Page 2841 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The advice of our principal public safety adviser is that since the code has been in place there has been a noticeable improvement in public order in licensed premises in Civic; it is easier for police to keep an eye on what is going on; it is easier to monitor behaviour in licensed premises. We have had, as a separate exercise, of course, the code of practice for safe drinking in Civic. We disagree with the AHA on this proposal; but the AHA has enthusiastically supported the responsible code of practice for serving alcohol in Civic, the safer Civic initiative. It is just easier to conduct all those sorts of initiatives when you have control of crowd numbers. It is not just about fire exits; it is about safe crowd numbers.
The Building Code of Australia provides a formula which is rigid but which is fair and objective. You cannot have questions about whether one premises got favourable treatment over another, which I must confess is a matter of some concern over the foreshadowed amendments when you start to build in discretions. Particularly in this industry, there can always be suggestions that somebody got an inside running and somebody got a better deal than another. Under this regime it cannot be suggested that the Fire Commissioner or the Registrar of Liquor Licences looked more favourably on one premises than another. There is some movement under the Building Code of Australia because there are differing requirements for a bar area as opposed to a restaurant as opposed to a dance floor; so, there is some room for flexibility as to what is a bar and what is a dance floor. But they are at least very objective.
Mr Acting Speaker, when it comes down to it, this Assembly unanimously passed a measure as a public safety measure. There was concern from industry that we had gone too far. I did say at the time, and meant it, that we would be prepared to look at industry concerns. We went through a process of consultation; we looked at industry's figures; I went back to public safety advisers and said, "What do you think? Should we abandon the current Building Code? Should we build in some flexibility or some discretions?". The advice that I got, the advice that the Government has acted on, was that we should not abandon the current regime; we should not put anything before public safety in this important area. I must say that it surprises me that the Liberal Party - given their general enthusiasm for matters police, matters public safety and matters public order - in this case are taking a contrary view.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .