Sensational-Adelaide.com

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.

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

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.

Please add anything you believe will add to this, also criticism is welcome! (I apologise for any spelling and grammar mistakes)


So here it goes, here are some of my proposals for the country of South Australia...

Currency

We leave the federation, and float our own currency. (Do we float it or do we peg it against the AUD or USD?). If we float we would instantly make our exports ridiculously competitive. Holden would probably go from losses to profits. Our wine and agriculture sectors would thrive. And manufacturing would probably expand again. SA would also become much cheaper for a the foreign student market which we only get about 5-10% of currently (Massive potential) Downside is that imports become more expensive. Petrol, other food stuffs, general goods.

Income Tax

Income tax will be reduced by a factor yet to be determined. But there would be considerable cuts. Instead an increase in the consumption tax (GST) would be lifted to 15%. Encourages consumerism which generally encourages growth!

Company Tax

Company tax would be reduced to 10%, this would almost instantly make SA desirable for most companies in the Oceania/SE Asia to HQ in SA. This could potentially be huge . Mining would also be further encouraged due to lower taxation rates. Olympic Dam would probably go ahead.

Drug Laws- contentious

It is no secret that SA has a large cannabis smoking community. Why not use this to an advantage? Make SA the first to decrimilize marijuana. Hindley street can have weed cafes. Must be aged over 21 however. The use of marijuana is taxed at a high rate, the growing of crops is not allowed and a massive increase in drug testing of drivers.
Instantly makes SA a tourist haven for Australians and overseas visitors!

Tourism
I believe with a floated currency, and simply becoming a new country, SA would have A HUGE increase in tourism.

Social

Gay marriage allowed. Human rights bill introduced.

Housing

Negative Gearing banned on uses for existing dwelling purchases. This would have a two fold effect of budgetary savings, whilst directing investments to providing new dwellings and thus increasing supply...thus making housing more affordable.

Encourage high rises within the CBD (no stamp duty, negative gearing allowed etc)

Superannuation

Superannuation tax incentives would be scrapped. Whilst this will seem bad a first, the money companies make from the company tax cuts would flow to superannuation funds. The money saved from this bill would be a saving of about 5% of the new countries budget.

Foreign Aid

The new country would not deliver foreign aid, tax deductions for charitable purposes is retained (.5% budgetary saving)

Political

SA a republic. Political preselection more open and transparent.

Immigration - Contenious

Family & economic in nature, we are looking for peoples to strengthen the new country. We would have no refugee intake at the start (Does this go against the social strength....or do most people not care about this?). What we are looking for is people with skill sets that are needed being allowed to migrate. Also family migration is very much encouraged.

Side note- The issue of how you would deal with 'Australians living in SA'. Pretty much open border situation IMO.

Defence - Contentious!!

The new country has no defence force. In Australia this represents about 2% of government spending. Instead we have a 1 year conscription for persons aged 18 years. They have the option of also doing 1 years community service. Each weekend for the year they either learn a basic defence training, for a ready to be called national guard. Or they complete the community service which can be anything from helping the elderly/homeless/community groups etc. This has two outcomes- One, budgetary we save a lot of money on not having an active military presence. & 2nd the use of the conscription is tied in with health and community.




anyway thats it for now, I want to expand & mould how a new country in SA could work. Extra areas of focus and ideas for them are obviously still needed. Using our strengths to our advantage, and finding our weaknesses and addressing them. To make SA economically strong! To retain and attract!

Feedback is appreciated. CHEERS!

Not gonna happen.

Obviously. I am looking how it could work, that does not mean it will happen. However the mere threat could itself ensure change.


Other areas of interest

Welfare
Justice
Trade
Education (particulary increase in tertiary)

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.)

JamesXander wrote:
Currency

We leave the federation, and float our own currency. (Do we float it or do we peg it against the AUD or USD?). If we float we would instantly make our exports ridiculously competitive. Holden would probably go from losses to profits. Our wine and agriculture sectors would thrive. And manufacturing would probably expand again. SA would also become much cheaper for a the foreign student market which we only get about 5-10% of currently (Massive potential) Downside is that imports become more expensive. Petrol, other food stuffs, general goods.

Obviously we wouldn't want a pegged currency - apart form destroying the benefits of leaving the Aussie Dollar, we'd have to waste our resources controlling its value, and wed risk hyperinflation if we ran out of those resources. But switching to a floatingcurrency under the terms you suggest is also a hyperinflation risk - you think our currency would fall (we would instantly make our exports ridiculously competitive) and everyone else would think the same thing, so our currency could collapse. Splitting currencies is best done at a time when the budget is balanced. At the moment it's far from balanced - our state is a net recipient of money.

