Page 663 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 28 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The ACT is moving to introduce this legislation in recognition, essentially, of the fact that we do not have this order or sort of regulation of motor sport within the ACT. The legislation is based very much on the regulatory regime which applies in New South Wales. To that extent, we are simply adopting or embracing for the ACT a system which operates in New South Wales and which is endorsed by all of those with whom we have consulted, at both a national and an international level in the context of motor sporting regulatory bodies. This form of regulation is overwhelmingly endorsed and supported by the motor sport bodies that have the responsibility for regulating motor sport within Australia and indeed the bodies that regulate it around the world. This legislation sets up a regulatory regime which is generally supported by all of those who have responsibility.
None of us needs to debate or justify the need for this particular sport to be very closely regulated and that there be very clear regulatory regimes in place not only to address, of course, the essential safety and public safety issues which are part and parcel of motor sport but to deal from time to time with the unique issues that affect motor sport. They are part and parcel very often of national competition frameworks and cross-border competition frameworks. They are accredited, and need to be accredited normally, for those competitions to take place. There are specific and detailed issues that need to deal with events sponsorship and television coverage. Of course, first and foremost, issues around licensing, insurance risk and liability management are very, very relevant to the operation of motor sport legislation.
This legislation was identified, as I said, because of the recognition of a gap. It is something that has persisted for the last 16 or 17 years throughout self-government. New South Wales legislated 20 years ago. It was not picked up at the time of self-government. We are now essentially closing a gap that has existed for all that time.
I understand that there is some obvious force to the point that Mr Stefaniak makes: if the government is standing here saying, “We have no intention of applying this regulatory regime to Fairbairn Park raceway,” then Mr Stefaniak says, “If you do not intend to do that, then exclude it; do not leave the option open.” The amendments that have been moved today, as a result of representations that have been made to and the report of the scrutiny of bills committee, vest in the minister of the day the discretion to determine whether or not Fairbairn Park raceway, for instance, would be covered by the regime. To some extent, that should give some comfort to Mr Stefaniak.
The government has no intention at this stage to include Fairbairn. But one never knows. At this stage the proposal is essentially that we mirror New South Wales; we establish a regulatory regime which all motor sport facilities in the ACT are potentially affected by. At this stage there is no intention that Fairbairn be affected by this legislation. If in the future some circumstance at Fairbairn arose—one of those issues that I commented on which impacted on Fairbairn Park—then we have a regulatory regime, a legislative structure, in place that could be utilised. At this stage the government is saying, “We do not expect that to happen; we have no expectation.” But if Fairbairn itself moves to change the way in which it operates, then there would be a need for the government to look at it being covered by this legislation.
It is a to-and-fro argument, a tug-of-war; should you opt in or should you opt out. Mr Stefaniak argues, “Opt out. If it was not your intention, do not do it. If the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .