Re: GST & the Budget

[arthur marsh <marsh@ties.itu.int>]

There again seems to be some difference in what can be required by the
states for rail operators versus what is required for road operators -
does this get by because of the mention in the constitution of rail being
a state matter, or does S92 override that?

On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Maurie Daly wrote:

...
> 
> 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.
> 


...
> 
> 
> MD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>