DoxRunner
Macquarie University Student Accommodation
An Australian Republic ... a suggestion
Introduction
​
​Critics of the Australian republic movement state that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. They also state that proponents of an Australian republic have never identified any benefits.
I agree that the current constitutional monarchy works. So why try to fix it?
​
I want to make a counter argument:
If there is a way Australia can be more efficiently governed, why not consider it?
​
I believe that changing the number of states with borders that meet a set of criteria will make Australian governance simpler.
A dissolution of the existing states is the first step in this process.
​
This discussion doesn't address who should lead Australia, or how. That is left to the current robust discussions underway.
​
Elements of Change
​Over my lifetime I've become aware of several issues that can be addressed once the states are dissolved and new borders established:
​
Population disparity
​
The table below was extracted from the ABS website, and is as at March 2022.
It is clear that there is a huge difference between the population of New South Wales and that of Tasmania and the Northern Territory.
​
-
New South Wales 8,150,800
-
Victoria 6,615,100
-
Queensland 5,301,600
-
South Australia 1,809,100
-
Western Australia 2,760,400
-
Tasmania 567,400
-
Northern Territory 249,900
-
Australian Capital Territory 453,400
​
While the population disparity will always be there, the suggestions further below are designed to reduce the disparity.
​
Colonial era borders
​
Straight line borders and borders that run along rivers were set early in Australian history.
By dissolving the states, a re-think is appropriate.
I offer the following criteria:
-
All borders run along mountain ranges, not rivers;
-
All borders delineate contiguous rivers catchments.
These are meant to improve water management.
​
Colonial era names
​
State names were set early in Australian history.
By dissolving the states, a re-think is appropriate so that the names of the new territories reflect modern Australians, not English localities such as south Wales. Also I don't think points of the compass, the word "land", and the word "queen" are appropriate.
​
Having stated my views, I am neutral as to what the existing state names should be changed to. Maybe consider indigenous names.
Where it makes the discussion meaningful, I will use existing names. That doesn't mean I think the name is appropriate.
Far north Queensland Succession
​
When I lived in Townsville I became aware of a movement calling for North Queensland to secede from Queensland.
Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_North_Queensland for more information.
​
Although the new territories proposed in this discussion don't exactly align with the proposal, the discussion here may appeal to those proposing it.
​
Water Management
​
Australia is a dry continent, so the management of water should be as efficient as possible.
​
For example, the catchment of Australia's largest river system, the Murry-Darling, flows through four states: Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia.
​
The diagram on the right shows just how complicated the management of this critically important river system is.
​
Source:
Evolving Governance and Contested Water Reforms in Australia’s Murray Darling Basin
by
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/10/2/113
​
​
Dissolution of the states
​
Australia is a federation of six states. Everyone knows that. What may not be commonly known is that each Australian state is a constitutional monarchy, each with a governor who represents the British crown.
​
Any radical proposal will require the six constitutional monarchies to be dissolved so that Australia becomes a single sovereign country, not a federation of monarchies.
​
This would pave the way to explore a change in the number of States, and their borders.
​
I was born in Queensland, lived in Victoria, and currently reside in New South Wales. But I identify myself as an Australian, neither a Queenslander, a Victorian, nor a New South Welshman.
​
So the dissolution of the states does not bother me - I'm still an Australian.
​
However I do recognize that many people identify themselves as the state they were born in and/or currently live in. I'm sure that these people will oppose this suggestion, and I can understand that. Just look at the attempt to merge the many fiefdoms called local councils in Sydney.
​
I remember many years ago a call to reduce the number of government levels from three to two. Making the states smaller is an opportunity to eliminate all local councils. A lot of taxpayer's money can be saved. Note that the Brisbane City is the third largest in the world by geographic area, and it works OK.
​
The territories (ACT, NT, Jervis Bay, and various islands, including Norfolk Is.) add a complexity to Australian governance. This discussion includes the ACT, NT, and Jervis Bay territories. The various island territories are left for future discussions.
​
What do the states become?
​
A territory is an area which is under the control of state or government and does not have sovereignty, while a state is also known as a country or an organized political organization which enjoys sovereignty.
​
While I'm neutral as to what to call the new states, I will use the term territory in this discussion.
​
So the sentence in an earlier section above should be changed from:
​
This would pave the way to explore a change in the number of states, and their borders;
to:
This would pave the way to explore a change in the number of territories, and their borders.
