Editorial: Report is bang on, Mr Hunn

Owners of rotting homes should have had cause for satisfaction yesterday. The final report by former State Services Commissioner Don Hunn insisted that they were part of a "major crisis" and suggested a sensible path forward. Instead, however, another round of undignified buck-passing provided reason for even greater anger. The homeowners' plight seems still far from the minds of those intent on shoving the blame elsewhere, no matter how flimsy the reasoning.

Thus, the most grudging of apologies to the Government from Barry Brown, the chairman of the Building Industry Authority, serves also as a vehicle to attempt to pass the buck to Department of Internal Affairs officials who had the general role of monitoring the authority. But it was not the industry watchdog whose specific purpose was to recognise faulty building practices and halt them. That was the authority.

Mr Brown did not stop there. His "apology" contained one other, somewhat better directed, attempt to deflect the blame. He noted that after the authority had briefed the Minister of Internal Affairs, George Hawkins, on the problem in April this year, there had been no further contact until October. "Until I received your letter of October 30, I believed that I had provided you with timely and 'no surprises' advice on the weathertightness issue," Mr Brown wrote. The implication was clear. Mr Hawkins had not treated the problem seriously until political and media heat, much of it from the Herald, became troublesome.

Mr Hawkins must, indeed, take his share of the blame. If he was not "formally advised" of the issue before April, he nonetheless had received letters of concern from building industry interests last year. Further, the Herald had been banging on about it long before April. Equally, however, the authority should have been insisting that rotting buildings were at the top of the minister's priorities. Yesterday they were more intent on suggesting they had made rather a good fist of things.

The chief executive, Bill Porteous, judged that the authority could have looked "silly" if it had made a fuss over something that turned out to be a non-issue. To his way of thinking it was an act of courage when the authority appointed "a group of independent people ... to find out the size of this problem and its causes and report publicly". It was no such thing. The authority fully deserves the Hunn Report's reprimand for not being active enough.

As Dr Porteous acknowledged, it had been known in the industry for some time that there was a problem of indeterminate size involving leaky buildings. As long as four years ago, the authority received warnings from a North Shore building surveyor. Continued alarms dictated that this was no time to worry about appearances. It was a time to raise alarm at the highest level of Government.

The Government says no one will be sacked for this catalogue of ineptitude. Its assessment is farcical, especially given the authority's continued surliness. Apparently, the best the public can hope for is that the authority's performance, and personnel, will improve under an overhaul recommended by Mr Hunn. Added protection for homeowners under a stricter Building Act will also help.

Mr Hunn has identified the shortcomings of the "light-handed" approach that permeated building controls during the 1990s. In that environment, the homeowner had inadequate protection when things went wrong. That should have heightened the authority's vigilance, not made it dilatory. As it should make it more intent now on making amends, not passing the buck.

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

Herald feature: Leaky buildings

Related links