Editorial: Hawkins really should go

Until this week the Prime Minister has been strangely quiet on the subject of rotting houses. As a politician with a keen antenna for potential embarrassment she has been uncharacteristically content to leave her Housing Minister, George Hawkins, to defend the indefensible. Until this week many might have thought it was the likely scale of the problem that prompted Helen Clark to lie low. The unfortunate method of house construction that lets moisture into untreated timber frames has been dreadfully common for a decade or so.

Now we discover it is not the size of the calamity that disturbs her. Quite the opposite. She says the problem is nowhere near as serious as the Herald has been "banging on about". Why, the Government set up a helpline and the last time she checked, it had received only about 1000 calls. She had much more to say about our efforts, none of it criticism of substance worthy of a reply. Suffice it to say that vigorous newspapers step on powerful toes from time to time and a vengeful response is to be expected.

But the Prime Minister's attempt to minimise the rotting homes crisis is a real concern. If she thinks the number of calls to a helpline is a reliable measure of the problem, she is fooling only herself. Helplines and the like are a service to some people, not all. Other people are probably talking instead to lawyers, insurers, inspectors and builders, but mainly lawyers. Sooner or later the Crown could face a court action from home- owners and it is time Helen Clark took it seriously.

A test case on behalf of 600 homeowners is in preparation against the Building Industry Authority, a Crown advisory agency. If evidence emerges that the Government knew of the problem and failed to act, it could be added to the lawsuit. Perhaps that is the reason the Prime Minister has been uncharacteristically reluctant to seek the resignation of Mr Hawkins. She has suspended several ministers for less.

Mr Hawkins really should go. His claim that he was not "formally advised" of the problem before April this year is no defence. It begs the question of how "formal" a warning needs to be before he will take it seriously. He received at least two letters of concern from building industry interests last year and the Herald had been banging on about it long before April. Helen Clark excuses her minister's failure to act on the letters because, when he referred them to the Building Industry Authority, he had been given "fob-off" letters to sign in reply.

Helen Clark's candour, if nothing else, is commendable. Evidently if her ministers received a response from officials that is nothing more than an attempt to fob off a worried citizen, it is all right by her. Mr Hawkins should not have been waiting for "formal" advice. What does he need? An embossed report, delivered on a silver tray, heralded by pipers and preceded by a powhiri and haka party?

He had a spate of newspaper reports, and letters arriving from within the industry, all suggesting there was something seriously amiss with construction materials or methods or both. A minister worth his salary would have taken immediate steps to ensure he was fully briefed and would not have been content with "fob-off" replies to himself or anybody else. In fact, when a fob-off letter is submitted for reply, a minister worth his salt would have his suspicions aroused. If his advisers could not allay the correspondents' concerns, there was probably something he should investigate.

But then if his Prime Minister believed it was all "just a beat up", perhaps he is not ultimately to blame. Perhaps the buck stops higher.