Page 2837 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
He is locked in. So, there is a limit set by, first, the number of people per square metre of floor area and, secondly, the dimensions of the exit. In order to stay within the wording of the Act, the Fire Commissioner determines which of these two measurements gives the lower number of people who can occupy that area. The commissioner then advises the Registrar of Liquor Licences of his assessment and the registrar issues a determination. It is not hard to see where the process goes wrong. For a start, the Building Code of Australia is meant to be only a guide, not the letter of the law. Let me use an example from, say, the world of pharmacy. You do not apply the average dose of medication to every person; you make allowances for age, body weight and so on. So, sometimes you give less than the average and sometimes you give more. Similarly, the Building Code was never meant to be applied uniformly in all situations. It is meant to be only a guide.
Secondly, writing the Building Code into the Liquor Act in such an inflexible way puts the Fire Commissioner in a position of being liable in the event that a person suffering injury may sue for damages if the commissioner should vary from the letter of the code. Naturally, he will protect himself by picking the lowest number.
Thirdly, the process, rigidly adhered to, leads to anomalies, inequities and disputes. For instance, premises with a very high exit capacity may have the safety advantage totally ignored because of a fixation over the floor area. Clearly, it is not only the dimensions of exits which matter; there are other factors that should also be taken into account when making an assessment of safety, such as sprinklers, presence of combustible material, distances to evacuate, visibility of signs and so on. I am sure that every member would agree that, provided people are comfortable and not inconvenienced by overcrowding, it is not the number of people per square metre which matters so much. The most important consideration by far in setting occupancy loadings is safety, and by far the most important factor affecting safety in public premises is exit capacity - the rate at which people can leave in case of fire or emergency. The only effective way of setting occupancy loadings to reflect exit capacity, while maintaining reasonable and sensible floor loadings, is to give the Fire Commissioner flexibility. Do not tie his hands with rigid rules. Give him flexibility to recommend higher loadings, provided the exits are suitable.
Significantly, Mr Connolly himself has said that some flexibility would be appropriate; for example, to reflect possible differences in exit capacity between upstairs and ground floor premises. That was in the Estimates Committee hearing on 5 October 1993. However, the amendments proposed by the Minister tonight simply do not do that. Although Mr Connolly's Bill would mean that the registrar would no longer be required by law to conform with the Fire Commissioner's assessment, it fails to address the fundamental problem of tying the commissioner's hands. It would do nothing to overcome the justifiable complaints of industry that occupancy loadings in the ACT are sometimes unreasonable and unfair. As I have already demonstrated, what is required is to allow the Fire Commissioner the flexibility to exercise his professional judgment in making recommendations on occupancy loadings.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .