiahAndrw wrote:

Aidan wrote:

I don't give a shit who Joe Bloggs down the road chooses to marry, and nor should he about me.

Does that mean you also support the legalization of Polygamy?

Should polygamy/gay marriage be illegal? Why should we have an official stance on it at all?

To put simply, should 'marriage' even exist in a legal context?

For the purpose of argument and for the separation of state and the church, the state should stay out of the wedding business all together. If we considered weddings to be a religious/cultural ceremony with no legal meaning (other than the wife requesting a change of surname, and becoming each other's next of kin) then the topic of gay marriage/polygamy really becomes a non-issue in politics.

Is there a reason the state needs to assign each citizen a 'martial' status? In my opinion, no.

I agree with you there. If took the totally libertarian view of this issue than, yes the State has no need to be involved whatsoever. However, the reality is that it is what it is, and I would argue its purely out of financial incentive. There's money to be made from collecting registration fees out of a completely made up entity.

MessiahAndrw wrote:For the purpose of argument and for the separation of state and the church, the state should stay out of the wedding business all together. If we considered weddings to be a religious/cultural ceremony with no legal meaning (other than the wife requesting a change of surname, and becoming each other's next of kin) then the topic of gay marriage/polygamy really becomes a non-issue in politics.

But marriage isn't a strictly religious ceremony. Neither my wife or I are religious, and yet we got married in a civil ceremony. Just because religions have their own customs around it, doesn't mean it's exclusively a religious thing.

Nathan wrote:

MessiahAndrw wrote:For the purpose of argument and for the separation of state and the church, the state should stay out of the wedding business all together. If we considered weddings to be a religious/cultural ceremony with no legal meaning (other than the wife requesting a change of surname, and becoming each other's next of kin) then the topic of gay marriage/polygamy really becomes a non-issue in politics.

But marriage isn't a strictly religious ceremony. Neither my wife or I are religious, and yet we got married in a civil ceremony. Just because religions have their own customs around it, doesn't mean it's exclusively a religious thing.

I agree. I thought twice about that when I added "/cultural".

MessiahAndrw wrote:

Aidan wrote:

I don't give a shit who Joe Bloggs down the road chooses to marry, and nor should he about me.

Does that mean you also support the legalization of Polygamy?

Should polygamy/gay marriage be illegal? Why should we have an official stance on it at all?

To put simply, should 'marriage' even exist in a legal context?

For the purpose of argument and for the separation of state and the church, the state should stay out of the wedding business all together. If we considered weddings to be a religious/cultural ceremony with no legal meaning (other than the wife requesting a change of surname, and becoming each other's next of kin) then the topic of gay marriage/polygamy really becomes a non-issue in politics.

Is there a reason the state needs to assign each citizen a 'martial' status? In my opinion, no.

Why stop at polygamy? Why not include animals as well?
Or how about we allow adults to marry children as well?

Lets do away with laws, moral and ethics..and let it be a free for all orgy of anarchy and barbarism.

The reason we have laws is to create and maintain a civilized society and civilization.
Take away those laws and it will be dog eat dog.
Humanity requires laws, a higher governing authority.


What has any of this got to do with an independent South Australian nation though?

Why should it be called South Australia if it were independent? Flinders Republic?
How would the federal funding shortfall be covered? Would we keep(or introduce) the GST?
What about defence? Would South Australians serving in the ADF come home and form a new defence force? What about non-South Aussies serving in bases in SA? What about those ADF bases and equiment in SA?
Would we maintain the same schools curriculum as Australia or make our own?
What would our national anthem be? How about our national flag and coat of arms?
What would our relations with Australia be?
Would we divide SA into states?
Would we maintain links with the British monarchy? Or would an independent SA be a fully fledged republic?
Would we have a Prime Minister and GG? Or a President like America, or a President and Prime Minister like many European countries?
What would happen with Holden, whose engine plant and design bureau are located in Victoria? Would Holden and GM move them to SA? Or would they move the Elizabeth factory to Victoria?
What about all the defence contractors based in SA, but who undertake contracts for Australia?
Would we build the 12 new submarines for RAN here? Would we continue to build the Air Warfare destroyers here?
Would we keep RAAF Endinburgh and the Orion fleet here for Australia to watch over the northern waters with? The JORN Radar network is also controlled from there..would we keep that for Australia here?
How would the River Murray issues be dealt with with Australia if we became independent?
Given that most cargo ships arriving to Australia arrive on the East and West coasts, would that affect us if we were independent? How would we overcome that and attract more direct trade?
Would we maintain the Australia Dollar as our currency or create our own currency? Perhaps our own currency would allow us to exploit our mineral wealth sooner?
What would happen with BHP's tenure at Olympic Dam, as one example, given they are not HQ'd here in Adelaide? Would we allow them to continue operating, or would our new country nationalize Olympic Dam?

