Page 2840 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We said that we would be happy to look at industry's concerns. I said in good faith, "Yes, we will look at industry's concerns". We asked them whether they could come up with different schemes, but the advice of my principal advisers on matters of public safety is that it is unsound to do so. Really, we are confronted here with a question of whether we put public safety first or whether we put the interests of squeezing more people in to make more money first - and it is as blunt as that - and the Government is firmly in the position of putting public safety first. Yes, you might be able to squeeze more people into some premises, which may have better fire safety. But it is not just fire safety; it is the police saying that in that report.
One of the big benefits of the legislation from their perspective - and we were not aware that this would be a benefit when we put it through, I concede; this was not something we stressed in the introductory speech - is that in some well-known bars, which were once like a sardine can on a Friday or Saturday night, and where it would be virtually impossible for the bar staff to tell the age of the arm that came through the crowd with the $10 note to buy the alcoholic drink or to assess whether that person was intoxicated or not, you now have an environment where patrons are less crowded, where bar staff can be expected to form those judgments, where the beat squad, as they go about their duties on a Friday or Saturday night, tend to make it their business to wander through the various premises on a number of occasions on a Friday or Saturday night, can see what is going on. They are not looking at a seething mass of humanity squeezed in at a downstairs bar; they are looking at a controlled and manageable crowd.
So, for those reasons, the Government is not convinced that it is prudent for the Assembly to reduce the safety standard. We introduced a safety standard. We then said to industry that we would embark in good faith on a process of reviewing that safety standard. We looked at the industry's various statements. It is true that our standards are tougher than those in some parts of Australia.
Ms Szuty: All parts.
MR CONNOLLY: No, it is not true of all parts. The Registrar of Liquor Licences went through a process. There are some places where you could squeeze a few more in and some places where we are a bit more generous than in some parts of Australia. Certainly, there are Sydney councils that have a lower standard on crowding patrons into premises than the ACT has. In my view and in the Government's view, Mr Acting Speaker, that is not a reason for us to go down to that standard. I think Mrs Carnell referred earlier tonight to lowest common denominators, and that was a very appropriate phrase.
Mr Acting Speaker, this is an issue that has been around for some time. I do have some regrets in regard to industry that, with the pressure of Assembly processes, we were not able to get on with the debate. This Bill was introduced many months ago, but we have not been able to debate the issue of ensuring that the proper AAT appeal point is there. That has been frustrating for industry, and I apologise for that. But the Government is not in a position to agree to reducing, relaxing or providing concessions from the Building Code of Australia standard. We believe that that is a safe standard.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .