Editorial: Leaky homes culprit gets off too lightly

The name of Dr Bill Porteous will never be associated with fleetness of action. Under his leadership the Building Industry Authority was slow to recognise the extent of the leaking buildings problem and ineffective in communicating its concerns to the Government. Nor will his name be associated with fleetness of thought. It has taken some six months of "soul-searching" for him to decide he should resign. He will be remembered, unfortunately, for a scepticism that flew in the face of the fact that homeowners were afflicted with rotting houses. The timing and tone of his resignation were true to form.

Dr Porteous stepped down on the eve of the release of a parliamentary select committee report with conclusions that could hardly have been more damning. "We expect the chief executive of an organisation to provide effective leadership and to be seen by the public as doing so," the report said. While the strength of the critical comment reflected MPs' partisan interests, Dr Porteous' position was clearly untenable. He had seen the report and probably knew he had to go. He should have reached that conclusion last November when an equally damning report was delivered by former State Services Commissioner Don Hunn.

Now, as then, Dr Porteous is unrepentant. Responding to the select committee, he denied the authority had been slow to respond and said the MPs' criticisms were not just. "My leadership style is one of careful consideration and rational responses ... I am not a creature of the media, I am a building scientist with a particular interest in building failure."

The comment can only raise questions about his suitability for the role of chief executive of a public watchdog agency. An effective chief executive would have recognised that a high degree of vigilance was required during a period of light-handed building controls. And that when the alarm was first raised, he ought to have insisted to the Minister of Internal Affairs, George Hawkins, that the matter receive immediate attention. As it was, Mr Hawkins did not treat the problem seriously until media pressure, much of it from this newspaper, became irksome.

Even after the release of the Hunn report, the Government refused to demand accountability. It was, it said, not a time for "corpses" but a time to fix the problem. A grudging apology from the authority to the minister was deemed sufficient recompense. The Government, of course, had every reason to want to move on. Mr Hawkins' response to letters of warnings from building industry interests had been as sleepy as that of the authority, which failed to issue "formal" advice of the problem before April last year.

If the chief executive's head had been placed on the block, it should have been joined by that of Mr Hawkins. It does not behove Cabinet ministers to deflect responsibility onto their officials, just as the authority should not have tried to shift blame onto the Internal Affairs officials who monitor its activities.

Now, astoundingly, the Government has ensured that the issue of accountability will fester with its approval for Dr Porteous to be retained as the authority's chief policy adviser. It says his expertise in technical matters is too strong to be wasted. That view is supported by the authority chairman. Neither seems to comprehend what is best for an organisation facing a battle to restore its credibility. The continued presence of the former chief executive in its ranks can only hinder that process.

Dr Porteous' full resignation would have been a small victory for accountability, and a small step towards restoring public faith in the authority. What has transpired is an undignified spectacle that does nothing to ease the anger of those saddled with leaky homes.