Page 2845 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS SZUTY (9.23): The Liquor (Amendment) Bill fixes the technical problem with the Act, as we have just dealt with it; but it does avoid addressing the broader issue of what are appropriate occupancy loadings for licensed premises in the ACT. It may well be that, in the Assembly's commendable zeal to minimise the likelihood of an emergency resulting from overcrowding, we may have gone too far. I believe, Mr Acting Speaker, that we have gone too far. As Mrs Carnell said earlier, "By far the most important factor affecting safety in public premises is exit capability, the rate at which people can leave in case of fire or other emergency". It would seem to me that, provided sufficient exit capacity is provided, some degree of flexibility could be applied when considering the area per person component of the equation.
I have considered the approach taken in other jurisdictions in Australia and note that the assessment of exit capacity is the single common denominator across these jurisdictions. The area per person, or number of people per square metre, varies from State to State and in many cases is a guide only, rather than a prescriptive number. What is clear is that the ACT's requirement for one square metre per patron in bar and other standing areas is significantly higher than it is elsewhere in Australia, with New South Wales requiring only half of that area.
Also, Mr Acting Speaker, there is room for legitimate concern that, while the Bill will allow licensees to appeal against the decisions of the registrar, it will not change the current practice of the registrar's decision being the same as the Fire Commissioner's recommendation. The best way of implementing change in this area is to give the Fire Commissioner flexibility, as well as the registrar. I believe that Mrs Carnell's very sensible amendments will achieve that aim, and I support them on that basis. Mr Acting Speaker, safety is not an end in itself but a means to an end; that end in this case being the availability of licensed premises in which patrons can safely enjoy their leisure time. I believe that Mrs Carnell's amendments effectively address concerns which have been raised by licensees about occupancy loadings, and that this is indeed a sensible measure that she is proposing.
MR MOORE (9.24): Mr Acting Speaker, there are a couple of issues raised here and I think they most neatly fall into two categories: Public safety and public order. On the public safety issue, the Fire Commissioner's advice has been spoken on as far as the Minister is concerned, and that issue of public safety, under Mrs Carnell's amendments, would not change. So, the issue of public safety remains. The issue of public order is dealt with by the - - -
Mr Berry: No; you are wrong, Michael. I am sorry; you are wrong, mate.
MR ACTING SPEAKER: Order!
MR MOORE: I hear Mr Berry interject, and if he is prepared to stand and clarify the position it may well sway my position on this debate, Mr Acting Speaker. But, as I hear the issues, on the issue of public safety, it seems to me that the standards set by the Fire Commissioner can still be set by the Fire Commissioner and he can take into account the amount of door space, the number of exits and those sorts of factors, rather than being restricted simply to occupancy relating to the number of people per square metre.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .