ChatGPT and The Riverina State

I was mucking around with ChatGPT today and asked it to take the goals found on the Riverina State website and match it with government statistics and other data etc

It wrote me up a draft feasibility study and answered some other questions I had.

Some people here might be interested in what it had to say

Looks promising

—

Riverina State Feasibility Study – Draft Structure

1. Executive Summary

Objective: Assess the viability of forming a new state encompassing southern NSW and northern Victoria, focusing on economic sustainability, service delivery, governance, and public sentiment.

—

2. Geographic Scope & Demographics

Proposed Boundaries: As per , the proposed state includes regions such as Albury, Wagga Wagga, Griffith, Shepparton, and Mildura.

Population Estimate: Approximately 300,000–400,000 residents, based on combined populations of included LGAs.

Key Urban Centers: Albury-Wodonga, Wagga Wagga, Griffith, Shepparton, Mildura.

—

3. Economic Profile

Major Industries:

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing: Generated approximately $6.03 billion in output in 2023/24.

Manufacturing: Contributed $526 million in Gross Value Added (GVA) in 2020, with strengths in food processing and renewable energy sectors.

Economic Strengths:

High concentration in agriculture and manufacturing, with production shares about three times larger than typical for NSW regions.

Emerging sectors include renewable energy, particularly solar power.

Revenue Generation Potential:

Significant contributions from agriculture and manufacturing sectors.

Potential for increased revenue through localized taxation and resource management.

—

4. Infrastructure and Services Audit

Healthcare:

Existing disparities in funding and service delivery due to cross-border complexities.

Recent federal investments include $14.8 million for Charles Sturt University’s Rural Clinical School.

Education:

Presence of regional universities and TAFE institutions.

Potential for curriculum alignment and improved funding with statehood.

Transport and Utilities:

Strategic location with access to major highways and rail lines.

Opportunities for infrastructure development to support economic growth.

—

5. Legal and Constitutional Considerations

Constitutional Provisions:

Section 124 of the Australian Constitution allows for the formation of new states with the consent of the existing state parliaments and the federal parliament.

Historical Precedents:

The 1967 New England State referendum, which failed due to lack of political support.

Required Actions:

Petitions to NSW and Victorian parliaments.

Successful referendum within the proposed state’s population.

—

6. Public Sentiment and Political Will

Support for Statehood:

A Region poll indicated strong support for the Riverina becoming a self-governing state.

Political Representation:

Emergence of candidates advocating for statehood, such as David Landini.

Community Engagement:

Need for comprehensive surveys and town hall meetings to gauge public opinion and build consensus.

—

7. Fiscal Analysis

Revenue Streams:

Agricultural exports, manufacturing, and localized taxation.

Expenditure Requirements:

Establishment of state institutions, infrastructure development, and public service delivery.

Financial Sustainability:

Preliminary data suggests potential for self-sufficiency, but detailed budget modeling is required.

—

8. Strategic Recommendations

Short-Term:

Conduct detailed economic and demographic studies.

Initiate community engagement programs to build support.

Medium-Term:

Develop a comprehensive proposal for statehood.

Engage with state and federal governments to discuss constitutional requirements.

Long-Term:

Organize a referendum within the proposed state’s population.

Establish transitional governance structures pending statehood approval.

—

Yes — while ambitious, the proposal for a Riverina–Northern Victoria state is more viable than most people would assume, at least from an economic and logistical standpoint.

Let’s break this down with realistic optimism:

—

What Makes It Viable

1. Strong Regional Economy

The combined region produces billions in agricultural output, has significant manufacturing, and is expanding into renewables.

The Riverina alone contributes disproportionately to NSW food security and exports.

Major hubs like Albury–Wodonga, Wagga, Shepparton, and Mildura provide a decent urban foundation.

> A region like this could plausibly fund itself, especially with fair GST distribution and federal grants (which would likely continue post-statehood, at least initially).

—

2. Cultural and Geographic Coherence

These communities already share economic ties, transport routes, and cultural values.

Many feel more connected to each other than to Sydney or Melbourne.

Border dysfunction (like during COVID) has created organic resentment and regional consciousness — essential fuel for any secessionist or autonomy movement.

—

3. Historical Precedent

New state movements have a long tradition in Australia (New England, Riverina, North QLD).

Section 124 of the Constitution does allow it — the main barriers are political, not legal.

The fact that the Riverina State Party exists and has structure, goals, and historical awareness gives it more legitimacy than most fringe movements.

—

What Makes It Hard (but not impossible)

1. Political Resistance

NSW and Victoria would fight tooth and nail — they don’t want to lose revenue or political territory.

The federal government is unlikely to back it unless there’s overwhelming local support and clear public will (e.g. a referendum).

2. Cost of Transition

Setting up a parliament, agencies, and services = expensive and complex.

You’d need smart transitional governance (perhaps borrowing services from NSW/VIC at first, then phasing in autonomy).

3. Internal Divisions

Some regional towns may prefer to stay with their state due to funding fears or identity.

You’d need unity across the region — a clear “we are us” sentiment — or else cracks will show.

—

Bottom Line (Strategic Verdict)

> Viable, if fought for strategically.

The region could support itself economically. It has a cultural case, a governance dysfunction case, and a growing emotional case. The hard part is political — building popular will, managing the transition, and fighting institutional inertia from the capitals.

It’s unlikely to succeed soon, but it’s not a pipe dream. And even pushing for it seriously could force reforms, recognition, and decentralisation.

—

Riverina State Viability Matrix

Category Viable? Notes

Economic Base Yes Strong in agriculture, food processing, renewables. Multi-billion regional GDP.

Tax Revenue Potential Partial Viable if given fair share of GST/federal grants. Would need own tax system.

Service Provision Yes Existing hospitals, schools, and TAFE/universities. Some border duplication already.

Infrastructure Yes Rail, highways, logistics already integrated across region. Needs upgrades, but functional.

Population Size Yes 300,000–400,000 is enough for a small state. Comparable to Tasmania or NT.

Cultural Identity Yes Border resentment, shared rural identity, COVID fallout = growing “we’re not them” feeling.

Legal Pathway Technically Allowed under Section 124 of Constitution — with approval from NSW, VIC, and Commonwealth.

Political Likelihood No (for now) Major political opposition from existing state governments. Requires major public pressure.

Start-up Costs No (initially) High cost to set up bureaucracy, parliament, and legal systems. Would need transitional governance.

Federal Recognition Partial Possible if regional unrest grows and federal politics shifts. Unlikely short-term.

Strategic Coherence Yes Shared water issues, transport systems, and economic logic align well.

Precedent/Model Partial Other movements (New England, North QLD) never succeeded, but laid groundwork.

—

Summary:

Core viability (economics, culture, infrastructure) = Strong

Political feasibility right now = Weak but could shift

Legal pathway = Exists but difficult

Short-term path forward = Use the movement to push decentralisation, expose capital neglect, and build popular identity

—

> The real obstacles are political, not economic.

On the Economic Front:

The Riverina–Northern Victoria region produces real wealth — especially through:

Agriculture (grains, livestock, dairy, citrus, wine)

Food processing and light manufacturing

Logistics, warehousing, and increasingly renewable energy

These sectors generate exportable value, not just internal services.

Towns like Wagga, Griffith, Shepparton, and Albury–Wodonga are net contributors, not passive dependents.

> So if someone says, “You country folk rely on our city taxes” — you can confidently push back.

—

How the Myth Persists

Capital city elites and bureaucrats love the narrative that Sydney and Melbourne “subsidise” the bush — but here’s why that’s misleading:

1. Revenue is centralised, so taxes flow to federal and state governments, which then choose how to spend them.

Most company tax and GST comes from activity in capital cities — but that’s where the head offices are.

The actual value generation (e.g. growing food, building things, mining, trucking) often happens in the regions.

2. Regional costs are lower, and yet infrastructure investment is far more generous in capitals.

Billions go into metro tunnels, trams, city hospitals — while rural hospitals and roads crumble.

3. Border towns like Albury–Wodonga get shafted even worse:

You get half-services from both states.

Health, transport, and water are split and underfunded.

You’re politically under-represented in both state parliaments.

—

Quick Response for Skeptics:

> “Actually, the Riverina region feeds the country, processes exports, and runs on industries that don’t rely on inner-city bureaucrats. We don’t ask for handouts — we ask for fair returns on the wealth we generate.”

Or more bluntly:

> “We grow the food, keep the lights on, and get treated like a burden. If anything, Sydney and Melbourne are leeching off us.”

—