Re: Federal budget

["< Tell >" <telljb@netozemail.com.au>]

Dave, I would refer you to your own statement:
"So if a state consents, then the Commonwealth has the
power to regulate..."

There it is mate, SO IF A STATE CONSENTS.

Yes I agree, anything can be argued, which is precisely
what has been going on for years.
  
NSW and WA would certainly consent to more money, BUT
not to federal ownership and control.

Nah, its a bit more complicated than that, Eh.!
 
....Tell

  

> (read: fund and control) railway construction. 

>"Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> "< 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
> > >
> >
>