Page 2838 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
For this reason, I foreshadow amendments to require the Fire Commissioner, in making recommendations on occupancy loadings, to have regard for the Building Code restrictions on the number of people allowed per square metre, without being strictly bound by it, and to retain the limit set by exit dimensions. My amendments have already been circulated to members. Essentially, what I will be proposing in the amendments is that occupancy loadings should be driven by safety considerations rather than floor area alone. We certainly do, though, support Mr Connolly's amendments to this Act to ensure that there is review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, to ensure that people have a capacity to seek that review.
MS SZUTY (9.02): In speaking at the in-principle stage of this debate, I am reminded very much of the debate on the Liquor (Amendment) Bill of 13 May last year and, in particular, of the primary reason for the Bill being passed unanimously by this Assembly. That reason, I believe, was that there was an understandable concern among Assembly members, licensing authorities, police and the fire and emergency services about the potential hazards associated with the overcrowding of licensed premises in emergency situations. At that time all Assembly members were aware, I am sure, that some licensed premises were, at times, overcrowded, and, as I recall, Tilley's was often mentioned in this context. I also remember thinking at the time of a number of tragic occasions overseas when multiple deaths had occurred as a result of people trying to escape from fires in discos and nightclubs. It was clear at the time that the Assembly needed to enact appropriate legislation to ensure, as far as possible, that the problems encountered in other countries were not repeated in this Territory.
Mr Acting Speaker, I held this view at that time, and I still do today. However, in this instance it appears that the pendulum may have swung too far in the other direction, to the detriment of licensees and their patrons. I understand that the Registrar of Liquor Licences and the Fire Commissioner have both received advice from the ACT Government Solicitor that under the Liquor Act any recommended occupancy loadings that deviate from the Building Code of Australia's Part D1.13, which Mrs Carnell referred to, which relates to area per person, and Part D1.6, which relates to exit capability, may leave them legally liable in the event of an emergency. Naturally enough, as a result of this advice, the registrar's decision must always conform with the assessment of the Fire Commissioner and that assessment, in turn, is definitively based on Parts D1.13 and D1.6 of the Building Code of Australia.
I also understand that, despite the licensee's right of review provided by section 104 of the Act, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has determined that this right of review is not available when the registrar's determination conforms with the assessment of the Fire Commissioner. This means that, to all intents and purposes, the Fire Commissioner's assessment is the final determination of occupancy loading for licensed premises, and this determination is not appealable.
Mr Acting Speaker, the Attorney-General has rightly introduced this Bill to rectify this technical problem with the Liquor Act. As the Attorney-General said in his presentation speech, "This outcome is clearly an unintended consequence", and I welcome the fact that the Government has moved to ensure that licensees who believe that the registrar's determination of occupancy loading for their premises is inappropriate will be able to have the decision fully reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .