Re: Section 61 >> Rail funding.

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

"< Tell >" <telljb@netozemail.com.au> wrote in message
o8m9isckqupsmiltq0htfgr8rmpm9lqa91@4ax.com">news:o8m9isckqupsmiltq0htfgr8rmpm9lqa91@4ax.com...

> However to move on, Vaughan mentioned s.96 of the
> constitution which ties federal funding to roads and
> how it does not apply to rail at this time.

Only because the Parliament has not seen fit to extend its coverage to rail,
which you would sort of expect, given the politicians that we have and their
love of bitumen.

> What would the position be if s.96 were applied to
> railways, would or could this apply to a private
> railway which actually owns the track.?

I do not think that this section could be used to provide funding to private
companies under a normal ownership model, i.e. that the private company
retains ownership of the track.

However, since just about any project which needed public funding would not
be financially viable without it, the government would normally exercise
some leverage with regard to the funding to retain some level of control or
ownership, in much the same way that the Queensland government has with the
Airport Link and the various governments have with regard to the ASP-DRW
line (both by wait of BOOT contracts).

Since governments remain involved with the ownership of both of these, then
funding under s.96 would have been possible. But if it was purely private, I
doubt that it would have been constitutional under this section.

btw, why the reference to s.61?

Dave