Re: Federal budget

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

"< Tell >" <telljb@netozemail.com.au> wrote in message
m0vnhs03u0gq3sk652b0s8ldpcks39urkd@4ax.com">news:m0vnhs03u0gq3sk652b0s8ldpcks39urkd@4ax.com...
> 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.

that is right. And tell me which state government would NOT consent to
federal funding of the rail system?

> 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.!

Totally failed to address the other points I made, I noticed. The argument
that you made was that it could/should not happen because of our system of
government.

"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."

The fact remains that there is NOTHING in our system of government to
prevent Commonwealth funding of the rail system, particularly when you take
into account that there is already ample Commonwealth infrastructure funding
of rail's main rival, the roads (which are also a state responsibility.

If you are going to argue on the side of federal/state division of
responsibilities, then you need to be consistent and apply the same argument
to road funding. If you are not going to attack Commonwealth funding or road
construction, then you have no grounds to argue that the Commonwealth should
not be funding rail construction either.

It is not one of those situations where you can go for either of them, since
both of them are state responsibilities. They are both either equally valid
or equally invalid.

Dave