Income Tax

Income tax will be reduced by a factor yet to be determined. But there would be considerable cuts. Instead an increase in the consumption tax (GST) would be lifted to 15%. Encourages consumerism which generally encourages growth!

Well that's a recipe for economic disaster - were short of money so you want to reduce the main supply of it! Meanwhile GST is not the simple inescapable tax that most of its proponents thought it would be - people are dodging it by buying online from overseas, and collecting it on these transactions is known to be uneconomic. Think how much worse it would be if people could dodge a third of it by buying from interstate! BTW the GST does not encourage consumerism. It was meant to discourage consumerism.

Company Tax

Company tax would be reduced to 10%, this would almost instantly make SA desirable for most companies in the Oceania/SE Asia to HQ in SA. This could potentially be huge . Mining would also be further encouraged due to lower taxation rates. Olympic Dam would probably go ahead.

That's one possible outcome, but if someone else matches it the benefits could evaporate and we could end up being worse off. Plus politicians like to be seen to be cracking down on tax havens! Far better to make it easier for companies to make profits in the first place.

Drug Laws- contentious

It is no secret that SA has a large cannabis smoking community. Why not use this to an advantage? Make SA the first to decrimilize marijuana. Hindley street can have weed cafes. Must be aged over 21 however. The use of marijuana is taxed at a high rate, the growing of crops is not allowed and a massive increase in drug testing of drivers.
Instantly makes SA a tourist haven for Australians and overseas visitors!

ITYM legalize. SA decriminalized the stuff years ago.

While there is a case for legalizing it, I doubt it would make us a tourist haven, as other places have already done so, and the people who are most likely to be attracted aren't very rich anyway. And though the tax revenue would be welcome,the costs of the increased rates of cancer and schizophrenia resulting from increased use would diminish that somewhat.

Tourism
I believe with a floated currency, and simply becoming a new country, SA would have A HUGE increase in tourism. [/b]

From overseas, possibly but I wouldn't bet on it. From interstate there would probably be a decline due to currency hassles, and probably due to many people being pissed off with us for leaving.

Social

Gay marriage allowed. Human rights bill introduced.

When people think a bit more abut gay marriage, I doubt it would be that popular. If you had kids and they turned out to be bisexual would you really want society to give them the signal that spending the rest of their lives with someone of the same sex is no better than spending the rest of their lives with someone of the opposite sex? And what proportion of people do you reckon would feel the same way?

As for a human rights bill, I'm not sure precisely what you envisage, but if Europe's anything to go by, it will result in many spurious court cases.

Housing

Negative Gearing banned on uses for existing dwelling purchases. This would have a two fold effect of budgetary savings, whilst directing investments to providing new dwellings and thus increasing supply...thus making housing more affordable.

Encourage high rises within the CBD (no stamp duty, negative gearing allowed etc)

(I'd listen to the opinions of experts and others before commenting on this one)

Superannuation

Superannuation tax incentives would be scrapped. Whilst this will seem bad a first, the money companies make from the company tax cuts would flow to superannuation funds. The money saved from this bill would be a saving of about 5% of the new countries budget.

Most of the revenue from company tax cuts would flow to people other than South Aussies.

Foreign Aid

The new country would not deliver foreign aid, tax deductions for charitable purposes is retained (.5% budgetary saving)

I'd object to us failing to meet our international obligations were it not for the fact that your plan would make us such an economic basket case that we wouldn't be able to afford to pay them anyway!

Political

SA a republic. Political preselection more open and transparent.

Should it be the government's business how parties preselect their candidates? One thing we certainly shouldn't do is to entrench the two party system.

Immigration - Contenious

Family & economic in nature, we are looking for peoples to strengthen the new country. We would have no refugee intake at the start (Does this go against the social strength....or do most people not care about this?). What we are looking for is people with skill sets that are needed being allowed to migrate. Also family migration is very much encouraged.

Side note- The issue of how you would deal with 'Australians living in SA'. Pretty much open border situation IMO.

We wouldn't control the borders, Canberra would. And a lot of politicians in Canberra think that if people can go through undetected then we've failed to defend our borders - and a government's duty to defend its borders should be a higher priority than anything else.

