ADDED BURDEN

Hawera Star, Volume LII, 19 November 1932, Page 10

ADDED BURDEN

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION dIMRKS OF WORKS (By the Associated Chambers of Commerce.) While the building industry is struggling in the depths of depression the New Zealand Institute of Clerks of Works Bill, introduced into the House by Mr P. Fraser, is seeking to add the last straw to the camel’s back. If the promoters of the Bill desired merely to form an institute of clerks of works, there could be no real objection, but if that were their sole object then there would be no need to frame a Bill for Parliament. The necessity for a Bill, and the real motive for the promoters, is revealed in two clauses which require the sanction of Parliament, and which prescribe that no person, firm or company shall erect a building of any description whatever the cost of which exceeds £4OOO, nor any building in brick (other than a dweling house) the cost of which exceeds £IOOO, without employing in the supervision of the constructional work a clerk of works registered under this Bill. Any refusal to submit to this compulsion carries with it the penalty of a fine. Tn other words, a small coterie —64 members to lie exact—is endeavouring *o better itself at the compulsory expense of evervbodv else, and to secure power to dictate the uature of its emnloyment and the fees at which it will accent employment. It means, that every , clerk of works' who is not, a rei gistered member of the institute will be unable to secure work, and that as a result of this close corporation arbitrary conditions of labour will be imposed, particularly at a time when emnloyers aiid employees in trade and industry are meeting in conciliation all over the country to arrive at an amicable settlement as to the basis of employment. In addition, it is estimated that £50.000 per annum will be added to building costs by the Bill. The proper function of a clerk of works is to see that the provisions of the contract made between principal and contractor are complied with. It is obvious that the powers of a local authority in regard to supervision •should not be delegated to a clerk of works. The system that has stood the test of time is that the appointment of a clerk of works is left to the jurisdiction of the architect and owner. Where the owner has complete confidence in his architect and in his contractor, and where there is not a great amount of detail in the structure, there is no good reason why the expense of a clerk of works should be incurred at all. If that new organisation, the Clerks •of Works Association of New Zealand —which is behind the present BUl—desires to secure employment for its members, it will best do so by proving itself. Its present effort to secure employment by compulsion is a lSmentable guarantee of service, and provides the proof of the pudding without the need to eat it.