Re: Interest in fast train links unlikely says Opposition

["Roy Wilke" <roywilke@notabitlikeanisp.net.au>]

"Maurie Daly" <mauried@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
3ad52935.19487617@can-news.tpg.com.au">news:3ad52935.19487617@can-news.tpg.com.au...
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:07:15 +1000, David Bromage
> <dbromage@fang.omni.com.au> wrote:
>
> >The Victorian Opposition says the Government has no hope of attracting
> >private money for its proposed fast train links between Melbourne and
> >Victoria's main regional centres.
> >
> >http://www.abc.net.au/news/state/vic/archive/metvic-12apr2001-14.htm
>
> Id suggest that they are spot on , given FAs problems with the Vic
> Govt,and no explanation at all from the Vic Govt of how private sector
> investors in hi speed rail will ever get their money back.
> Goverments seem to think that private sector investment simply means
> that the private sector pays for Govt owned infrastructure .
> Unless the Vic Govt is prepared to guarantee the returns from hi speed
> rail,as they ahve had to do with toll road projects like Transurban
> ,then no one will invest.
> Would you put your hard earned dollars into rail in Victoria?
>
> MD

So, I take it that you're saying that the only way that a privatise railway
operator can make a profit in Australia is with Government subsidies (i.e. a
guarantee that alternative publically-owned and accessible infrastructure
will be downgraded because the railway is operated by a private operator
which needs to make a profit using equipment and infrastructure that was
originally paid for by the tax payers and was acquired by the private
operator at a discounted price well below the cost price value of the
publically-funded infrastructure)?

If that's the case, then can you give me a valid argument for privatisation?