Page 2852 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR BERRY: I am telling you that he is certainly making it clear in correspondence which has found its way to the Attorney-General. Mr Moore raised the issue of the number of doors. It is not only the number of doors; there are other issues which are taken into account as well. I am not going to try to remember - - -
Mr Moore: First floor, second level.
MR BERRY: There are issues of dead-end travel, the limitations on distance which one might have to travel before having a choice of exit; so, it is not merely a question of widening a door or putting another door beside it. There are other issues as well.
Of course, the whole design of a particular premises is based on that original floor loading, which goes to the category of building which we are talking about, that is, a licensed premises. I do not know what class they are these days, but it is a particular class of building. They have a floor loading, and the floor loading to exit ratio is worked out on the basis of that floor loading. I again suggest that you exercise some caution on this issue. I think the summaries of the issues that I have heard are too simplistic. I think I have heard Mr Stevenson try to separate the two issues. One is public order and one is public safety.
Certainly, prima facie anyway, if the public safety issues generated some circumstances which made it easier to manage public order, there is nothing wrong with that. But I am not so concerned about the public order issue; I am more concerned about this issue of fire safety and the need to make sure that you have easily understandable provisions which are the same in all premises of a similar category, because if you do not, in my view, and if it is not to a standard which has wide acceptance not only in the ACT but across Australia, you are tinkering with an area which could be very hazardous to the people who use those premises. There is a discretion that might not, as Mr Connolly has put it, be exercised by the Fire Commissioner himself; it might be on the basis of some appeal to the AAT where a different outcome was resolved in the light of legal proceedings. Again, I urge members to be cautious about this. I think there has been far too simplistic an approach taken on the matter and, again, I urge you - if you think there is an error to be made - to err on the side of public safety, to err on the side of fire safety.
MRS CARNELL (Leader of the Opposition) (9.52): Mr Acting Speaker, I think the thing that possibly Mr Berry is not quite understanding here is that there is nothing in what is being proposed that actually goes outside standards. Let me make it very simple. If, say, under the Building Code Part D1.13, which is the occupancy loading per square metre, we have a premises of 100 square metres, that means currently it will have 100 people, whether that premises be at ground level or at first floor level. Currently, a premises of 100 square metres is allowed 100 people per 100 square metres. It could have an exit capacity of 150 under the Building Code Part D1.6. That means that it is still under the Building Code. You have the same sized premises. One has an occupancy loading of 100 on the basis of square metres, but possibly 150 in terms of exit capacity because it happens to be at ground level. It happens to be open to the footpath right across the front, so it has a very large exit capacity. Currently, the occupancy loading will be 100 because it will be the lower of the two, regardless of how quickly the people can actually get out. That is exactly the situation at the moment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .