Re: Federal budget

["Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au>]

"< Tell >" <telljb@netozemail.com.au> wrote in message
p2mnhsotdvv5o7siv8ep2v53m461u0fh6q@4ax.com">news:p2mnhsotdvv5o7siv8ep2v53m461u0fh6q@4ax.com...
> Spot on Maurie.
>
> It is obvious that a lot folks have great problems with
> comprehending the Federal/State political system, the
> Australian Constitution and the final arbitrator, the
> High Court of Australia.

Actually, Tell, the Commonwealth does have powers with regard to railways
(funnily enough, we covered this a few months back at uni).

"THE CONSTITUTION - CHAPTER IV SECT 98
Trade and commerce includes navigation and State railways

98. The power of the Parliament to make laws with respect to trade and
commerce extends to navigation and shipping, and to railways the property of
any State."

So it could be argued that the fact that the Commonwealth has the right to
make laws regulating the railways could be used to apply a responsibility on
the Commonwealth to ensure that those railways are up to a certain standard.

There is also section 51:

"51. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make
laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with
respect to:-
         (i)   Trade and commerce with other countries, and among the
States"

It could also be argued that modern rail links "among the States" are
necessary for the good government of the Commonwealth since they would
reduce transportation costs and make the economy more efficient.

Still in section 51, there is also:

        "(xxxiv)   Railway construction and extension in any State with the
consent of that State:"

So if a state consents, then the Commonwealth has the power to regulate
(read: fund and control) railway construction.

But the clincher for me is that section 51, which specifically deals with
the powers of the Commonwealth, makes absolutely no mention of road
construction, which is funded very heavily by the Commonwealth. Anything
that is not specifically referred to in the Constitution as a Commonwealth
responsibility is reserved to the states.

Now I cannot understand why people are saying that "It is obvious that a lot
folks have great problems with comprehending the Federal/State political
system" and "I find it curious that every budget railfans cry out for more
federal funding for rail. In general what they are really calling for is
more federal funding for what are State Govt owned railways." when there is
ample precedent for the Commonwealth providing funding for other state owned
and operated facilities (hospitals, schools, roads, anti-drug initiatives,
etc).

Dave

> ....Tell
>
>
> >mauried@tpg.com.au (Maurie Daly) wrote:
> >
> > I find it curious that every budget railfans cry out for more federal
funding
> > for rail.
> > In general what they are really calling for is more federal funding for
what
> > are State Govt owned railways.
> > (Arnt State Gov owned railways the responsibilities of the States,after
all
> > it is the States that collect all the track access charges.)
> >
> > Prior to 1992 and One Nation there was never any regular federal funding
for
> > State owned railways in Federal Budgets,the Feds simply funded what was
their
> > responsibility ie AN when it existed, and they have fully funded the
creation
> > of ARTC.
> > If  you bothered to read the PCs final report it has recommended
> > substantial federal funding for rail ,BUT that such funding be
conditional on
> > the States agreeing to the establishment of a one stop shop for rail
access
> > and the establisment of a single National Track Manager.
> >
> > Since certain states have totally refused to co operate with the Feds in
> > achieving either of these goals,then there is no funding for rail.
> >
> > MD
> >
>