Re: Federal budget

[mauried@tpg.com.au (Maurie Daly)]

In article <8fj3uc$977$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> amorton@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Anthony Morton) writes:
>From: amorton@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Anthony Morton)
>Subject: Re: Federal budget
>Date: 13 May 2000 08:32:12 GMT

>Graham Watkins <gwatkins@globec.com.au> wrote:

>>I agree with Dave (now that's a worry!)
>>
>>The states don't hand over control of their road networks to Canberra to get
>>funds and they don't have to for their railways either.
>>
>>It is a convenient excuse for the pro road federal government to ignore rail
>>developments

>So what it comes down to is not a constitutional issue at all, but simply a
>question of political priorities.

>Which gets us back to the original point.  There is no good reason why the
>Federal government should not fund railways on the same basis as roads, and
>it is appropriate to continue to demand this.  Constitutional arguments are
>just a red herring.

>TM

I fully agree.
The Federal Govt should fund railways under exactly the same basis as it funds 
roads,and when we have a National Railway Network with uniform operating 
conditions across the whole country ,as we do with roads then you will start 
to see some federal funding.
Somehow though ,I dont think Ill live long enuf to ever see this.

MD