FIRST DUTY

Auckland Star, Volume LXXII, Issue 285, 2 December 1941, Page 8

FIRST DUTY

TO SAVE LIVES

MR. McKENZIE'S VIEW

JOHN BURNS' FIRE INQUIRY

The evidence of George Alexander McKenzie, deputy superintendent of ihe Auckland Fire Brigade, was continued when the -John Burns' fire inquiry resumed this morning. Mr. P. K. Hunt presided.

Witness stated that he did not get off the verandah until everyone had left the building. He then went to the corner of Commerce Street and surveyed the fire. Superintendent Wilson then arrived and took over as officer-in-charge. The brigade call was put through, and the response was made by Mt. Albert, Mt. Eden, Point Chevalier. Onehunga, Mt. Roskill, Great South Road, Remuera and Tamaki machines. A maximum of 15 streams were in operation at the fire, but 13 was the stabilised number. The water was adequate to cope with the fire. There was no break- j down in equipment. Rescue of Mr. McWhirter If the electric turntable ladder had been in commission he doubted whether it could have been obtained in time to save Mr. McWhirter. To Mr. Hunt: McWhirter would have definitely had to hold on longer than he did. From what he saw of McWhirter afterwards, witness said he did not think he would have been in a position to have held on very much longer. The time element was allimportant, and would probably not have allowed the obtaining of a pole ladder and the lashing of it to the ladder there. To Mr. Meredith (the general public): One machine was ordered out pn the assumption that it was a switchboard fire and would be easily put out. Witness had been through John Burns' twice, in 1936 and 1937 He did not know that the switchr-0 13 ••' was not covered on top. A nu> of other large switchboards in buildings were not covered. . of where these were could I tained. Concerned With Savins Lives Witness went out on the first machine to answer the district call. When he arrived he ordered an extension ladder and jumping sheet for the purpose of rescue and then went up on the verandah. He did not enter the building until after he had reported to Mr. Wilson. He was fully employed on the verandah and had no opportunity to make a survey. He was more concerned with the lives of the people than he was with the fire. Nothing was done to gain assistance to quell the fire and no survey of the fire fighting was made by witness.

In cross-examining the witness Mr. Goldstine (Queensland Insurance Company) suggested that it was witness' duty to ascertain what was the position with regard to the rest of the fire, and he considered there was an unconscionable length of time between the building .being a mass of flame and there being a brigade call made. Witness said nobody else but he could give the rbrigade call.

Witness said he considered his duty was first to protect the lives of the people. If any lives had been lost, witness continued, and he had tackled the fire instead, he would have been responsible for answering for those lives.

To Mr. Reed (representing John Burns and Company, Limited): It would be a very serious fire that could not be controlled by six engines.

To Mr. Terry (Auckland Electric Power Board): When witness visited the Johp Burns building in 1937 he went right through it, but he did not make a complete inspection of the electric equipment. He saw the switchboard, but he did not inspect it. He considered it was no more of a fire hazard than many others. To Mr. Girling Butcher (Internal Affairs Department): Drills had been carried out in close proximity to the area, including both district and brigade calls. The officers therefore knew what deliveries and of what size could be used in the area. The 2000 to 3000 gallons per minute water pressure was adequate for the conditions of the John Burns fire. Auckland Water Position To Mr. Hunt: In witness' opinion there was not sufficient water for fire work in Auckland. With the personnel, and with the plant and the plant on order, witness was quite satisfied, but not with the water.

Continuing his evidence, witness said that when an inspection of a building was made it was to familiarise the officer with the nature of the building, where doors were placed and so on, but not to inspect electrical equipment. Had he to choose again between looking after lives and fire-fighting he would choose looking after the lives.

To Mr. Goldstine: From the time of making his survey witness considered that no more of the building could have been saved than was saved. He could not say whether more would have been saved had he made the brigade call earlier. , (Proceeding.)