New Territories
​
The 11 or 12 territories that I believe Australia should consist of after Australia becomes a republic are summarised here, not in any particular order.
The names are only indicative for ease of definition and are not the names that I believe they should carry in the long term.
​
Except for Tasmania and the Murray-Darling, I have divided them into urban and country for convenience.
​
Canberra and Darwin are special cases, so are not included. They are discussed in more detail further in this document.
​​
-
Important territiries
-
The Tasmanian territory;
-
The Murray-Darling territory;
-
-
Urban territories
-
-
The North Eastern territory;
-
The South Eastern territory;
-
The remainder (undefined) territories.
​
The undefined territories includes Carpentaria, Arnhem land, Darwin, the Kimberleys, the deserts, the Nullarbor, and the Eyre basin. All of these have very low populations, so more analysis is required to assess whether they should consist of one, two, or more territories.
​​
Important territories
​
Two territories deserve special attention.
​
Tasmania because it's borders are well defined, it's water is well defined, and its population is low.
​
The Murray-Darling because its creation has an impact on the borders of four existing states.
​
The Tasmanian territory
​
Tasmania is easy. It remains the same. Its borders are the oceans and Bass strait.
​
Its population of about 567,400 sets the lower limit of the population criteria that is to be considered for all remaining territories.
​
The Murray-Darling territory
​
The Murray/Darling territory's borders are defined by the mountain ranges that all of its tributaries arise from, especially the Great Dividing Range.
​
The population was around 2.4 million as at March 2022. More than Tasmania and South Australia, but less than Victoria, New South Wales, or Queensland. The three main population centres account for 570.3 thousand. Canberra: 467,000. Queanbeyan: 75,500. Toowoomba: 96,600. Bendigo: 82,800.
​
Canberra
​
I have no problem with Canberra remaining Australia's capital.
​
But Canberra does require a special mention.
​
The Jervis Bay Territory became a federal territory when, in 1915, the capital of Australia, Canberra, decided it needed a port.
​
On the one hand, in accordance with the river catchment criterion, Canberra should remain the the Murray-Darling territory.
​
On the other hand it should have a port, so there is an argument that it should belong to the South Eastern territory, where Jervis Bay belongs.
​
Should Canberra be included in the Murray-Darling territory, or should it be included in the South Eastern territory? I'm happy for that exception to be discussed by others.
​
Urban Territories
​
The territories that are largely dominated by cities are discussed in the five sections below.
​
Their populations as at March 2022 are listed here:
​
These populations are indicative only. The borders of the urban territories don't match the populations stated by the ABS, so there will be discrepancies.
The Sydney territory
​
Let's consider Sydney as a city-state, or, in this discussion, a city-territory. As at March 2019, Sydney's population was approximately 5.3 million. Although nowhere near as low as Tasmania, it is somewhat less than the population of NSW (at 8.2 million). Its focus would be primarily urban.
​
The water management constraint requires the territory of Sydney to include its river systems, especially that of its chief water supply, the Warragamba dam. This catchment is much bigger than one would expect - it extends all the way south to Goulburn, westwards it encompasses almost all of the Blue Mountains, and north past the Upper Macdonald.
​
Hence if Sydney was to include all of the catchment areas of the Hawksbury river catchment, the population would be more than 5.3 million, but still less than New South Wales.
​
Notwithstanding that, I still propose that a city-territory of Sydney be considered, since the management of a contiguous urban region by one management agency is easier.
Its western border would be in common with the Murray-Darling territory.
​
Its northern border would be in common with the Eastern territory.
​
Its southern border would be in common with the South Eastern territory.
​
In the map below, its area includes that bound by the black border, plus the area north of Wollongong (exactly where north of Wollongong is a matter for further discussion.
​
The Brisbane territory
​
Let's consider Brisbane as another city-state, or in this discussion, a city-territory. Brisbane's population is approximately 2.5 million. Although nowhere near as low as Tasmania, it is less than the population of Queensland (at 5.3 million). Its focus would be primarily urban.
​
The water management constraint briefly discussed above requires the territory of Brisbane to include its river systems, especially that of its chief water supply. It may be practical to include the Logan river and Caboolture river catchments.
Its western border would be in common with the Murray-Darling territory.
​
Its southern border is in common with the Eastern territory.
​
Its northern border is in common with the North-Eastern territory.
​
The Melbourne territory
​
Let's consider Melbourne as a city-state, or in this discussion, a city-territory. As at March 2019, Melbourne's population was approximately 5.1 million. Although nowhere near as low as Tasmania, it is less than the population of Victoria (at 6.6 million).
