Page 2843 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We are looking at making sure that those premises, if the Fire Commissioner believes that it is appropriate - and only if he does - would be able to have extra people, a higher occupancy loading, than those that do not have such good exits. It seems to be a totally logical approach, an approach that ensures that there is a balance between business and ensuring that nightspots can have as many people as is safe, which is exactly - - -
Mr Berry: You would risk life.
MRS CARNELL: That is just silly, Mr Berry, because the Fire Commissioner has to have given the okay.
Mr Moore: Wayne does not trust fire commissioners.
MRS CARNELL: Does he not? Actually, there was a history of that, was there not? Yes. What these amendments do is try to end up with a balance where there is some flexibility, where nightspots are actually encouraged to become safer - rather than have no encouragement whatsoever - and also ensure that we do not actually totally lose the atmosphere of nightspots while maintaining safety.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General and Minister for Health) (9.18): Mr Acting Speaker, I regret to say that it appears that the Government is going to lose this debate. I get a feeling that the Government may not succeed in this matter, and that would be very regrettable. As I say, we have acted purely on the advice of public safety officials. Those officials have been available to provide briefings to Independent members. I am not sure whether that has been taken up. The Independent members can speak about that. The written advice that I have been given - I will table the police advice - is that it would be better to leave the current laws in place, that the current laws should be left in place. In the process of consultation that I went through, quite openly and honestly, the police advised me not to tamper with the current laws. The occupancy loading limits are appropriately set and should remain. I table that advice from the Chief Police Officer.
The next time you people are ranting and raving about police powers and move-on powers and all the rest of it, I will be happy to remind you and to remind the community that when push came to shove - and when it is a question of cramming a few more patrons into a few Civic nightspots to make a few more dollars, as opposed to police advice and a matter of public safety - the Liberal Party showed where their colours were. Bah, humbug, Liberal Party! Bah, humbug, when you rant and rave about police powers and claim to be the party that represents public safety, because on this issue you have chosen to ignore some advice about public safety and to go and basically say, "We will cram a few more people in to make a bit more money, and that is what we are all about as a Liberal Party". I regret that, and one would hope that we do not have an incident as a result of that.
Mrs Carnell: You have not any faith in the Fire Commissioner, have you?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .