NSW Track Licences and CAMS involvement in them

[RaceTime]

As has been mentioned in a few other threads, in NSW, the Department of Sport and Recreation is responsible for issuing of track licences - this is covered under the Motor Vehicle Sports (Public Safety) Act 1985 and the Motor Vehicle Sports (Public Safety) Regulations 1999.

There are currently two issues with this.

The first is the application of the regulations - they are covered under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1989 and are due for automatic repeal on 1st September 2004. IOW the regulations which cover the issuing of track licences in NSW will automatically be repealed later this year. It is possily that this automatic 5 year 'sunset clause' will be reinvoked - pushing there effective repeal date to 2009 BUT....read on....

The second issue has to do with CAMS. As also mentioned in another thread, CAMS it is believed, currently have two fairly high profile lobbyists in NSW lobbying the state government to have the law and regulations repealed in total ie no new sunset clause.

One of these lobbyists, it is believed, is former labor senator Steven LOOSELY - who, I understand, does NOT come cheaply.

What is happening here is that CAMS appear to be working to have the NSW law removed so that there is no regulatory body or government involved in issuing of track licences.

Shouldn't be a problem with that - except, that as RaceNews understands it - this 'work' is attempting to have CAMS delegated as the sole national body for the issuing of track licences - this would involve cars, bikes, spesdway, drags, motorcross - everything. This is, so I am led to believe, the primary aim of the current issues CAMS are having with tracks and AASA.

If CAMS can convince the National Competition Committe (http://www.ncc.gov.au/articleZone.asp?articleZoneID=16) that CAMS should be the body to regulate motorsport in this country, then CAMS could effectively be the sole controlling body, in Australia, for all motorsport.

This is having some effects that weren't originally envisaged, but may be working into CAMS hands.

[275 GTB-4]

Thanks for posting that Racetime, this unfolding drama does not look good for Motorsport overall, UNLESS, CAMS gets with the program and starts listening to what racers, officials, timekeepers , fans, promoters etc want to see improved or changed.

I really don't have any problem with one controlling body, so long as it is managed correctly.

As a for instance, I am heartily sick and tired of seeing the states and territories of Australia all reinventing wheels over legislation and things that effect our daily lives. Vehicle registration is one area that should have the same set of rules Australia wide.

The one thing that seems to constantly bugger up this sport is POLITICS!!!

[RaceTime]

Like you I am not really concerned whether it is CAMS, AASA, the RACV/NRMA or even the RSPCA that control motor sport in this country - just stop the BS and get on with the job - doing it properly wihtout fear or favour.

It is funny, really - elements within CAMS and AVESCO seem to think I am trying to out them, to harm them - like I have said many times - if they took the blinkers off they would see I don't care who is causing the problems - fix them and get back to work!

The idiots in the VMRC thread two weeks ago seem to think of me as a publicist for the AASA - if they only knew! If the AASA were stuffing up as much as CAMS then, believe me, I would be on them like a ton of bricks (Just ask Mick ronke )

But for the life of me I cannot understand what CAMS is trying to do - the way it is currently opening up, it would seem that there scould well be a push to split CAMS in to - or even exclude CAMS from one segment of Australian motor sport - let CAMS deal with the professional side - let someone else (maybe AASA, who knows really) deal with the club level side of the sport.

CAMS have this problem of always getting club and professional motor sport mixed up - attempting to treat everyone as a 'professional' - which unfortunately continues to cause problems - and CAMS can't (or won't) see this.

Anyway - back to reality

[mmciau]

I stand corrected but IIRC, the last Adelaide Rally ran into big trouble with the SA Government issuing a Ministerial Press Release that the Competetors/Participants must be insured with CAMS.

Mike

Copied from Government site
http://www.premier.sa.gov.au/Ministe...&MinisterID=13

Hon JANE LOMAX-SMITH MP


11/11/2003 ALL SYSTEMS GO FOR THE 2003 CLASSIC ADELAIDE RALLY News Release


This month’s 2003 Classic Adelaide Rally is back on track with the State Government securing a resolution of the stalemate over insurance and the event’s regulations.

“Event organisers Silverstone Events and the Confederation of Australian Motor Sport (CAMS) have shown an enormous amount of goodwill and cooperation which has allowed us all to move forward,” the Minister for Tourism, Jane Lomax-Smith says.

“The Classic Adelaide Rally is a fantastic event enjoyed by thousands of South Australians so we are pleased that this issue has been satisfactorily resolved.”

Concerns were raised over the staging of this month’s event following a move by organisers to run the rally outside of the control of CAMS.

The latest negotiations mean the event will be organised and run under CAMS permit and insurance and under the rules of CAMS and the FIA.

More than 200 cars are due to participate in this year’s five-day rally from November 19. The event is mainly for cars built before 1982 and features vehicles such as Ferraris and Porsches.

Australian Rally Commission Chairman, Garry Connelly, and Silverstone Events Chairman, David Edwards, recognised that compromises had been made on both sides to secure this year’s event.

“This is one of the major rallies in Australia and we support the Silverstone Events’ aspiration to turn Classic Adelaide into an important international event,” Mr Connelly said. “We will assist wherever we can to ensure the success and safe conduct of the rally.”

“CAMS believes that the best interests of the organisers, competitors, officials and all stakeholders will be well served with the result of today’s resolution.”

Mr Edwards said he was pleased the lengthy negotiations had resulted in a positive outcome.

“Silverstone Events is especially pleased for South Australian motorsport followers, all competitors and officials associated with the event, supporting sponsors and the South Australian Government that this outcome has been achieved.”

