Page 2847 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
LIQUOR (AMENDMENT) BILL 1994
Detail Stage
Debate resumed.
MR MOORE: I will just complete what I was saying, Mr Acting Speaker. I am still open to be persuaded, but I must say that the weight of argument at this stage of the debate seems to me to be going with the amendments as presented by the Leader of the Opposition.
MR BERRY (Manager of Government Business) (9.31): Mr Acting Speaker, I am a latecomer to this debate; but I was particularly disturbed, having heard the direction that it seemed to be taking, because it seems that Mrs Carnell wants to provide some discretionary powers in relation to matters which are very clearly related to public safety. In all my experience, where discretion has been exercised in these sorts of places, and where tragedies have occurred, it has usually been because there has been too much discretion exercised and the lines have not been strictly drawn. Many of the members here would have some recollection of those massive tragedies that have occurred in premises where exits have been prejudiced, where the loadings in the buildings were way over and above that which was reasonable, but where the laws in those places, perhaps, were not sufficient to require the owner/occupier of the premises to maintain safe levels within his particular premises.
I heard some discussion from Mrs Carnell about how one might provide safe exits and so on. Again, my recollection of these matters is that the occupancy levels are worked out on the basis of the categorisation of the premises. In this particular case I think it is one person per square metre. Then a formula is applied for the amount of door opening which is required to provide sufficient exit space. Of course, business owners have never been in the habit of providing more than they have to, because it is an economic decision, and, of course, building authorities have always prescribed in the various building codes provisions which provide safe exit for patrons in particular premises. But the relationship with the exit doors is locked into the floor loadings. So, the floor loadings then become critical in the way that the building operates in an emergency. It is most important that there should be no discretion and that anybody that exceeds those floor loadings is in very serious trouble, because it is extremely dangerous.
In my experience, the most danger that can be had in a premises which is affected by fire or any other emergency is to have too many people in it. You cannot have flexible door opening widths which are adjustable to the numbers of people who are in the building. In fact, what happens is that the building design is tied very strictly to the category of the building, as I mentioned earlier, which is in turn tied to the occupancy loading of that particular premises. If you overstep the mark in terms of occupancy you therefore overstress the loadings on the emergency exits. So, you have a really dangerous situation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .