Private Bill On Fire Hazards Debated

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31111, 14 July 1966, Page 16

Private Bill On Fire Hazards Debated

(New Zealand Frees Association) WELLINGTON, July 13. Calling for more effective fire safety control, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk) said in Parliament tonight that the Minister in Charge of Fire Services, the Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr Seath), was himself in an upstairs office in a wooden building with no fire escape.

Mr Kirk was speaking in support of the private member’s Fire Safety Bill, introduced by Mr J. Mathison (Opp., Avon).

The Leader of the Opposition said members of Parliament had upstairs offices in the General Assembly Library building, in overcrowded conditions, with a 40-foot drop to the ground, Mr Kirk said the member for Avon drafted this bill on defects he had found in fire ; prevention legislation. “I think this bill can be criticised on one ground only! —that it does not go far enough,” he said. Introduced In 1964 Mr Mathison said the bill had first been introduced in 1964, but it did not become law. Although the Government should be concerned about fire safety in private and public buildings, it had done nothing about it except setting up a conference on fire safety, the results of which were not published. A great deal of time had been lost—some fires had oc-

eurred, some lives had been lost and property destroyed which might not have happened had this legislation become law earlier. “I hope we have not got to wait for another tragedy before the Government will wake itself up and do something about it,” he said. Factory Fire The member said that last year in a Christchurch factory fire, the fire had been going a long time before it was discovered, when the fire brigade got there the building was in i flames. The factory had no [fire sprinklers and no fire alarms. j Mr Mathison read to the House a letter of support for his bill from the Institute of Fire Engineers. He claimed that there was no theatre in Christchurch or anywhere else that was directly connected to the fire station. There was just nothing to compel owners of buildings to take precautions, he said. Local Authorities Mr Seath replied by saying adequate fire safety enforcement regulations and by-laws existed at present and added that the bill encroached on

the territorial responsibilities of the local authorities. He said the bill made the assumption that nothing existed in the fire safety field at present. Mr D. J. Riddiford (Govt., Wellington Central) said that the bill required compulsory evacuation of buildings every three months but it said nothing about the training of staff in evacuation. “I do not think any part of a bill should be passed by this House into law when it is not practical. Otherwise the whole of the bill comes into disrepute and it is difficult to enforce.” “We (the Government) wonder whether the Opposition is interested in fire safety or interested in finding a stick to beat the government with. The stick is a shaky one,” he said. Mr Riddiford said it was absurd to say that no progress was being made in fire safety. Miss M. Howard (Opp., Sydenham) cited Parliament buildings as a fire risk and said she had never been shown where to go in the event of a fire. She added that there had been no emergency evacuation practices. Fire Drill The Fire Safety Bill provides for compulsory fire drill and the evacuation of buildings and for the installation of fire alarms. But both Mr W. B. Tennent (Govt., Manawatu) and Mr L. F. Sloane (Govt., Hobson) criticised a clause making it compulsory for every dwelling and building to be evacuated at least once every three months and told the House it would result in chaos. Mr Tennent cited a LionsNew Zealand test match as an example of the chaos which would occur if the football ground and stands had to be evacuated and Mr Sloane emphasised the difficulty of evacuating public houses between five and six p.m.