KEY POINTS:
It is too easy to run off the figure of 80,000 people trapped in unresolved and unremedied leaky homes without pausing to appreciate the real magnitude of this number.
These are 80,000 New Zealanders, people like us. You may even be one of them. They have suffered now
through many years of sometimes desperate financial, emotional and psychological stress.
All the while the custodians of our social wellbeing and harmony - central government, local government, the legal system and regulatory agencies - have scrapped among themselves in an intense effort to avoid taking liability and responsibility for this awful situation.
Now there is medical evidence demonstrating that the physical health of many people in this situation is also jeopardised. This may not be a surprising revelation but the confirmation is disturbing, especially when it is yet another injury added to the pile of torment already being experienced by 80,000 of our fellow citizens.
Exactly how many, you may contemplate, is 80,000 people? Well, it equates to the entire population of a good sized city such as Palmerston North. Or all of Auckland's eastern suburbs. Or the total population of the South Island below Dunedin. That's how it stacks up in real terms, for real people.
Secret figures, misleading details, hidden reports, fudged facts - these are some of the darker sides to this situation. Most recently, numbers of 30,000 rotting homes, 80,000 people, $4.5 billion to remedy were reported.
Most figures seem to be quickly contradicted. The Auckland City Chief executive now says his council's exposure might be between $600 million and $2.1 billion, a massive increase on their last estimate of $200-$360 million.
There is a deeper subtext to this issue, one about which the authorities do not welcome commentary. It's the significant and real difference between responsibility and liability.
The focus of our governments, both central and local, and of many other agencies is on liability. To whom should the legal finger point? From whose pockets should the legal system extract money for carrying out repairs?
Auckland City is budgeting $300 million in their squirmings to avoid legal capture. Central government is likely to require more, maybe twice as much. Defence costs for other parties will add a few hundred more millions.
Like the 80,000 figure, these are easy numbers, until they are patched into reality.
It is reasonable to estimate that the cumulative cost of seeking to avoid liability would well approach the cumulative cost of remedying the problem. In other words, fixing the problem may be almost as cheap as trying to evade it.
What then of responsibility? The leaky home owner is the ultimate victim, in so many ways, as we are continually learning.
Social protection legislation has seen many of those to whom the primary finger might point - builders, developers, architects and designers - ring-fence their activities in nominal operating companies which have no recoverable assets.
Who has allowed this to occur? The answer is central government, in its various colours over the years.
Doesn't central government, in hand with local governments, have a responsibility to ensure the health and wellbeing of our people? Speaking as a citizen, to my mind they do.
Responsibility is quite a different matter to liability. As these governments and agencies each try to shed liability they seem utterly indifferent to the concept of responsibility - the notion that they are appointed as custodians of our social, physical and economic wellbeing, in a collective sense.
The exercise of that responsibility demands, in my view, an appreciation of the reality of the plight of these 80,000 people, a comprehension that their situations are not self-induced, and a civic openheartedness to remedy their awful circumstances - starting with their homes.
These are not people seeking monetary windfalls, exemplary damages, or other similar cash-driven ends. They are simply seeking repairs to their homes, so their lives can be restored to some better position of health, comfort and normality.
Responsibility is a far more pervasive social concept than liability.
Responsibility is something to be accepted.
Let's look for some leadership responsibility in this sorry matter. Even if it means having fewer nikau palms in Queen Street. Or less than a $8.7 billion government surplus.
* Michael Marris is an Auckland City resident and an expert in governance processes