Thanks Rev for demonstrating why Aidan's slippery slope argument is a fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

I would say we should get back on topic, but this topic is a fallacy itself.

monotonehell wrote:Thanks Rev for demonstrating why Aidan's slippery slope argument is a fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

I would say we should get back on topic, but this topic is a fallacy itself.

IT'S NOT MY ARGUMENT!

I'm well aware the slippery slope argument is a fallacy, but it's not an argument I made. Nobody* is saying legalizing gay marriage is bound to lead to legalizing polygamy - but the same argument amatt made to support gay marriage could equally be applied to polygamy, so I was curious as to Matt's opinion. And indeed he didn't have a problem with it. I applaud his consistancy, but I'm pretty sure it's far from the majority viewpoint.


* OK, senator Bernadi is saying that... but nobody here is saying that.

rev wrote:

MessiahAndrw wrote:Why stop at polygamy? Why not include animals as well?
Or how about we allow adults to marry children as well?

Lets do away with laws, moral and ethics..and let it be a free for all orgy of anarchy and barbarism.

Your logic is flawed.
You're implying:

A doing B.
I don't like A doing B, therefore I don't like A doing anything.

Swap A for "the government" and B for "marriage". At no point did I say or imply that I dislike all laws and everything the government does. (I was simply questioning if we should remove government involvement from "marriage".)

Following your logic:
You dislike television broadcasting sitcoms, therefore you dislike television broadcasting anything.

MessiahAndrw wrote:

rev wrote:

MessiahAndrw wrote:Why stop at polygamy? Why not include animals as well?
Or how about we allow adults to marry children as well?

Lets do away with laws, moral and ethics..and let it be a free for all orgy of anarchy and barbarism.

Your logic is flawed.
You're implying:

A doing B.
I don't like A doing B, therefore I don't like A doing anything.

Swap A for "the government" and B for "marriage". At no point did I say or imply that I dislike all laws and everything the government does. (I was simply questioning if we should remove government involvement from "marriage".)

Following your logic:
You dislike television broadcasting sitcoms, therefore you dislike television broadcasting anything.

Say what now?

I said nothing about polygamy - you can opt to interpret my post however you wish, but it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that that wasn't my point.

If I was able to marry my partner tomorrow, and did, I doubt any of you lot would even know about it, let alone should you care, because it will have absolutely zero effect on how you choose to go about your lives.

The floodgates won't be opened towards marrying cats, dogs, or five people at once - our relationship will merely have the same legal recognition and title as anyone else who happens to be married.

We'll be able to share our special day with family and friends (like we have before for our family and friends), knowing that at the end of the day, our relationship is treated with the same respect, dignity and recognition as theirs.

End of. No biggie, really.

Matt wrote:I said nothing about polygamy - you can opt to interpret my post however you wish, but it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that that wasn't my point.

If I was able to marry my partner tomorrow, and did, I doubt any of you lot would even know about it, let alone should you care, because it will have absolutely zero effect on how you choose to go about your lives.

The floodgates won't be opened towards marrying cats, dogs, or five people at once - our relationship will merely have the same legal recognition and title as anyone else who happens to be married.

We'll be able to share our special day with family and friends (like we have before for our family and friends), knowing that at the end of the day, our relationship is treated with the same respect, dignity and recognition as theirs.

End of. No biggie, really.

personally, I say get rid of the marriage act in the first place.