KEY POINTS:
Bob Harvey, the Mayor of Waitakere City, is probably right to term the proposal to name and shame leaky-home builders as an exercise born of frustration. His Auckland City counterpart, John Banks, the plan's proponent, is clearly annoyed that the Government is not interested in bailing city councils out of their financial obligations over leaky homes. Indeed, the leaky buildings process seems to be thwarting him at every turn. Mr Harvey is on less secure ground, however, when he suggests that exposing builders, developers and contractors who have shirked their responsibilities would be an exercise in futility. If naming these culprits on the council's website provides nothing in the way of solution, it would, at least, provide a ready reference point for members of the public.
Mr Harvey says many leaky home builders have already fled the country, mostly to the Gold Coast, "leaving only victims and destroyed lives". But this is surely not so in all instances. Mr Banks is right to say there must still be builders operating in this country "with no conscience whatsoever about their delinquent behaviour in the past". Many evaded responsibility and financial repercussions by simply placing their companies into liquidation. Some of those - "flash Freds" in Mr Banks' terminology - have become well known, but others have slipped under the public radar. Naming them on the the council website would remedy that.
Builders, developers and contractors will argue that such shaming would be unfair. They maintain that they are, at worst, simply a strand in what is an intricate web of blame for the leaky homes crisis. More culpable were changes to the building code in 1991, permission for the use of untreated timber, the failure of the Building Industry Authority to act on alarms, and the readiness of council inspectors to issue consents and code-compliance certificates. It is clear, however, that many builders compounded the problems through shoddy workmanship and their misuse of cladding. For that, they should have accepted responsibility.
If there is a problem with Mr Banks' proposal, it lies in the very nature of name-and-shame lists. Most do not differentiate case by case; every culprit is placed in the same boat. Nor do they recognise people who have mended their ways. Any information placed on the Auckland City website should go beyond the simple naming of names. It should spell out case by case and in some detail what a builder, developer or contractor did. That would allow the public to draw fair conclusions.
Likewise, it would be reasonable to name subsequent projects undertaken by those named and shamed. That would allow people to judge whether a builder who claims to have turned a new leaf has, indeed, done so. Mr Banks has acknowledged the actions of those developers and builders who have taken responsibility for leaky homes. It would be helpful to the public if they were also recognised on the council website.
The Homeowners and Buyers Association is not impressed by Mr Banks' plan. It says that he is trying to deflect scrutiny from the failure of the council's inspection process. Ratepayers throughout the country are paying heavily for that carelessness. But councils, for their part, can say, with validity, that they are being asked to shoulder too much of the financial burden for leaky homes. Other parties were equally at fault. Among these were the builders, developers and contractors who added to the problem and then took no responsibility. Whatever Mr Banks' motives and whatever the level of his frustration, it is right to make them known to the public.
