SAFE BUILDINGS

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 83, 5 October 1933, Page 12

SAFE BUILDINGS

CONSTRUCTION BILL

TO BE INTRODUCED

MR. FOEBES'S PEOMISE

"1 would have had this Bill placed on the Statute Book last session had it not been for the opposition of the architects," remarked the Prime Minister (the Et. Hon. G. W. Forbes), -when a deputation representing civil engineers, architects, and scientific workers • requested today that the Building Construction Bill should be proceeded with. Mr. Forbes was assured that the architects were now unreservedly in favour of the Bill: Consequently, the Prime Minister gave an undertaking that Parliament would be given an opportunity of considering the measure. Professor R. Speight, president of the New Zealand Institute,, stressed the danger to New Zealand from earthquakes, and said that the Standing Committee of the Institute was unanimous in its opinion that something should be done in. the way of giving protection. The members of the Institute were acting entirely from impersonal and scientific standpoints. If the larger earthquakes had. occurred in thickly populated areas damage similar to that clone at Napier would have occurred, and there probably would have been serious loss of life. No part of the country was immune from shocks, and the Institute considered that reasonable steps should be taken to meet the position by erecting buildings that would resist earthquakes. This could be done at very small additional cost. Professor Speight also emphasised the value, of an institution that would conduct earthquake and volcano research; and said that as times; improved .such an institution should be established on similar lines to institutions in Japan and the United States. In those' countries the institutions were part of the scientific equipment of the country. BETTER USE OF KNOWLEDGE. Mr. H. F. Toogood, representing the New Zealand Society of Civil Engineers; urged ■ the ■ necessity for proceed-, ing- with the Bill. It would not mean very much additional cost, but would only mean that knowledge of structural engineering would be used .to. better advantage.- ---' Mr. R. B. Ford, representing the New Zealand Institute' of Architects, said that the institute unreservedly supported Professor Speight as to the need for the Bill. The architects were entirely at one with the engineers. He had not realised that they had prevented the Bill going on'the'.Statute Book. .-.-... ■ Mr. Forbes: There was a lot of lobbying done with members, protesting circulars were distributed, and opposition was worked .up against it. There was quite a campaign against the- Bill. Mr. Forbes said that he had not felt like taking the responsibility of leaving the country unprotected for the future after the Napier earthquake. Protection -would have been made had it not been for the opposition to the. measure. Mr. Ford, said that the architects had felt that nothing should be done that would be unnecessarily restrictive and that would result in increased, cost.] That was the sole reason for the opposition to the Bill. The architects had met the engineers yesterday, and they had come to an agreement on tho most important point. LESSON OF NAPIER. Kcplying, the Prime Minister said that after the Napier earthquake, he was impressed with the necessity of doing something to see that, as far as building construction was concerned, damage and loss of life similar to. that which had occurred in Hawke 's Bay was prevented. He had appointed a committee which had brought down a valuable report, and he had proposed to proceed with a Bill, but he had found that the opposition to the measure was so strong • that the Government had not been able to proceed with it. He was pleased to know that the differences had now been overcome. He would not say that the Bill was perfect, but the Government was quite willing to meet the interested parties and make amendments. If another disaster occurred and no provision was made after the warnings of the Napier earthquake, the Government would bo held to blame for not having done something, particularly after an expert committee had been set up aiid after a Bill had been introduced. It was a responsibility that he would .not care to take. As far as the Bill was concerned, he would be pleased to go into the matter with the Minister of Public j "Works (the Hon. J. Bitchener) and they j would see what could >c done. He would give an undertaking that the i Bill would be placed before Parliament, and Parliament would be given an opportunity of dealing -with it. '