Re: Federal Budget- Nothing for the Nation's Railways!

["Al" <alpout@optusnet.com.au>]

"Maurie Daly" <mauried@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
3b0c504b.1067408@can-news.tpg.com.au">news:3b0c504b.1067408@can-news.tpg.com.au...
> On 23 May 2001 18:36:40 +1000, "Bradley Torr"
> <truenorth@one.net.au.SPAMTRAP> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >David Bromage <dbromage@fang.omni.com.au> wrote in article
> ><3B0B3715.4FB079B1@fang.omni.com.au>...
> >
> >>    Mr Anderson said reforms in Western Australia, South Australia
> >> and Victoria had led to federally funded projects that resulted in
> >> improved transit times and reliability and boosted rail's market
> >> share.
> ><snip>
> >
> >Isn't the NSW Rail Infrastructure Corporation also the most expensive
> >open-access track owner in Australia, charging train operators something
> >like 85 cents per tonne-kilometre, more than double the rest of the
> >national rail network, while having the worst alignments and track quality?
> >
> >No wonder Bob Carr and the NSW ALP mafia don't want to turn over any
> >railway control to the Feds!
> >
> >Is the RIC Annual Report online? I'd like to see how much the RIC invested
> >in new alignments and maintenace, and what dividend it paid to the State
> >Consolidated Fund.
> >
> >Regards
> >BT
> >
>
>
> The problem is AFAIK not RIC per se , but the fact that it is Govt
> owned corporation , but not an incorporated company.
> Govts like turning their agencies into Corporations because they can
> then pretend that the Corporations are more efficient as they have to
> operate in a businesslike manner,and MAKE PROFITS , which then means
> paying dividends to the shareholders , and guess in the case of RIC
> who the shareholders are .?
>
>
> Its not just the NSW Govt who does this .
> Govt owned Corporations that are  incorporated , (ie controlled by a
> board like Telstra or ARTC or NRC ) are NOT subject to interferance by
> the controlling Minister.
> Indeed, in the cases of NRC and ARTC , the Federal Minister has
> extremely limited scope for giving directions.
>
> There have been several instances in NSW where the Minister has
> directed RIC to operate in a certain way which has increased their
> costs .
> Also , the dividends are usually set by the NSW Treasury and dont
> reflect any concern about what impact higher dividends (means higher
> track access charges) will have on the rail industry as a whole .
>
> In other words , the NSW Govt is simply using RIC as a tax collection
> agency,and this is one reason why the Feds wont put any money into
> rail which is under State control ,as its simply an indirect form of
> additional payment to the State .
>
> Track access charges , like the costs of most things need to be
> subject to scrutiny by the ACCC to determine whether they are fair ,
> but cant be whilst the State Govt effectively sets the charges.
>
> This is exactly the problem in Victoria with FAs argument about the
> track access regime.
>
> In my view track access charges should be completely abolished.
> Road users dont have to pay road user charges, the shipping industry
> doesnt pay water usage charges , and the aviation industry doesnt pay
> air usage charges .
> Its fair to charge for Terminal use where the terminals are provided
> by 3rd parties .
>
> Ive said it before ,and Ill say it again, there will be NO federal
> funding for rail whilst State Govts continue to insist on control of
> their railways , but want the Feds to pay for them.
> This is stated federal Govt policy, its also what the Productivity
> Commission recommended.(NO funding without rail reform).
> The real culprit for the lack of rail reform in NSW is the NSW
> Transport Minister , not John Anderson.
>
> MD
>

Here's an answer straight from the Constitution:
 104. Nothing in this Constitution shall render unlawful any rate for the
carriage of goods upon a railway, the property of a State, if the rate is
deemed by the Inter-State Commission to be necessary for the development of
the territory of the State, and if the rate applies equally to goods within
the State and to goods passing into the State from other States.

So why not get the Inter-State Commission, or modern equivalent, to declare
that NSW doesn't need its rates so high?

Al