Minister Jane Lomax-Smith said: “This looks like being the best Rally ever so let’s get ready to party at the Gouger Street Concourse on Friday 21 November”.

[RaceTime]

Yes - basically the organisers of the rally were forced to accept these conditions if they wanted the rally to go ahead. They had arranged their own insurance package - or were close to finalising it - but because of the ties with the Clipsal (some reports suggested that the Clipsal itself could be 'in jeapordy' if the SA Govt allowed the rally to go ahead without CAMS sanctioning) the govt eventually toed the CAMS line.

[pete55]

Another Government easily fooled. Or uninformed at the very least.

[Hybrid]

Can't see a problem here as long as CAMS also get rid of their commercial arm and go back to what thay are supposed to be under the FIA statutes ie a non profit organization

While they are making a profit ( or trying to ) from motorsport there must be competition.

[Hybrid]

IMHO !

[RaceTime]

IF any of you have access to the GEAR magazine, get hold of the current issue - there is a two page article by Jim Madden on the antics of both CAMS and the NSW Government in relation to this legislation - it will open a few eyes when you read exactly what CAMS are attempting to do (and no - this isn't speculation - much in that article has been confirmed by government documents - some having to be obtained under Freedom of Information requests and having that objected to by the govt IOW they didn't want it coming out as to what they have been up to).

I am waiting on Jim Madden to get back to me so that I can send the article out via RaceNews.

[RaceTime]

The article mentioned above has been posted via RaceNews - it is a rather lengthy post, but covers the history of the NSW Act and CAMS, and others, involvement in it.

I would recommend it be read by all to understand what changes CAMS are attempting to undertake to motor sport in Australia (and this does not relate solely to 4 wheel car racing - it WILL involve drags, karting and bikes - both bitumen and dirt racing for all types..)

http://www.racetime.com.au/?racenews=5024

Gear & Jim Madden
Feb 2 2004
Potted History - The NSW Motor Vehicle Sports (Public Safety) Act

Motor Vehicle Sports (Public Safety) Act

Problem:

In mid 1999 the NSW Department of Sport and Recreation (DSR) proposed a major change to the above act. Circuit owners were not informed. CAMS, as a member of the Minister’s Licence Advisory Panel under the existing Act, were fully informed.

To quote directly from the DSR’s own documents, which were very difficult for Gear to finally obtain:

“…the DSR is proposing that any applicant for a licence (for a motor racing circuit) is required to affiliate with a recognised controlling body…” and that this change to the act “…will ensure a more stable industry in that there will be uniformity in all aspects of safety standards relating to vehicles, competitors and spectators.”

[Big Trev]

Very interesting reading. It is good to see that there is a team in there fighting (and lobbying) as hard as the other team.

[Matthew Ronke]

Stuart Littlemore raises some serious concerns for the majority of motor sport participants. I hope everyone in NSW acts on this because it should be the competitors/officials right to choose what motor sport they wish to conduct or compete in and not what CAMS tell them they must conduct or compete.

[RaceTime]

Matthew - I think something needs to clearly explained here to everyone - this doesn't just concern NSW.

For starters - why haven't CAMS said anything about this to their MEMBERS - you know, the people CAMS are so fond of telling everyone that they represent.

It would appear, based on informaiton obained in NSW, that CAMS are trying to act in a very underhanded way - why else have they not said anything about this?

[Matthew Ronke]

I imagine this would be of grave concern to the variety club people. The Bash across different states including NSW would require them to operate under CAMS something that this group does not want to do. This could seriously damage the Variety Club's income.

[RaceTime]

I'm not sure - but I think everyone is missing the bigger picture here - it isn't just the Variety Club People - it is everything to do with motor sport.

Car races, rallies, motorkhanas, hillclimbs, sprint, bike races, dirt speedway, motorbikes, motocross, drags - hell, even kids events.

EVERYTHING - CAMS are lobbying the NSW Department of Sport and Recreation to given them total monopoly control over motorsport in NSW.

Once one labor state capitulates the feeling is the remaining states will be that much easier. Especially when NSW has a premier who is reputed to be anti-car racing...

[Bomn]

Not just anti car racing he is said to be anti car. I belive he doesn't even hold a drivers licence.

[RaceTime]

A correction to what I have previously posted in relation to the proposed amendments to the Act.

There are two options being put forward - one is to completely remove the current act - this would leave everything without government regulation and the circuits would have to prove insurance etc to any body that issues track licences.

The other is to amend the current regulations giving one body ie CAMS full control over tracks in NSW.

It is this second option which CAMS are attempting to rorce through.

[Matthew Ronke]

Originally posted by RaceTime
A correction to what I have previously posted in relation to the proposed amendments to the Act.

There are two options being put forward - one is to completely remove the current act - this would leave everything without government regulation and the circuits would have to prove insurance etc to any body that issues track licences.

The other is to amend the current regulations giving one body ie CAMS full control over tracks in NSW.

It is this second option which CAMS are attempting to rorce through.

I think that the first option is by Far the most sensible.

[RaceTime]

Ahhh but we are back to sensible options and CAMS options.... the two never appear to go hand in hand lately, do they?

[mmciau]

RaceTime,
This CAMS push to control all motor sport incl speedway has been going on since time immemorial.

And thanks for your doggedness in exposing this.

Mike

[RaceTime]

Yes it has been going on for a while - but in the past 18 months or so it has taken on a larger ....ummm whats the word I am looking for? Impetus??

Taking on a lobyist such as Steven Loosely is costing them big money - that and the fact the NSW government is refusing to provide documents suggests that there may be more to this than is currently known. After all - why hide documents if everything is above board?