Re: Section 61 >> Rail funding.

["< Tell >" <telljb@netozemail.com.au>]

"Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> "< 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?



Arrrrg, I deserve 15 lashes of a rolled up constitution
for heading this thread s.61, I can not believe that.! 
Well I can, but reasons not readily explained here.

Re your response, I had forgotten about the BOOT
process, but it could get murkier later on.
Anyhow we have yet to see a Federal Government willing
to use s.96 for rail.

Incidentally, does the Tasmanian Government "re-own"
the track down there now, just as the SA Gov now owns
all non ARTC track in their state.?
 
----Tell
<< Remove net after @ for email reply. >>