Riverina State Road Sign with Martin Cincotta

Riverina State Road Sign with Martin Cincotta
Share this post
David Landini and Martin Cincotta at the Riverina State road sign at the Barham truck stop. More of these signs will be erected at prominent road sites throughout The Riverina.

It appears increasingly obvious that State and Federal politicians intend to continue the reduction, if not complete closing, of the irrigation, timber and other natural resource based industries in NSW. This has a corresponding negative affect on the lives of the people in this area.

Regrettably, the domination of NSW by the large population centres of Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong, and their lack of interest in non-metropolitan industries, and the large Green oriented portion of this population, will most likely ensure that the reduction in irrigation etc continues.

A Riverina State, separate from NSW, will have authority over all the water, timber and other natural resources within its area. Government by the people in the Riverina will ensure that use of these resources, and other governance, are most beneficial for the people in this state. This will ensure the irrigation, timber and other natural resource based industries prosper, with corresponding prosperity for all the people in this state.

The Riverina State group intends to advocate for a new state via public promotion, eventually holding a referendum of the people in the Riverina on whether to leave NSW, and to use the expected successful result to compel the NSW Parliament to consent to this formation.

The consent of the Parliament of NSW is the only requirement for the formation of this state.  

David Landini

Share this post
Comments ( 5 )
  1. Good morning David,

    What a great idea to erect the signs as per your last post.

    I just want to draw your attention to your claim of city populations controlling the natural assets of the Riverina…..
    I’m sure you are aware of the institutionalised corruption within various departments and agencies charged with ‘looking after’ these precious assets for rural and regional areas. The diversion of water from the Northern Basin in NSW into large dams for private use prevents the end-of-flow for the lower Darling River and this isn’t as a result of city pressure.

    This outcome is the belligerent and consistent lobbying of politicians and bureaucrats by vested interests in that part of the state to continue growing monoculture cotton.

    Thanks for all you are doing and cheers,

    pennie
    0427 44 11 07

    Reply
    • Pennie, you have overlooked the local knowledge of straight-out water theft and complicity of Nazional$ Party politicians facilitation; consider the $80 empty glass of MDB water for Gassie Taylor.

      Then there is the vexed question of inadequate monitoring of the frequently broken water meters and especially the lack of mobile phone switches to send a signal to a central location when pumping is happening. However, this requires government funding which the the present Liarbral Nazional$ misgovernment has not made.

      Perhaps the optimal alternative is for the 4/8 NSW electorate still parasitised by representatives of Nazional$ to find a credible local candidate who will be accountable to Australian voters, rather than foreign owned multinational corporations and nominate, support and work for removing the incumbent and replacing them with a representative of the local community.

      Reply
    • Thanks very much Pennie. Regarding corruption,; I agree entirely. Regrettably, I think corruption is inevitable in politics, and the more so the longer a politician is in parliament. I am also advocating term limits on political service – eight consecutive years maximum. After eight years, thank you, but you’re out. I think this is the only was to minimize political corruption.

      Term Limits, and other characteristics I am advocating are discussed at https://theriverinastate.com.au/2020/08/16/read-more-2/

      Apologies for my late reply; I currently don’t receive notice when comments are posted. I’ll try to fix this.

      Reply
  2. Uhm … the formation of a new state requires more than just the consent of the NSW Parliament, which has previously proven very difficult to obtain.

    New states are allowed by the Australian Constitution Chapter VI – New States ss 121-124. For the separation of a new state from an existing state requires consent from the Parliament of that existing state. However, at s121 the Commonwealth may make or impose such conditions as the Commonwealth Parliament thinks fit.

    In the 1967 referendum for the New England New State Movement (NENSM) the matter was decided by a NSW-wide referendum, which would likely be the precedent required likely again, by a majority to be decided.

    There was considerable opposition to the NENSM formation, especially by the ALP, centred around Newcastle that was about 90% opposed which diminished to about 90% support north to Tenterfield. Armidale voted about 65% in favour. Port Macquarie, an early convict town, was a rare exception that voted against by about 65%.

    With the polls showing the likelihood of success for the NENSM, suddenly in the ;last week before the referendum date, a rumour was promulgated that Lower Hunter dairy farmers would NOT be able to access the Sydney Milk Market (contrary to the Australian Constitution s92). This was sufficient to destroy the proposal as the almost starving war veterans scrapping out a bare living on inadequate dairying blocks voted for food on the table rather than Parliamentary changes.

    Reply
    • Jack. Section 120 of the Australian Constitution states:

      “New States may be admitted or established

      The Parliament may admit to the Commonwealth or establish new States, and may upon such admission or establishment make or impose such terms and conditions, including the extent of representation in either House of the Parliament, as it thinks fit.”

      This section gives the Federal Government the power to admit new states, without taking the decision to an Australian referendum as could be reasonably argued for without this statement.

      The Federal Government has the power to “upon such admission or establishment make or impose such terms and conditions, including the extent of representation in either House of the Parliament, as it thinks fit”. This power is “upon such admission or establishment”. This is not a requirement of forming a Riverina State, it is a statement of power that the Federal Government can apply to the new state.

      In practice, I am very confident that the Federal Government will welcome The Riverina with open arms.

      There is a discussion paper from the University of NSW on the website at http://theriverinastate.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Creating-new-states-from-existing-states.pdf

      Regarding the New England New State referendum in 1967. This referendum was not a statewide referendum; it was limited to the people in the proposed New England State. There is an article on the New England attempt on the website at https://theriverinastate.com.au/2017/10/13/new-england-state-movement/

      Similar to the New England referendum, The Riverina State Group will be demanding a referendum of the people in the proposed Riverina State area – not of the entire NSW State. The expected successful referendum result will be used to compel the NSW State Parliament to consent to the formation of this state.

      Your incisive comments are greatly appreciated.

      Reply
Leave a reply