Talk:Secessionism in Western Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Rename?

Should this article be renamed to

talk 03:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually, I think the article has more to do with the movement/s than the sentiment. But, I have no problem with this change. Feel free to do so. --
talk 10:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I have gone ahead. If someone does object to the new title, I also have no problem with it being returned.--
talk 10:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Lang

There's no mention of the use of his sunday newspaper 'The Independent' for his argument SatuSuro 11:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right - I'd forgotten about that. Do yoiu have a ref? --
talk 03:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Petition

One of the three original 1933 secession petitions - the one that went to the

talk 03:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

2006

Can anybody provide reference to the actual articles that suggest secessionism has re-emerged?

I'm not sure that it ever submerged. I can barely recall a period of more than a few years when it wasn't semi-seriously being discussed in the West. But I take your point, the article does need more coverage of the current debate esp with respect to GST funding and the economic rationale. That's something a bit out of my league though, so I'll leave it for others. --
I@n 12:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Big problem is the off the cuff mix of pollies, 'leaders of industry et al' and the journos - it would be worth a good honours/masters thesis to trawl the west for its whole history (sigh) or the independent when lang was running his bit, and earlier newspapers long dead - for direct and indirect references to the issue - one way of saying, long before ian or self were around, it bobs up and down like a cork on the froth and bubble of west oz politics - regardless of what any secondary source/historian might say otherwise.  :{ SatuSuro 12:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say there is always an under current in WA politics about secession, I'd be suprised if there was more than 12 months between articles appearing in the West since they first started printing, it definately appears more often than daylight saving. As for getting references to west article you need to a paid up net subscriber to get recent information battye library is still 10-15 years behind on micro film copies. There may be something in Aunties archives, when i got spare time I'll see whats lurking. Gnangarra 14:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a State Records Office of Western Australia user - there just may be some short cuts in there, probably lurking there in august regularly, my time no cost SatuSuro 14:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any evidence that it was discussed in particular in July 2006 in any major media - the only reference anywhere from that time is a blog article under News.com.au's "Perth Now" website, which attracted just 10 or 11 comments. I did find comments by Norman Moore, Upper House MLC, in September 2005. I vote that this particular section be removed as it cannot be independently verified.
Orderinchaos78 01:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Quick search of aunties site doesn't throw anything up for July 06 but it does during May 06 from the state branch WA farmers federation, Also Moore's 2005 comments had a run for most of August and September 05. So its definately worthy to be there, also given that Norman Moore is a significant long term figure in mainstream WA politics his comment are also significant. I wont have time during the next week to address this section but after that I'll be able to spend time and get references for now I'll drop a [citation needed] on the section. Gnangarra 02:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I second the recommendation to delete this section or at least alter the wording substantially? It's full of weasel words : "a perceived grab for power" - perceived by who?; "has lead to several major politicians" - which ones? and what is a 'major' politician? etc. Also there are no refernces, I tried to find some to add but couldn't find a single one. Could this not be better stated along the lines of "some sectors of the WA population expressed discontent... etc" ? --Nickj69 10:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have a crack at rewording the intro as well. It opens well but a bit of parochialism shows through with phrases like "political masters in the east" etc. Feel free to revert if you disagree... --Nickj69 10:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Figures?

Given one of the major arguments given in support of secessionism is the economic one, could someone maybe give details on how much WA contributes to the national economy, and a per capita comparison with other states?{{unsigned}144.138.104.64}}

In the modern economy, in per capita terms, Western Australia was the most productive State with a per capita income of $45,277 in 2003-04 compared with the national figure of $39,234.[1]
On economic matters, the gold boom was in the years leading up to federation. This was a significant proportion of world production. The economy, although much wealth went to the 'home' country, would have been far ahead of the east. Uninformed guess, but I think there may be a way to expand the Federation section. "Auralia" connection to this? I had the idea that some form of independance (from east) existed for a short time. Will put it on the list for when I unpack my references. Fred 15:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I had posted this back it Feb 2007 on the Western Australia Talk page, although it is some 12 months out of date. It might be worth persuing the WA Treasury web links to get updated info if you want to persue this line of expansion to the article.

Whatever the foregoing the real figures are contained here where you'll see that the true picture far exceeds what some in the Eastern States think we dream up. Unfortunately most of the wealth that the Commonwealth collects from WA isn't from Income Tax nor GST, so to quote the Grants Commission figures actually hides the truth. Much easier to see the picture when you look at the Treasury website "In 2003-04, it was estimated that Western Australia received $196 million more in GST revenue grants than the amount of GST that was raised in Western Australia. However, when all Australian Government revenues and expenditures are taken into account, the Australian Government raised around $3 billion more in taxes and other revenues from Western Australia than it returned to Western Australia in expenditures."[1] "In per capita terms, Western Australia’s contribution is substantially larger than the other two contributors, New South Wales and Victoria (the other States are all net recipients). Western Australia’s net fiscal subsidy to the Federation has grown substantially over the last two decades, coinciding with the boom in petroleum production (including LNG) and the emergence of Western Australia as a force in the Australian economy generally."[2]

Petedavo talk contributions 09:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.dtf.wa.gov.au/cms/uploadedFiles/commstate_relations_report_march2006.pdf The Department of Treasury and Finance recently released a Discussion Paper on Commonwealth-State Relations
  2. ^ http://www.dtf.wa.gov.au/cms/uploadedFiles/commstate_relations_report_march2006.pdf The Department of Treasury and Finance recently released a Discussion Paper on Commonwealth-State Relations

A new country

If western australia secedes from Australia,they should make it into a country in its own right--Poodleman 05:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... oh, never mind. Hesperian 10:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You sounded as if you wanted to say something then changed your mind--Poodleman 20:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poodleman, firstly, the talk page is for discussing the article, not the topic that the article is about. Secondly, your comment makes no sense which I suspect is what Hesperian was alluding to. —Moondyne 00:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... basically the talk page is for dicussing the main article only and not any of it's branches?--Poodleman 00:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see our guideline at
WP:TALK. —Moondyne 00:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Liberal Party

I believe the following link is incorrect:

On April 8, 1933, Liberal Premier Sir James Mitchell's government ("Liberal" links to Liberal Party of Australia).

This is incorrect because the Liberal Party as of 1933 is not the same entity as the Liberal Party of Australia as founded by Menzies during WWII. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 02:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. He was Liberal (but not of course Liberal Party of Australia) until 1917, then Nationalist thereafter. Hesperian 03:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consideration of the 1933 referendum

The British House of Commons set up a high-powered committee to consider the issue but after 18 months of negotiations and lobbying, finally refused to consider the matter, ...

This doesn't make any sense to me. Were they considering whether or not to consider it? If so, they still considered it. No? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reason?

The Trans-Australian Railway was built as an inducement for WA joining the federation, legislated in 1907, survey commenced in the same year and was completed 1917.... unless you can name the source IMHO its sounds rather dubious as most of the secessionism has movement has occurred since then. Gnangarra 12:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nullarbor is not a desert, and you would have to have a source that could actually tie in with specific public argument/debate in a good reliable source that is actually referring to secessionism - it sounds like a de facto anecdote of no substance
sats 14:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

80 years

Its 80 years since 1933 referendum article on it in the west Gnangarra 14:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1995 constitutional committee

No mention on the page of the 1995 constitutional committee setup by the court government to examine the matter? Adondai (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of modern successsionism

i suggest that this page needs some kind of discussion about the nature of supposed successionist movements in the second half of the twentieth century that appear to be a particularly Western Australian form of political protest against the commonwealth as opposed to any serious proposal to split from the federation. Adondai (talk) 06:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Palmer, pandemic, border closure

I have removed a number of sentences from the start of this article that attempt to draw a connection between the WA border closure in response to the COVID pandemic; and the secession movement.

It may indeed be the case that interest in secession has been revived following the hard border closure; and that may justify a sub-paragraph later in the piece. However any assertion along those lines needs better backing through citation than an editorialized connection drawn by an interested party. Jack4576 (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

80th anniversary

@JarrahTree: My rationale for removing the 80th anniversary section was that it did not appear to be very important. Now looking at the sources, I can see there is even less reason for this section to remain. The first two sources make no mention of The West Australian, the second source was created before the 80th anniversary (archive goes back to 2007, wikipedia footnote says 2000) so I don't see how it can even apply to the material it is used to reference, and the third is a permanent dead link (It doesn't seem likely to be a useful reference for this section as it is probably just results of the referendum). That leaves the first reference, which is just a short article. I don't think it is not worthy of mentioning whenever a website or media outlet writes an article on the referendum. Steelkamp (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of that, I still do not think it is worth removing - the lack of a reason to remain may fit in your way of understanding wikipedia works, I consider that the components of the issues that surround the subject and the issues however tenuous deserve to remain. If the capacity to have journalists and politicians attempting sollipsistic usage of the term every time a politician passes wind that has the hint of the word even smelling of secession, then the article is the place for those effusions - it is a subject that is bigger than the article - and as such worthiness is missing the point of the movement (of separating from the tothersiders) in my opinion from the historical and political perspective - well worth leaving in regardless of how slight or ephemeral it might seem. JarrahTree 05:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need more than two people's opinions. I will post this on the Wikiproject WA talk page. Steelkamp (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sigh, as if there is anyone there... JarrahTree 06:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I say delete it as not notable.
WAEC reference notes the event and the results - as it does for all past referendums, so does not indicate anything special, such as an anniversary - that's not a "celebration", and it's not the SRO.
SLWA reference describes the referendum, but again, not a celebration, and not the SRO doing it. There's nothing on that page to support the assertion that it was written in 2013 to commemorate the 80th anniversary.
SRO reference describes the referendum, but there's nothing in that article that could be remotely construed as "celebrating" the anniversary. The suggestion that it's a celebration is speculation /
WP:OR
.
Mitch Ames (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CoVid Separationism

are this movement For or against CoVid Regime? Lovemankind83 (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Secessionism_in_Western_Australia&oldid=1210288875"