Page 2848 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In a licensed premise you have all of those things that occur in licensed premises coming together to make a very dangerous cocktail of events which, in the wrong sequence, can result in tragedy. You do not want managers exercising discretion because they think the Fire Commissioner will think it is all right. You do not want the Fire Commissioner put in a position where he has discretion when you have reasonable conditions laid down for these occupancy loadings. You need to have a level playing field throughout the industry, to make sure that everybody knows their particular situation, that everybody knows the safety standards which ought to apply on their particular premises. Nobody gets an advantage over anybody else, commercial or otherwise, and you end up with safer circumstances. I have been handed a letter, which I will table in due course, and I will read from parts of it. It reads:
The Chief Police Officer, Assistant Commissioner Peter Dawson, has advised that the AFP "continues to support occupancy loading levels for licensed premises". Mr Dawson has also stated "The majority of licensees appear to be abiding by the legislation in restricting entry levels to their premises".
That is good news if people are adhering to that, but if there is flexibility introduced into the scheme people will try to get a business edge on each other. The acting general manager of ACT Emergency Management, Mr Jim Dance, is a person I have the highest regard for. I have known him for many years and I know him to be a committed and professional fire officer who is concerned about matters of public safety. He says, "... that the current method used by the Fire Commissioner to determine occupancy loading for licensed premises be maintained". So, in his professional view those very strict standards ought to be adhered to without discretion.
I say to you, members, that I think that, whilst people might have the best intentions, this is a very serious matter and if there is going to be any error in our consideration of this matter you must, as I often was told as a young firefighter, err on the side of safety. The error the other way is one which you could be held culpable for, and in this case it is very clear to me that there ought to be no discretion; it ought to be very clear to everybody; and fire officers and police officers ought to have the very clearest provisions laid out for them, to ensure that there is no possible breach of safety when it comes to these occupancy loadings. They are critical. I seek leave to table a letter from the Attorney-General's Department.
Leave granted.
MR STEVENSON (9.39): Mr Connolly earlier said that he believed that the Government may not win on this particular point, or whatever words he used. I am not sure why he said that, because I certainly had not made up my mind on it. I was concerned about both sides. I had already seen Mr Connolly this evening over there and said, "Look, just explain the point". But I do not find the point fully explained yet. I think it has been a little bit clouded. As I see it, the amendment simply gives a power to the Fire Commissioner. He can decide, if there is adequate opportunity for patrons to exit a building through fire exits, more doors or whatever, to allow an increased number of people in that building. To me, that would make sense.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .