Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 11 Hansard (14 December) . . Page.. 3062 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Under the provisions of the Bill which I introduced on Tuesday, the issue of such notices would have been an administrative act. That act would have been reviewable on appeal to the AAT. Instead, I am proposing, consistent with the current provisions of the Fire Brigade Act, to permit closure notices to be ordered by a magistrate, to require that an application must be made to the Magistrates Court for an order for the issue of a notice. I believe that this process, with a right of appeal to the Supreme Court, is one which affords an occupier of premises who would have been affected by an order an appropriate opportunity to be heard before an order is made.

However, I have agreed that in the case of applications for closure notices, where the gravity of the situation in question demands it, the court may make an interim order for the issue of a closure notice, even though an affected person might not have had an opportunity to be served with notice of the application for the closure notice. However, in the case of applications for occupancy and improvement notices, I am proposing in these amendments that the occupier of the premises to which the notice relates should be entitled to the benefit of the usual procedures of the Magistrates Court as to notification and the right to be heard before the court orders that a notice issue. It is important that I put on the record how it is expected that the Magistrates Court will deal with these types of applications; that is, occupancy or improvement notices. I would expect the Magistrates Court to give such applications the expedition that they appear, in the circumstances, to deserve, not only having regard to the rights of occupiers to put their case to the court but, ultimately, to ensure the maintenance of public safety.

I think that most of the concerns raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee have been addressed by the amendments. I will indicate briefly, however, that I do intend to leave in place the provision in the legislation that allows the Fire Commissioner, the chief officer, to revoke an order after it has been made, on the basis that this will be exercised in circumstances where it would not be increasing the risk in premises involved and would almost certainly be in circumstances where a benefit flows to the occupier of the premises.

The last point made by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee was about existing legal rights being affected. I have conceded in this debate that they will be affected by this power, but I believe that this is a matter where public safety requirements do demand that such a power exist. In those circumstances, hopefully very rare, where the powers are exercised, it could be said that legal rights would be affected; but that is, unfortunately, a necessary breach of those rights.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .