Aurizon Network’s response Clause Samples
Aurizon Network’s response. Within 20 Business Days after receipt of such notification, Aurizon Network must advise the Claimant Access Holder:
(a) whether or not Aurizon Network agrees that the Access Agreement with the other Network Customer is for a Like Train Service and, if not, the reasons why Aurizon Network considers this to be the case;
(b) if Aurizon Network agrees that the Access Agreement with the other Network Customer is for a Like Train Service, whether or not Aurizon Network agrees that the access charge applicable to the Like Train Service has been developed in contravention of the limits on price differentiation set out in the Access Undertaking and, if not, the reasons why Aurizon Network considers that the access charge applicable to the Like Train Service has not been developed in contravention of the limits on price differentiation; and
(c) if Aurizon Network agrees that the access charge applicable to the Like Train Service has been developed in contravention of the limits on price differentiation, then within 40 Business Days after the advice provided under this clause 35.2, Aurizon Network must advise the Claimant Access Holder:
(i) whether or not Aurizon Network has been able to vary the access charge applicable to the Like Train Service such that it no longer contravenes the limits on price differentiation set out in the Access Undertaking; or
(ii) if Aurizon Network has not been able to vary the access charge applicable to the Like Train Service, that Aurizon Network agrees to the reduction of the Access Charges payable by the Claimant Access Holder, including the amount of the proposed reduced Access Charges.
Aurizon Network’s response. The effectiveness or otherwise of the SUFA documents to enable the Trust to claim tax depreciation must be tested with the ATO – through an ABA, and a PBR when an actual SUFA transaction arises
Aurizon Network’s response a) Granting security over access charges under linked access agreements for an amount equal to the rent payable in the event that the direction to pay mechanism is no longer effective
Aurizon Network’s response a) The form of the template TD and the SUHD should be able to be amended to permit third-party finance by negotiation between the parties to a SUFA transaction
b) The form of the template TD and the SUHD should be able to be amended to permit third-party finance by binding dispute resolution should the negotiation prove unsuccessful
c) The 2013 SUFA DAAU arrangements should allow for third party financing
d) A Financing Side Deed should be included as one of the SUFA documents
Aurizon Network’s response. As Aurizon Network proposes in Section 3.2, AU changes to provide a comprehensive SUFA framework should be addressed as part of the 2014 DAU process.
Aurizon Network’s response a) The potential for discrimination in respect of asset maintenance (is) to be considered as part of the broader condition based assessment approach under the 2014 DAU process
b) The 2013 SUFA DAAU should not place restrictions on who can participate in funding a SUFA arrangement
c) Potential issues of cost-shifting and other discriminatory behaviour (are) to be considered as part of the 2014 DAU process
Aurizon Network’s response a) The attachment of a redacted draft of the Infrastructure Lease to the SUFA documentation. The redactions should permit the preference unit holders to determine how QTH may terminate the Infrastructure Lease
Aurizon Network’s response a) The acceptance of the rental calculation methodology under current regulation practices as reasonable
b) The inclusion of simple examples of rental calculation in the SUFA documentation
Aurizon Network’s response a) A broadening of the scope of parties eligible to be SUFA investors
Aurizon Network’s response a) The Trust should be allowed to obtain finance itself
b) The Trust should be free to issue units to third party finance entities or to create a financing trust above the Trust