Cover image courtesy Coffs Racing Club
The NSW Government’s decision to hand Racing NSW management of five Crown land racecourses came under scrutiny at Budget Estimates on Thursday, with Minister for Lands and Property Steve Kamper questioned over the advice he received, the consultation undertaken and the problems that have since emerged at Queanbeyan and Coffs Harbour.
Racing NSW was appointed Crown Land Manager of Coffs Harbour, Port Macquarie, Inverell, Queanbeyan and Armidale in 2024, replacing local management arrangements at the five racecourses.
At Coffs Harbour, the change gave Racing NSW responsibility for the reserve and its existing agreements, including arrangements affecting stable blocks occupied by trainers.
Independent MP Mark Latham asked Kamper what advice he had received before approving what Latham described as “an unprecedented arrangement” given Racing NSW is also the statutory regulator of thoroughbred racing in NSW.
Steve Kamper | Image courtesy of Multicultural NSW
“I was of the understanding that there was no real contention there,” Kamper responded, adding that he understood most of the relevant managers or boards supported the change.
Latham challenged the Minister over whether sufficient consideration had been given to Racing NSW both regulating racing and managing the land on which racing participants operated.
Kamper agreed to provide on notice the specific departmental advice he received about the five appointments.
Department met with Coffs trainers and Racing NSW
Departmental officials also confirmed Crown Lands had become directly involved in the ongoing dispute at Coffs Harbour.
Kamper repeated during questioning that many of the operational issues at the racecourse were matters for Racing NSW as Crown Land Manager. Officials told the hearing Crown Lands representatives had met with affected Coffs Harbour trainers and had also met separately with Racing NSW about the issues at the racecourse.
TTR reported last month that a number of Coffs Harbour trainers remain in dispute over stable blocks they had bought, built or improved under arrangements that operated at the racecourse for decades. After Racing NSW took over management and reviewed the agreements, trainers were told they did not privately own the buildings in the way some had understood.
Coffs Harbour racecourse | Image courtesy of Coffs Racing Club
Racing NSW and the NSW Trainers Association maintain the legal position did not change with the transfer of Crown land management, and that the applicable leases had always provided that improvements reverted to the lessor when agreements ended.
Some trainers have declined to sign the new leases offered by Racing NSW, saying the unresolved issue is the money previously paid for interests they believed could later be transferred.
Latham told Thursday’s hearing that trainers had not been paying rent because they had refused to sign the proposed agreements. Kamper said rental arrangements were a matter for the Crown Land Manager.
Queanbeyan questioned
Queanbeyan was used repeatedly during the hearing as an example of problems arising from the original transfer process.
Concerns about Racing NSW’s appointment there led the Government to remove Racing NSW as Crown Land Manager in July 2025 and appoint an independent administrator to examine the reserve’s management and future arrangements.
Racing NSW was reappointed in June this year.
Asked by Latham why Racing NSW had been appointed, removed and then reinstated, Kamper said there had been “questions around that process”.
Mark Latham | Image courtesy of Mark Latham
“We put an administrator in there to go through the history and have a look at what the challenges were on that particular site,” he said. “We’ve worked through them and we’re comfortable that Racing New South Wales is the appropriate manager for that site.”
Nationals MP Wes Fang later pressed Kamper on whether the Queanbeyan experience should have triggered a review of the other four appointments. He put to Kamper that the advice surrounding Queanbeyan had proved problematic and asked whether the department had checked that the same issue had not occurred elsewhere.
“Did you not think to actually look at the other Crown land leases that were provisioned at the same time as Queanbeyan and go, ‘Perhaps the same issue has occurred on the other four?’” Fang asked.
Queanbeyan racecourse | Image courtesy Queanbeyan Racecourse
A Crown Lands official said the material provided to Kamper at the time included letters from each of the five racecourses confirming they understood and accepted the proposed change.
Fang challenged whether that accurately reflected the position on the ground, pointing to both Queanbeyan and Coffs Harbour. The department did not concede that any of the other four appointments were improperly made.
The advice originally provided to Kamper about the five transfers will now be produced on notice.
