Re: Federal budget

[David Guymer <davidmg@optusnet.com.au>]

I am sure that this thread is resurrected every year at this time. These arguments sound familiar too. Since the polies
(federal) are in the pockets of the tucking industry, why do you think that they will contribute anything reasonable to
railways. I think you need to wait for a change in government.

David G.

Vaughan Williams wrote:

> > > 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.
>
> Nonsense re constitution - as other folks have said, theres no
> constitutional impediment to federal funding of railways.
>
> What Dave has written below is all quite correct, but as risk of being
> off topic, is largely irrelevant to federal funding of railways.
>
> The relevant section is s.96 - "... the parliament may provide
> financial assistance to any state on such terms and conditions as the
> parlezvous thinks fit". There is a substantial body of case law that
> has grown up around this section and it is the means by which roads are
> federally funded.
>
> So the only reason federal funding isn't made available for railways
> (or made as available as it should be) is because the feds don't want
> to.
>
> The responsibility for large capital works (major roads especially) has
> generally been regarded as federal responsibility at least in part,
> since the feds brought about the vertical fiscal imbalance when they
> blackmailed the states into relinquishing income tax revenue back in
> the 1940's.
>
> Vaughan
>
> > 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
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.