General Comments;
Since its formation the Environmental Health Association of Australia has taken a keen interest in public buildings and the potential implications for local Government resources associated with the broadening of the scope of what constituted a public building.
The Public Building working group consisting of all relevant stakeholders including representatives from the Association was assured by officers of the DOH that the amendment of the Health Act would be the first priority and that a working group would be developed to progress this issue at the same time as the development of the interim position on public buildings was taking place.
However it is the Associations understanding that the issue of the Health Act amendment and the formulation of the working group in question is as yet still to be progressed.
The Association is concerned that the scope of the interim policy forming part of the Discussion Document as to what constitutes a public building is still much broader then the original interpretation based on Crown Law advice prior to 2000.
The statement made on
top of page 2 of the Discussion Document, which states as follows;
"In the
meantime, the group has recommended the adoption of an interim policy to place
practical limits on the scope of the definition and to clarify its retrospective
application"
seems to be contradicted by "Table 3: Schedule of Public Buildings - 2004, by risk category" on pages 13 and 14 of the Discussion Document, which incorporates many new additions that have never been previously captured as public buildings.
Additionally contrary to the statement made on top of page 9 of the Discussion Document, the majority of these new public buildings fall within the medium or high risk category and as such will require considerable resources by Local Government officers in pursuing the provisions of Public Buildings legislation.
Any new category of public building above those previously picked up as public buildings, whether low, medium or high risk will impact on existing Local Government resources as it all falls within the category of additional work.
This extra work will have a severe impact on existing Local Government resources and the application of these resources to other public health related duties.
Specific Comments relating to questions on page 23 of
the Discussion Document
Answer to Question 1
The schedule
of Public Buildings - 2004 (Table 3) is too broad and will not provide a workable
approach to public building management within the scope of existing Local
Government resources.
The extension of public building requirements to all restaurants, private residences (where entertainment is provided) and show grounds/ fairgrounds (even if they are free field unenclosed events) is not practical, realistic, achievable or indeed enforceable given existing resources.
The Environmental Health Association of Australia supports the introduction of a risk based approach to the management of Public Buildings in Western Australia within the context of practical, realistic and achievable workload expectations being placed on existing Local Government resources.
In order to achieve uniformity in the risk assessment/classification of individual public buildings throughout Western Australia it is suggested that the Department of Health develop and adopt a comprehensive risk assessment template for public buildings that still allows suitable flexibility by the relevant enforcement agencies.
Answer to Question 2
The recommended
inspection frequencies for high and medium risk premises are satisfactory
from a public health point of view. I would question the suitability of an
inspection frequency of once every 5 years for low risk premises as this is
far too long between inspections and is not suitable for the building up of
confidence on the basis of past history of compliance.
Answer to Question
3
The question
of a specific threshold number or cutting point for public building requirements
needs to be addressed within a risk assessment context. For example all high
risk premises should be subject to public building controls irrespective of
the number of patrons on the premises. Conversely for a low risk premises
the muted cut in number of 50 people may be far too low.
Answer to Question 4
Due to the large
number of meeting rooms throughout Western Australia and the historically
low risk nature of such facilities it would be inappropriate for all small
meeting rooms to be considered as public buildings. As such a cut in point
should be determined. On the basis of past discussions a cut in point of 50
people would not be unrealistic.
Similarly it is believed that the application of public building requirements to individual classrooms should be reviewed. All classrooms are subject to compliance with Building Code of Australia requirements. Furthermore public school classrooms already enjoy an exemption from compliance with public building requirements.
Answer to Question
5
Public building
requirements should not apply to free field (unenclosed) gatherings. Traditionally
these type of events have never previously been picked up as public buildings.
There exist practical problems with the application of public building requirements
such as maximum accommodation numbers to events not subject to access/egress
restrictions.
Similarly the resourcing implications with respect to the policing of public building requirements for all free field (unenclosed) events are huge. Potentially every game of soccer, cricket, volleyball in a park or even on a beach would now attract scrutiny under the provisions of the Public Building regulations. Clearly this is unworkable and should not be the intent of the legislation.
The application of specific public building requirements to free field (unenclosed) events should be restricted to structures such as tents, marquees, stages that form part of the overall event. The controls for the remainder of such an event should be channelled through appropriate guidelines such as a revised form of the Guideline for Concerts Events and Organised Gatherings.
Answer to Question
6
Places listed
in Table 1 of the Discussion Document should not be considered as public buildings
Answer to Question
7
The issuing
of maximum occupancy numbers forming part of a certificate of approval for
certain types of buildings and places will not be difficult in comparison
to ensuring ongoing compliance with the maximum occupancy requirements specified
by the certificate of approval, this is especially the case with free field
(unenclosed) events and events at private residences.
The issuing of a certificate of approval is an integral part of the public building legislation and is a very important tool in ensuring public safety at a building or place and as such it should be retained as part of any review of the Health Act 1911.
Answer to Question
8
It should not
be a mandatory requirement for Local Governments to be involved in assemblies
at private residences. Any issues associated with rowdy/unruly behaviour stemming
from assemblies at private residences should be addressed as a breach of the
peace by the Police Department.
It should be pointed out that the minutes of the Public Building Definition Working Group dated 22nd January 2004 clearly state that;
"In relation to the list of public buildings (Attachment1) in the discussion document titled Public Building Definition and Retrospective Aspects of the Legislation, the working group agreed to the following changes:
Point 6 Delete private residences in category 9 (entertainment venues)"
Consequently any reference to private dwellings as public buildings should be removed from the Discussion Document as per the above agreed position.
Answer to Question
9
In an ideal
world pursuing public building requirements on the widest scope possible would
be matched by an adequate enforcement agency resource allocation. Clearly
this is not the case and is never likely to be the case. Therefore the question
has to be asked as to what are the practical limits of the application of
public building requirements given existing resources.
Within this context it is believed that the application of public building requirements should be restricted to those premises previously identified and based on Crown Law advice as to what constituted a public building prior to 2000.
Answer to Question
10
As per answer
to question 9, (see above).
Answer to Question 11
The Executive
Director of Public Health should have the flexibility to determine the risk
category of a particular public building.
Answer to Question
12
Child care centres
and retirement villages cater for some of the most vulnerable members of our
community. Whilst it is preferable that duplication by various departments
be minimised, until such time as the lead agencies associated with the overseeing
of child care centres and retirement villages address public building type
issues on a regular and ongoing basis, it will be appropriate to maintain
public building controls to these type of premises
Summary/Recommendations
Piotr Zenni
Chairperson
Legislation Review Committee
Environmental Health Association (Australia)