[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Federal budget

Subject: Re: Federal budget
From: "< Tell >" <telljb@netozemail.com.au>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 17:35:48 +0930
Distribution: world
Newsgroups: aus.rail
Organization: From Home with
References: <39192056.F0B8011C@werple.net.au> <hrcS4.8350$X4.16704@newsfeeds.bigpond.com> <8fbn6i$v2d$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <olnS4.552$1h5.432796@news0.optus.net.au> <8fdtkt$e1a$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <mauried.440.0070B8D3@tpg.com.au> <p2mnhsotdvv5o7siv8ep2v53m461u0fh6q@4ax.com> <9PRS4.508$L73.854102@news0.optus.net.au> <8fnnhi$rfr$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Xref: bclass.spectrum.com.au aus.rail:9006

Vaughan Williams <ender2000@my-deja.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

[snip]

Yes Dave is right, after a squiz through chapter four
of the constitution sections 84 to 105a.

A case of yours truly leaping before looking.

----Tell
<< Remove net after @ for email reply. >>

References:
- Federal budget
  - From: Roderick Smith <rodsmith@werple.net.au>
- Re: Federal budget
  - From: "Bernard Smith" <epping.smiths@gatewaynet.bigpond.com>
- Re: Federal budget
  - From: "James C." <james_ccj@my-deja.com>
- Re: Federal budget
  - From: dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David Bromage)
- Re: Federal budget
  - From: "James C." <james_ccj@my-deja.com>
- Re: Federal budget
  - From: mauried@tpg.com.au (Maurie Daly)
- Re: Federal budget
  - From: "< Tell >" <telljb@netozemail.com.au>
- Re: Federal budget
  - From: "Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au>
- Re: Federal budget
  - From: Vaughan Williams <ender2000@my-deja.com>

Prev by Date: Re: V set transfer (repost)
Next by Date: Re: V set transfer (repost)
Prev by thread: Re: Federal budget
Next by thread: Re: Federal budget
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread