Editorial: Time Key fixed leak problem

The previous Government never quite "got it" on leaky homes and nor, it seems, has this one. A deal that Building and Housing Minister Maurice Williamson is discussing with metropolitan mayors would see the Crown contributing just 10 per cent of the cost of repairs.

Councils would contribute 26 per cent and the homeowners would be left with a whopping 64 per cent.

Governments have never come to grips with the fact that the primary blame for this catastrophe is theirs.

Thousands of homes were built in the 1990s with inadequate weather-proofing because the principle of deregulation was taken too far. It really is as simple as that.

In the years after 1984, public policy at the highest levels was ruled by the principle that markets contained their own discipline and standards of quality and safety could be enforced purely by competition.

It is a sound principle for goods and services that enable their qualities to be readily seen or tested by potential buyers. Elements of house construction are not in that category, or at least were not.

Once houses built under 1991 legislation began to exhibit internal rot, their faulty design elements became very apparent.

But at the time that people were buying these lightly cladded attractive homes with flush roofs and sills, they had no reason not to trust the national building code.

Builders may have had their doubts about the wisdom of fastening linings directly onto untreated timber frames but they, too, had a right to trust the code and competition demanded they build that way.

Likewise, council building inspectors were bound by what was permissible even if they had doubts about it.

Yet it is councils that are facing the bills when cases are brought to court, mainly because no other party can be held to account.

The building company has disappeared and the Crown has not accepted liability.

The full national cost of leaky homes is estimated to be $11.5 billion, which would be a considerable addition to the $40 billion the Government is borrowing to meet the effects of recession.

But why not use part of the stimulus for the repair of leaky homes?

It would be as worthy as other maintenance projects nominated for some of the money.

Most of the leaky homes are in Auckland and councils are warning that rates are bound to rise if they continue to face restitution bills ordered by the Justice Ministry's Watertight Homes Tribunal or the High Court.

The mayors are anxious to secure a financial commitment by the Government before the formation of a Super City that will present a more lucrative target for litigation.

This Government has sounded more sympathetic to homeowners than the last, which took a defensive view that was surprising from a party that seldom lost an opportunity to castigate excesses of market liberalism.

The present Government is just as keen to distance itself from that era, so it is surprising it has not offered better than a tenth of the repair bill.

Leaky homeowners have organisations to champion their interests. They are not going to let any government off the hook for 10 per cent, and nor should they.

Helen Clark accused the Herald of "banging on" about it but the problem did not go away. John Key has inherited a moral liability that time will not lighten.

Houses may be repaired at owners' expense or sold to unwitting migrants, but the claims remain.

The cause of this catastrophe, comparable in cost to a natural disaster, lies in high policy-making chambers.

It is from there that the rot set in and it is there the buck will stop, no matter how long it takes.