John Banks hit the nail on the head - sorry about the unfortunate choice of words, but there's really no other way to put it - when he said tens of thousands of leaky-home owners are facing "great depression, sickness and almost certain bankruptcy".
As Mayor of Auckland, he knows that many
everyday Kiwis have done so, already.
And that many, many more will unless John Key gets off his backside and shows some
leadership.
However, when we look at the foundations of the leaky-home issue, Mr Banks isn't altogether squeaky-clean. But we'll come to that.
For the Prime Minister to see the proof of Mr Banks' comments, he only needs to step out of the front door of his Parnell mansion and walk down Gladstone Rd. He'll find some of the worst examples of leaky homes at the foot of the hill.
In fact, here's an offer: when Mr Key gets back from enjoying New Year at his (presumably weathertight) bach in Hawaii, I'm more than happy to meet him on The Strand and show him through a townhouse or two and let the residents tell him just what Mr Banks is on about.
Auckland's Mayor was speaking after talks between the country's local councils and the
Government fell over just before Christmas. The Government, represented by Building and Housing Minister Maurice Williamson, hung up the phone on the councils - and the homeowners. Let's see why.
The country's mayors (represented by Mr Banks and Wellington's Kerry Prendergast) believe homeowners should pay 50 per cent of repair costs for leaky homes, local councils 25 per cent and the Government 25 per cent.
The Government says homeowners who drop legal action (a major concession for many
thousands of folk who have been left - sorry again - high and dry by everyone from builders to building certifiers to timber companies, not to mention public authorities) would shoulder 64 per cent and councils 26 per cent.
The Government says it could chip in 10 per cent. It might also guarantee loans to ensure owners had access to funds at lower interest rates for those on small incomes and might let older folk pay the bill through their estate. Wow, how generous. You might have shuffled off, Granma, but the Government will still get its money.
Now, let's look at the size of the problem.
PricewaterhouseCoopers completed a report in July - curiously, Mr Williamson didn't release it until Christmas Eve - calculating repairs at $11.3 billion. It identified 42,000 severely affected dwellings, built from 1992-2008. It estimates 22,000 to 89,000 homes are affected.
The report suggests only around 3500 leaky homes have been repaired and around 9000 failures have now gone beyond the 10-year period of legal liability. For them, it's tough ... city.
Even Mr Williamson had to admit: "The PwC report shows the damage is much larger than anyone had previously wanted to acknowledge."
What led to this national disaster? Depends on who's pushing their barrow.
PricewaterhouseCooper's coy phrase is, "The leading causes of the crisis included ill-judged regulations in the 1990s and the use of untested materials and building techniques". We go into more detail below but in brief:
- The 1991 Building Act reduced controls and standards (such as allowing the use of
untreated timber and monolithic claddings) under the assumption that building quality would be mostly assured by market-driven forces. - In 1998 the standard for timber treatment was changed, allowing the use of untreated kiln-dried timber in wall framing. If this gets wet, the timber starts to rot. Steel framed buildings and treated timber can also be affected if they remain wet long enough. Some moulds that grow on damp timber and other materials can cause respiratory and skin problems.
- In 2002 the Building Industry Authority (now the Department of Building and Housing) appointed an overview group. It identified the causes of leaky buildings and made many recommendations.
Major causes were modern cladding systems - you'll have seen them on Mediterranean-style buildings, usually textured wall surfaces made out of plaster on polystyrene or fibre cement sheet. These were often used outside their specifications or installed incorrectly.
Poor construction did not allow for water deflection, drying and drainage. Culprits included design features such as recessed windows, flat roofs with narrow or no eaves, solid balustrades, complex roof design, balconies jutting out from the walls and water penetration through the claddings.
And this was the 90s. As that report noted, the free market ruled. The mood was, the
