Re: GST & the Budget

[mauried@commslab.gov.au (Maurie Daly)]

In article <37534209@nap-ns1> "Grahame Ferguson" <grahamef@users.mcmedia.com.au> writes:
>From: "Grahame Ferguson" <grahamef@users.mcmedia.com.au>
>Subject: Re: GST & the Budget
>Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 11:27:03 +1000


>I wrote in message <3750eccf@nap-ns1>...
>>The only good news now for Rail is that it does not have to pay a
>>'road tax' from July 1 2000, otherwise the big trucks still benefit.
>>
>>The main issue is that there is NO new infrastructure for Rail.  To be fair
>>to Rail, the fuel excise already paid the past financial year and the
>excise
>>to be paid in the present financial year should be invested in new track.
>I
>>doubt whether any Senator with the balance of power even thought of giving
>>something back to the Rail Industry at all.
>>

>I should have clarified by stating no NEW funding rather than
>Infrastructure.
>The $250million touted is over 4 years, and is brought up at every Budget,
>giving the impression that it is $250million per year.

>The diesel fuel excise was a road users tax, this should be refunded to the
>Rail Industry in the form of grants for capital expenditure.  But this will
>be thrown into roads.

>If you read in yesterdays letters to the Editor in the Financial Review, a
>letter from Vince Graham NRC CEO stated that the NRC is paying rail access
>charges plus fuel excise(a road access charge), which effectively costs the
>NRC 78cents per kilometre.  I doubt the Road Industry would have paid fuel
>excise plus a levy to the Main Roads Department, or a fuel excise of 78
>cents per kilometre.  Road taxes for Interstate Truckers is
>unconstitutional.  Why isn't any charges for an interstate rail operator
>deemed as preventing Free Trade between the States?

This is an excellent point and one that I have wondered about for a while.
The fact that no rail operator has been able , or indeed willing to take a 
state govt to the high court over track access charges may be in part due to 
the fact that organizations like NRC are in part owned by the States, ie you 
would be taking legal action against your own shareholders.
There are other areas also where train operators could take legal action 
against the states.
Requirements like a mandated rule that SAW equipment be fitted into trains to 
enter Victoria is almost certainly a breach of S92 of the constitution where 
interstate freight is concerned.
As a precedent the Victorian Road Traffic Authority tried to require that all 
trucks entering Victoria had to be fitted with tachographs , but were rolled 
by the federal Court citing S92.



>Regardless of Railways being a State responsibilty, so are roads hospitals,
>child care and schools.  The Feds will use a get out clause if it suits
>them.  The Commonwealth collects most of our taxes, so thats where the money
>is.  $110 billion in our income taxes alone.

Yes this is true , but schools, hospitals and roads for that matter are funded 
thru grants to the states determined by the grants commission.
The Queensland Govt is quite capable and willing to fund its own Railways 
without special Commonwealht grants just for Rail.
I could just imagine the Queensland Premier crying foul if the feds start 
handing out Rail money to recalcitrant states like NSW and Victoria simply 
because they have chosen to not fund their Railways.


>Whoever owns or runs a railway fighting about it will not fix that goat
>track they call the Melbourne to Albury interstate S.G. line.
>Would you use a road that still had the same bitumen as it did in 1962, well
>that is what is happening  on the rails now between Melbourne and Albury,
>and rail is supposed to compete!!?

Despite what most readers say about the Melb -Albury line its not as bad as 
people make out.
The XPT still travels the Albury - Melb route in 3 hours for 317 km which is a 
faster average speed over this distance than anywhere in NSW. 
Freights run at 100 km/h over most of the route which has been partly 
relaid with 60kg/m rail.
The trouble here is not the track but how much it 
costs to run over it .
If funds are going to be spent on rail by the Feds then 
a better solution would be to leave the Melb - Albury line exactly as it is 
and abolish all track access charges for running over it.
The same goes for all of ARTCs lines .
With no track access charges then we are starting to dramatically level the 
playing field.


MD