EARTHQUAKE RISKS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17606, 23 October 1931, Page 8

EARTHQUAKE RISKS

BUILDING [REGULATIONS MEASURE BEEORE HOUS? .. \i ;; - (Pol- Press Association.) WELLINGTON, last night. In moving) the committal of tho Building Construction Bill in the House of Representatives'; the RE Hon. 0. W. ‘Forbes said it- was 'the outcome of investigations carried out by the expert committed set' up by the Government immediately after, the Hawke’s Bay earth[qtiuke for the pnrpbse of goiiig into-the question of 1 building construction hi I future so as to"obviate such loss of life bis had occurred as the result of the earthquake. Those who had visited the earthquake area would realise how much loss of life could have been prevented (had- a ' different system of; construction 1 been ill operation. - '-It was the duty of the Government to ‘obviate'as- far as possible a repetition of the Hawke’s Bay disaster. The hill had ;been welcomed by local bodies generally. : It would improve the standard of building construction, and would -bring about a uniform ket of building by-laws for the whole of New Zealand. There was already a move iu that direction in England and America. He considered that jbu'sineks concerns whidli erected buijdihgs and invited the public info them to do business should be asked to conform to regulations’that would ensure a reasonable degree of safety. Mr. H. M. Campbell (Ref., Hawke’s Bay): To what extent are wooden buildings excluded? i SURPLUS OF INSPECTORS? t Mr. Forbes': Certain classes of buildings will be excluded, especially those where there is small risk of life; We can cx- ; elude practically all wooden buildings. ‘ | Mi. 11. T. Armstrong (Lab., Christchurch E.) paid the bill was a satisfactory one. It was' desirable that those i qualified to judge should stipulate the - manner in which tho buildings should be | erected and strengthened. |- Mr. C; A. Wilkinson (Ind., Egmont) ' said the measure would tend to increase 1 building costs, and as’a country member be asked for an - assurance that there would - not be a surplus of inspectors. The bill would result in the establishment of a now Government department, because'-the proposed-building.committee I would require a-special-staff to assist it. Mr. C. E. Macmillan (Ref., Bay of Plenty) denied that there would be an increases in the number of inspectors, although, lie said, steps would be taken to prevent breaking the existing, by- | laws.

' Mr. W. E. Barnard (Lab., Napier) adj vocated; the insertion of- an amendment excluding from-the provisions of the measure those buildings- which did not Necessitate the same measure of inspection as others. It would, for instance, be unnecessary for a number of formalities to be ‘gone through before a fowlhbuse could be erected. -Mr. W: T). Lyshar (Iml., Gisborne) supported the measure, but urged that 1 Tip■ chief public works engineer should iint be loaded with extra duties. That officer was already called upon-to cover too wide a. scone.* and the inspection required under the bill should he made the responsibility of someone else. \ The'Leader of the Opposition referred to cities which were built on pronounced geological faliltsi instancing !Wellington and Christchurch, and stressled 'The i 1 need Mr --” building in " future against the possibility of earthquake, iff# etmsidered - if ii - gihve mistake that, the building trade was not represented bin the 'proposed building committee. Mtv A’.’ E. -.Tull (United, Waiuawa) saitl; lie'hoped tlin't- when the 'hill was in committee, the Prime Minister, would accept reasonable amendments with the iqbjoet of .eliminating - a • number, of unnecossaiy features. He did nOt 'Consider the appointment of the yuMsocy building committee necessary.- There slionld b<v a uniform 'set of’-by-laws, which could he administered hv local bodies.

i r ‘Ti(e debaie was -interrupted, by the .rising of the House,