Re: Federal budget

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

In article <8fnnhi$rfr$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Vaughan Williams <ender2000@my-deja.com> writes:
>From: Vaughan Williams <ender2000@my-deja.com>
>Subject: Re: Federal budget
>Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 02:31:14 GMT


>> > 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

I dont believe that anyone in this thread has suggested that the constitution 
prevents the federal govt from funding railways or indeed from funding 
anything else for that matter.
By the same token there is no constitutional requirement that the Feds do fund 
railways either.
The general argument seems to to come down to that because the feds fund 
roads then they must also fund railways.
Why.?
The feds provide funding for major infrastructure projects in the States and 
indeed anywhere else in Australia on the basis of the perceived public benefit 
derived from that funding.
It has nothing to do with because we fund one form of transport then we must 
fund others as well.

All of the recent reports into rail in Australia have unanimously argued that 
infrastructure funding of rail by itself will not achieve any substantial 
benefits,unless there is corresponding changes in the regulatory and access 
regimes,which are State controlled.
The Federal Govt is quite within its rights to only offer federal funding for 
Rail on the conditions that it sets.
This policy goes back as far as the Keating Labor Govt , ie is bi partisan 
when Keating correctly identified and tried to set up Track Australia.
Of course he got nowhere ,and neither has the current Govt.

MD