Editorial: Put blame for leaks where it belongs

Blame is an unpleasant business. But, as a lawyer has pointed out on our pages this week, unless blame falls somewhere for the many thousands of unsound houses built in recent years homeowners are not going to get the money to fix or replace them.

Our investigation has pointed to the Government's Building Industry Authority which began to receive warnings four years ago from a North Shore building surveyor who had found many modern homes were letting in water and he suspected new construction designs and materials were at fault.

Within a year of that alert the authority had received a letter from the chairman of the standards committee that had permitted untreated timber to be used in house construction since 1996. That letter urged the decision be reconsidered because the committee had not foreseen the introduction of "monolithic" cladding that, combined with untreated timber, was causing rot.

Yet the authority did nothing, and in those four years another 40,000 houses have been built the same suspect way. The authority's chief executive, Bill Porteous, says it issued a public warning in August last year after receiving "independent" confirmation that there was an issue of safety. Three years might seem a long time to wait for action, he said, but the job was not easy. Manufacturers were still arguing about the details.

He insists that the Crown cannot be held liable because the houses that leak do not, he says, comply with the building code. But the code, as altered in 1991, is a classic product of the deregulatory era. It does not specify how buildings should be designed and constructed. It merely insists they be sturdy and waterproof. It suggests some building techniques but they are not mandatory.

Out in the market, cheaper untreated timber quickly displaced the tried and true. Plastered wall panels were fixed flush with the frame to produce those light, neatly-angled "Noddy" houses that suited subdivided sections.

It is easy to say that builders should have known that walls without cavities would transmit moisture to the untreated timber with dire results. But in a competitive market it is not easy to talk clients into more expensive construction. Builders needed an industry watchdog to blow the whistle and order them all to safety.

The watchdog was supposed to be the Building Industry Authority. Mr Porteous cannot take refuge in a deregulated code. If it had been thought the market alone would be able to ensure buildings were sturdy and watertight, there would have been no need of his authority. The authority ought to have been monitoring the industry closely and alerting the public as soon as the problem began to appear.

Politicians, too, ought to have been more vigilant. Internal Affairs Minister George Hawkins says he first heard of the problem in April but a letter was sent to him in June last year. And the National Party, which is campaigning keenly on the issue, might remember it was the Government that presided over the 1991 change to the building code, the 1996 permission for untreated timber and was still there in 1998 when the first alarms were raised with the Building Industry Authority.

This is not a problem for political point-scoring. It has happened, as the Hunn report suggests, because a less prescriptive building code coincided with the arrival of new building techniques. Blame must be placed before people who relied on the code can hope to win fair compensation.

The blame must lie with those who administer the code, the Building Industry Authority. Its recently appointed chairman must accept responsibility on behalf of his board. And heads should roll, the first being that of longstanding chief executive Mr Porteous.

* If you have information about leaking buildings,
email the Herald or fax (09) 373-6421.

Further reading
Feature: Leaky buildings

Related links