Re: Section 61 >> Rail funding.

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

"Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
Ox8V4.873$465.812622@news0.optus.net.au">news:Ox8V4.873$465.812622@news0.optus.net.au...

> Dunno. Might wander off to AustLII and see if I can find the 1975
> legislation that provides for the transfer. I was looking for some 1978
> Victorian legislation last week and it was not there, so I am not hopeful,
> but since the legislation is still in place, you would think it would be
up.
>
> Let me get back to you.

Have not found the Tasmanian Legislation, but I have found the agreement
between the two governments. It is at
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ra1975191/sch1.html

The following clause is interesting (about 2/3 of the way down).

"(5) Australia or the Australian Commission will give to the State
the right of first refusal in respect of any land to be vested in the
Australian Commission pursuant to this agreement and no longer required for
the purposes of Australia, the Australian Commission, or any other Authority
or Instrumentality of Australia, on such terms and conditions as shall be
agreed between the parties, and having regard to the basis on which the
relevant land was vested in the Australian Commission."

I have looked through the Australian National Railways Commission Act 1983,
mainly with regard to the provisions relating to the sale of AN. There was
nothing that I could see that gave the purchasers of AN the status of an
Authority or Instrumentality of the Commonwealth (WRT the transfer of assets
under this agreement, not in any other respect).

Of course, it is possible that this clause came into play with the
Commonwealth offering the Tasmanian government the chance to buy the
operations, which they knocked back (why would you pay to get back something
you gave away in the first place?)

Since the land would no longer be required by Australia (the Commonwealth
government), the Australian Commission (AN), or any other Authority or
Instrumentality, and since the State had refused it (bearing in mind the
"basis on which the relevant land was vested in the Australian Commission")
then I would assume that ownership would have passed to the new owners.

An interesting one which I will pass on to those at uni, where reading paper
copies of legislation is much easier than reading it on the monitor, making
it less likely that you have missed something staring back out at you. If
anyone has any further info on this, I would love to hear it.

Dave