Page 1419 - Week 05 - Thursday, 13 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
most licensees of premises in the ACT to be fairly responsible about these things, there is still a need for inspectors to be able to determine that some danger is present and for them to make a decision to direct the licensee that those premises should be, if not emptied, at least thinned out so that there is no threat of any problem.
The provisions in this Bill are not especially onerous, in our view, and they do head off problems which I do not think have ever occurred in the ACT. We hope that they never will occur. They will make sure that the ACT's standard of safety, our very good record on standard of safety, is maintained. It is, perhaps, a matter of slight concern that some of the incidents that have occurred, of which I am aware, at least, in recent months have not occurred in licensed premises but in other places. I think that some of the balconies that have collapsed have been in private homes and other places. Our Building Code is the best device to ensure that those places do not present a hazard to people. It may be - I pose the question to the Minister for Urban Services - that there again has been some look at the question of building standards in that respect, to see whether there is any need for us to improve our standard of domestic loads or load levels. I take it that that matter is in hand if there is any doubt or question about our own capacity to deal with that.
Madam Speaker, the other thing about this Bill is that it puts in place some important mechanisms for dealing with the problem of noise. It refers to the loss of amenity in the vicinity of licensed premises. That is directed particularly at the question of noise. Members may be aware of a number of cases where neighbours of licensed premises in the ACT - I am thinking of one in particular in Weston Creek - have complained about noise levels and where there has been some antagonism in the community about whether noise levels are too high. I believe that a mechanism other than a very formal one where courts are involved, at least at first instance, should be explored, and I think that this Bill, in fact, does that. It provides for a reasonable process to be pursued where a person may officially make a complaint to the registrar and that registrar may then proceed to convene, in effect, a sort of arbitration meeting where an attempt is made to sort out the question between the licensed premises and the neighbour or other person affected by loss of amenity. That mechanism is there to resolve that problem. I think it is a desirable objective. I think it is achievable. I believe that that and the other mechanisms in place should ensure that the sorts of problems that have plagued us to some extent in the past will be overcome. Madam Speaker, it is, I think, a desirable objective to see the things in this Bill in place and, as I have indicated, the Opposition supports the Bill.
MS SZUTY (11.52): Madam Speaker, I wish to indicate to the Assembly that I will be supporting this Bill also. I would like to raise the issue of occupancy loadings. I ask the Minister to address the question of preventative measures which, perhaps, could be taken by licensees to ensure that the occupancy levels in licensed premises do not get to the point where licensees are put in a position where they are asking people to leave. I understand that the benefit of this legislation is to prevent such dangerous overcrowding and overloading situations occurring. I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on any strategies that he has in place or has in mind that he will be taking through with licensees, to ensure that the provisions in this Bill are approached from a preventative perspective and do not result in overcrowding situations where people are actually asked to leave licensed premises.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .