How plausible are the proposed states of Australia?

[Analytical Engine]

For reasons totally unconnected to a TL that I am totally not currently writing...*eyes dart back and forth*, I am looking into the various proposed states of Australia, as listed here.

Even though some of those proposals date back to pre-1900, I put the thread here as Australia became federated in 1901.

So, how plausible do you think the various proposed states (and territories) are?

 

[Dorknought]

Of greater worry in that 1838 map is the cities and road network.

 

[Jellico]

Auralia is probably the biggest clue.

The heart of most the OTL states is a combination of gold mining and a distance from Sydney that made the period communications systems impractical.

E.g. QLD broke away due to distance but didn't become practical till Gympie.

For that reason full states above the Tropic of Capricorn are pretty much non starters till the 2nd half of the 20thC.

 

[Sam R.]

Historically Australian states developed out of ruling class repressive alliances. Any situation that will make New England stamping its jackboot on Newcastle’s neck essential will result in either the BHP commune being put down by the NSW police removing the necessity of a New England; or, the NSW police being put down by the BHP commune removing the possibility of a squatocrat New England.

 

[Riain]

Historically Australian states developed out of ruling class repressive alliances

Jesus, really?

SO it was a repressive alliance that decided on the Murray river as the NSW-Vic border, the Tweed river as the Qld-NSW border and Bass strait as the Tassie border?

 

[Riain]

Australia's state borders are a mixture of natural features like rivers and seas and lines of latitude and longitude, for example the Vic-NSW border is alpong the Murry and a straight line from the headwater to about Point Hicks, the first point of land sighted by Lt Hicks on Captain Cook's HMS Endeavour. Similarly the NSW-Qld border on on the Tweed river which is a big river a few days ride south of the Moreton Bay colony. Funnily enough both rivers belong to NSW, the actual border is the high water mark on the Vic/Qld.

My guess is that different patterns of settlement could lead to different states, but many of the current borders make sense given patterns of settlement.

 

[Sam R.]

Jesus, really?

Yes really.

Those "natural" borders as you yourself identify are a result of the patterns of settlement. As in the capacity for governance. As in the capacity for repression. You know, the magistracy?

Van Diemen's land was set up as a penal colony of the penal colony and developed self-governance because of its distance from Sydney. Newcastle was set up as a penal colony of the penal colony and did not develop self-governance because of its distance from Sydney. Both have natural features which would allow for a sensible boundary separating them from Sydney.

The role of the squatters in securing Queensland's separation, and their particular interest in an effective repressive apparatus against natives ought really to be obvious.

When states are working, you don't need new states, and after federation, when states weren't working other mechanisms such as Monash's white army, or the Lang dismissal, were much faster and more effective than creating New England.

 

[Riain]

Yes really.

Those "natural" borders as you yourself identify are a result of the patterns of settlement. As in the capacity for governance. As in the capacity for repression. You know, the magistracy?

Van Diemen's land was set up as a penal colony of the penal colony and developed self-governance because of its distance from Sydney. Newcastle was set up as a penal colony of the penal colony and did not develop self-governance because of its distance from Sydney. Both have natural features which would allow for a sensible boundary separating them from Sydney.

The role of the squatters in securing Queensland's separation, and their particular interest in an effective repressive apparatus against natives ought really to be obvious.

When states are working, you don't need new states, and after federation, when states weren't working other mechanisms such as Monash's white army, or the Lang dismissal, were much faster and more effective than creating New England.

OK. However I don't subscribe to the theory that history is all, or even largely, about re/oppression.

In the context of 19th century Australia Newcastle is too close to Sydney to form its own state, although it does have its own local government area.