Re: April Digest - congrats Max Michell

["Grahame Ferguson" <grahamef@users.mcmedia.com.au>]

Dave Proctor wrote in message ...
>"Grahame Ferguson" <grahamef@users.mcmedia.com.au> wrote in message
>3adc1244@nap-ns1.netconnect.net.au">news:3adc1244@nap-ns1.netconnect.net.au...
>>
>> Bill Bolton wrote in message ...
>> >I shudder to think what any of the urban rail systems would be like
>> >under Federal control.
>> >
>> >Cheers,
>> >Bill
>> >
>> >
>> >Bill Bolton
>> >Sydney, Australia
>>
>> Bill, the plan as construed by those who wanted federal control eg
Whitlam
>> et al, was for NON-URBAN to be under federal control while urban transit
>was
>> to be controlled by local authorities with some federal funding.
>>
>> Sections 98-104 of the Constitution refer to the control of INTERSTATE
>> commerce as respect to railways.
>
>So what would happen to Hunter Vally coal, Sydney-Blayney freights,
>Melbourne-Geelong freights, etc.
>
>As for NON-URBAN [sic] what about long distance passengers?
>
>Dave
>
It stays under state control unless the state wants to give it up or the
coal travels interstate.

It means that interstate traffic can come under the same standards as
oppossed to differring standards when you cross state borders.

The jurisdiction comes over interstate traffic and could be used to fund
interstate railways if the feds wanted to, like they already fund to the
billions to interstate roads.

GF