Of course in reality the difference between defending borders and securing them is vast, and anyway Australia has more secure borders than almost any other nation (though we may have recently been overtaken in the border security stakes by North Korea).

If you want to attract more people to SA, why exclude those who most want to come here? The assumption that refugees are unskilled is a bit dodgy, and even those who don't have useful skills to start with can be trained.

Defence - Contentious!!

The new country has no defence force. In Australia this represents about 2% of government spending. Instead we have a 1 year conscription for persons aged 18 years. They have the option of also doing 1 years community service. Each weekend for the year they either learn a basic defence training, for a ready to be called national guard. Or they complete the community service which can be anything from helping the elderly/homeless/community groups etc. This has two outcomes- One, budgetary we save a lot of money on not having an active military presence. & 2nd the use of the conscription is tied in with health and community.

Young people would desert SA in droves probably never returning.

Also a lot of the defence equipment manufacturers are located in SA. I doubt they'd stay under those conditions.

Aidan wrote:

JamesXander wrote:Social

Gay marriage allowed. Human rights bill introduced.

When people think a bit more abut gay marriage, I doubt it would be that popular. If you had kids and they turned out to be bisexual would you really want society to give them the signal that spending the rest of their lives with someone of the same sex is no better than spending the rest of their lives with someone of the opposite sex? And what proportion of people do you reckon would feel the same way?

Wait, what? I can't see your point.

SRW wrote:
Wait, what? I can't see your point.

My point is that quite a lot of the support for gay marriage is based on an incorrect assumption about human sexuality: that people are either straight or gay. But the reality is more complicated, and I expect support for it would fall when people consider the implications more carefully.

OTOH it is being legalized in a lot of places, so my expectation could be completely wrong.

Anyway, secession of SA would be a disaster whether or not gay marriage were allowed.

Implications?
If I married a guy tomorrow, what's the implication beyond me and that guy suddenly being married?

Aidan wrote:...and I expect support for it would fall when people consider the implications more carefully.

You can't just say "the implications" and then not even mention what you think they are. "Nebulous" doesn't even come close to what you just said.

Aidan wrote: When people think a bit more abut gay marriage, I doubt it would be that popular. If you had kids and they turned out to be bisexual would you really want society to give them the signal that spending the rest of their lives with someone of the same sex is no better than spending the rest of their lives with someone of the opposite sex? And what proportion of people do you reckon would feel the same way?

i would want my child to be able to marry the person whom they are in love with.

Aidan wrote:

SRW wrote:
Wait, what? I can't see your point.

My point is that quite a lot of the support for gay marriage is based on an incorrect assumption about human sexuality: that people are either straight or gay. But the reality is more complicated,

Well, to start with, I think you've made an incorrect assumption about the basis of support for marriage reform. And while it's true to say that human sexuality is complicated, that's not an argument against equal marriage rights -- which makes your supposed "implications" all the more curious, as Matt and Mono have noted.

Aidan wrote:Anyway, secession of SA would be a disaster whether or not gay marriage were allowed.

Of course.

It's also pretty insulting that my right to marry who I want to marry should somehow be dictated by whether or not it's "popular" with everyone else.
I don't give a shit who Joe Bloggs down the road chooses to marry, and nor should he about me.

Matt wrote:Implications?
If I married a guy tomorrow, what's the implication beyond me and that guy suddenly being married?

The only implication I can think of is that it would prevent you from subsequently marrying a woman. I was referring to the implications of legislative change, not the implications on an individual level. Many people who could marry members of the opposite sex would instead marry members of the same sex. It seems most people on this board wouldn't have a problem with that, but I'd be surprised if there were anything like the same level of support among the general public.

Matt wrote:It's also pretty insulting that my right to marry who I want to marry should somehow be dictated by whether or not it's "popular" with everyone else.

Then I remind you that you already have that right - this is about everyone else's official recognition of it, so your view is no more important than anyone else's.

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?

Aidan wrote:Many people who could marry members of the opposite sex would instead marry members of the same sex.

So people who would otherwise have a hetrosexual marriage, would suddenly turn gay and want to marry someone else because of the law change?

Nathan wrote:

Aidan wrote:Many people who could marry members of the opposite sex would instead marry members of the same sex.

So people who would otherwise have a hetrosexual marriage, would suddenly turn gay and want to marry someone else because of the law change?

Apart from the suddenly turn gay bit, yes, some would. The PC mob would like us to think that everyone's either straight or gay, but the reality is far more complicated.