Little Govt. Reaction To Fire Safety Bill

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30562, 3 October 1964, Page 3

Little Govt. Reaction To Fire Safety Bill

(From Our Parliamentary R*porl<r>

WELLINGTON, October 2. In spite of Opposition urgings that the Fire Safety Bill introduced to Parliament today by Mr J. Mathison (Opp., Avon) be studied by a select committee of the House, the Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr Seath) dismissed the bill with the assertion that, after brief examination, some of its clauses seemed to be impractical.

The Government, however, would give it close study, he said.

Mr Mathison said be hoped the Government would acknowledge the real importance of the measure and the underlying causes for its introduction, that it would have a select committee examine the position which the bill concerned dining the next recess and do something worth while afterwards. “I and my colleagues would be satisfied with that,” he said.

Explaining the need for evacuation drills as required by his bill, Mr Mathison said that parts of Parliament House itself were an example of the danger of fire. Members, visitors and employees could be caught like rats in a trap. The wooden departmental building in Lambton quay, Wellington, would go up like a match in the event of fire. “I hope there is some evacuation training.” Workers themselves were apathetic about fire alarms. Mr Seath said he was sure all members were anxious to do what they could to prevent fires, but they should be most careful not to provide control for control’s sake. Fire evacuation drills for, say, churches and lodges, might be stretching requirements. Position at Present Mr R. M. Macfarlane (Opp., Christchurch Central) said municipal authorities already had inspection responsibili-

ties for various matters and the Christchurch City Council, for one, did not have bylaws effecting terms of evacuation because it could not possibly provide the staff for the operation. This bill required a specialised body to manage the position. Mr N. E. Kirk (Opp, Lyttelton) urged the Government to take up a more positive attitude on the bill. “Many retail establishments are decorated and stocked with materials that are almost explosive in their combustibility. A building could be enveloped in seconds.” An attitude of disbelief when alarms sounded added to the risks. There had been a hotel incident in Christchurch when the staff and patrons, who could have had no knowledge of the nature of the fire, did not leave the building even when the fire brigade arrived.

I Alarms had sounded in the • Christchurch Post Office last ■ year and the public was still being admitted to the office : when the brigade arrived. Building By-laws Of 256 local bodies investi- ' gated, 154 bad fire-safety laws regarding construction, said ; Mr Kirk. Since 1961, 125 per- ; sons had died in fires, though • the House could be grateful ’ that few of these had occurred in buildings such as the 1 bill concerned. But a single " fire in one of these buildings ’ could result in a greater loss than 125. Mr Mathison said he was ’ sorry Mr Seath was critical of I the bill to the point of ridii cuiing parts of it. This was • a social problem, not a poli- ■ tical one. It originated in • unions whose officers were ' concerned for the welfare of ! workers and the public. • The House gave the bill a first reading.