​
The water management constraint briefly discussed above requires the territory of Melbourne to include its river systems, especially that of its chief water supply.
​
Hence if Melbourne was to include all of the catchment area, the population would be more than 5.1 million.
​
Notwithstanding that, I still propose that a city-territory of Melbourne be added to the six territories introduced above. Its northern border would be in common with the Murray-Darling territory.
​
Lake Eildon is in the Murray-Darling territory, so does not fall within the Melbourne catchment, but its status as an emergency supply of water to Melbourne should remain unchanged.
​
Adelaide territory
​
Let's consider Adelaide as a city-state, or in this discussion, a city-territory. Adelaide's population is approximately 1.3 million. Although nowhere near as low as Tasmania, it is less than the population of South Australia (at 1.8 million).
​
The water management constraint briefly discussed above requires the territory of Adelaide to include its river systems, especially that of its chief water supply.
​
Hence if Adelaide was to include all of the catchment area, the population would be more than 5.1 million.
​
Notwithstanding that, I still propose that a city-territory of Adelaide be added to the eight territories introduced above. Note that its eastern border meets the Murray-Darling territory.
​
Perth territory
​
Perth's population is approximately 2 million. Although nowhere near as low as Tasmania, it is less than the population of Western Australia (at 2.8 million).
​
The water management constraint requires the territory of Perth to include its river systems, especially that of its chief water supply. The map below attempts to identify the catchment of Perth's primary river, the Swan. However, Perth's urban areas will extend beyond that, especially along the coast, so its territory border may actually be further north and further south. Exactly where should be discussed, with the criterion being contiguous river systems.
​
With these borders, Perth's population would most likely be more than 2 million, but still less than 2.8 million.
​
Country Territories
​
The territories that are largely dominated by rural, small towns, and provincial cities are discussed in the four sections below. These territories are noted by their lower population in relation to their land size.
Their borders encompass contiguous river systems and their populations are smaller than the urban territories, but larger than Tasmania.
​
The country territories are listed here:
-
The Eastern territory ;
-
The North-Eastern territory ;
-
The South-Eastern territory ;
-
The remainder of Australia.
​
The Eastern territory
​
The territory between the Sydney territory and the Melbourne territory has a population of less than one million, but greater than Tasmania's population of 567 thousand.
​
Its main focus would be rural, coastal, tourism, and provincial urban cities.
​
The south-western border of this territory would be the Melbourne territory.
​
The western border of this territory would be the Murray-Darling territory.
​
The northern border of this territory would be the Sydney territory.
.
The North-Eastern territory
​
There has been a push for the far north of Queensland to secede from Queensland for many years. While the suggestion here does not align exactly with that sentiment, it may come close.
The territory north of the Brisbane catchment area and east of the great dividing range has a population of just over one million, less than Queensland, but greater than Tasmania's population of 567 thousand.
​
Its main focus would be rural, coastal, tourism, and provincial urban cities.
​
The southern border of this territory would be the Brisbane territory.
​
The southern part of its western border territory would adjoin the Murray-Darling territory, and the northern part of its western border would adjoin Carpentaria.
​
The northern border of this territory would be the tip of Cape York and the Torres Strait islands.
​
The South-Eastern territory
​
The territory between the Melbourne catchment area and Sydney's has a population less than one million, but greater than Tasmania's population of 567 thousand.
​
The western border of this territory is the Murray-Darling territory.
​
I regard this as the third territory in this discussion, in addition to the seven territories discussed above. However, I'm ambivalent as to its name.
Considering the territory between Melbourne and Murray-Darling
​
The area between the western border of the Melbourne catchment area, the south eastern border of the Murray-Darling, and the ocean has multiple catchment areas, so on that basis it qualifies as a territory.
However it has a population less than Tasmania, so it doesn't meet that constraint.
​
Consequently I propose that is be included in either the Melbourne territory or in the Murray-Darling territory.
Considering the Remainder of Australia
​
The remainder of Australia consists of the following areas:
​
-
Darwin and the area to the west and south of Darwin;
-
The Eyre basin;
-
Carpentaria;
-
Arnhem land;
-
Ord river;
-
The Kimberlies;
-
The Simpson and other deserts;
-
The area north and west of Perth.
​
More analysis needs to be done to see whether the population of the remainder of Australia should be a single territory or more.
​
​
​