Kiwi Polemicist

April 3, 2009

• Building consent required for tents

The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.

Stuff is reporting that a large marquee hired for a school jubilee had to have a $180 building consent and fire exit signs.

I can understand the need for fire exit signs in a walled tent, although it would appear that this tent was in fact without walls. However, the state has no right to control what people do with their private property and therefore has no right to require people to put up fire exit signs. The requirement for a building consent is utterly stupid.

Stuff says

Under the Building Act 2004 a building consent is required for all tents:

With a floor area more than 50sqm if used for public assembly.

With a floor area less than 50sqm if used for public assembly for more than a month.

With a floor area of 100sqm if used for private use.

With a floor area less than 100sqm but used for private assembly for more than a month.
Council regulations manager Te Aroha Cook said there was good reason for the requirements. “You can guarantee that, if you had a fire in the middle of the tent and people couldn’t egress quickly and somebody died, or if a wind gust picked the tent up and hammered people about, they would all complain about structural integrity and be asking for national standards.”

(Note the date: Helen Clark and the rest of the Red Squad was in power dictatorship then)

Did Cook actually say that there was a good reason for the regulations or is Stuff putting words in her mouth? If in fact she said that her argument is specious, i.e. the fact that people would bleat for regulations in the event of deaths in a tent does not justify the existence of those regulations. If “people might want this law one day” is used as a justification for laws then any law is justifiable.

On the other hand, what Cook is quoted as saying is very true. When things go wrong the sheep cannot accept the fact that life isn’t fair, so they bleat for new regulations which will supposedly make life fair and protect them from reality. Their masters are only too happy to provide new laws that act like stronger fences, and thus the sheep are never free.

Life isn’t fair and no regulation is capable of changing that.

What do you think about the points that I have made here?

Related post:
How the welfare state expands and endures



Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: