Revisiting the:

ReportOf

The Committee of InquiryInto

The Treatment of Timber bythe Borax – Boric-acid Process,

Presented toThe Hon. The Minister in Charge of the

State Advances CorporationNew Zealand

on 14 November 1952

WELLINGTONR. E. OWEN, GOVERNMENT PRINTER

1953

Price 4s.

There has been much understandable unhappiness and confusion within New Zealand as regards the state of many completed but leaking homes. Subsequent to these leaks,there was damage to the internal framing timbers used in these homes and varieties ofrot then set in.

One alarming misnomer that was flying about could not pass without comment then. This is that Boric treatment may literally mean Borer treatment. Do not get these familiar sounding words mixed up with each other though! From the early 1950s and up until the mid 1990s, the requirement for the use of Pinus radiata, for framing timber, was just that it be ‘treated’ with Boric acid, a mild, water soluble, antiseptic derived from the chemical element Boron that occurs naturally and in abundance in theearth’s crust. And amongst its uses (in the form of Boric acid) it can be used as an external agent to treat bacterial and fungal infections – notably eye infections and mouth ulcers. It was also once claimed to relieve the symptoms of arthritis, but the evidence for that apparently is not very compelling. Applied as a treatment to timber it also has fire-retardant properties...

The following is a brief history into the introduction of the Borax - Boric-acid process for the treatment of timber in New Zealand. Migration is also pertinent here. Not because there is some concern about this, but because it is migration that provides, and always has done, much of the impetus in the building industry – a very important industry in so far as employment is concerned, at that! Only once in New Zealand’s short European history has migration ever stalled, and the need for housing remained static, and that was in the early 1930s, not that long back.

Not that New Zealand was an attractive destination then anyway though. The New Zealand historian, Professor Keith Sinclair, writing about this period, recalled that by 1932 New Zealand had reached its ‘nadir’ – its lowest, most cloudy moment in time:

'Assisted migration was cut off, while the birth rate declined. Was the young nation to have a stunted growth? Was it to be, in Wakefield’s scornful words, ‘rotten before it was ripe’?'

Edward Gibbon Wakefield (his scorn above), was the first Englishman to attempt to settle New Zealand with innumerable numbers while not having made proper arrangements for the settlement of them there. Nor with the Maori people already settled there. His words were a challenge to the British authorities then to turn a ‘blind eye’ to speculative activity of which there would be more. The Treaty of Waitangi was in part agreed to by many Maori tribes so as to afford them some protection from these activities, and also some redress. In the long run it didn’t and so this is still beingpaid for, but by all of us now.

The early 1930s saw New Zealand, as everywhere, severely affected by world depression. Export earnings from an increasing volume of exports (up till then) had fallen by some forty percent. And a high proportion of those earnings (one quarter of them) were servicing debt to foreign owned banks (the very same). By 1932 there wasnear 100,000 unemployed – that figure up from 11,000 as in 1930. Public grumbles.

Despite growing public disorder orthodox economic principles still prevailed and would prevail until the election of the first Labour Government in 1935 though. The books stillhad to balance and there would be no relief provided to the unemployed unless they worked for it. Types of ‘relief work’ insisted upon during this period involved road building, the planting of large forests of the fast growing Pinus Radiata, swamp clearing and also the clearing of land for the odd golf course or two. These types of works required a heavy input of labour rather than of material content and kept many of the ‘men’ out of the towns. The grumbles down then.

The first Labour Government arrived unexpectedly into office in 1935. Michael Joseph Savage (‘Mick’), the first Labour leader, had pledged that he wanted to, “…abolish poverty and its followers, anxiety and humiliation…” In office, they would embark on a programme of ensuring ‘social security’ then. Some, as many saw by then, were not soresponsible for their misfortunes after all.

In office, unexpectedly, labour sought first to restore normal economic activity. Sufficient reserves (money held on to), they also discovered unexpectedly (built up prior to the election), they were then able to undertake a number of public works programmes, one of which was to be a State housing programme. One of ‘poverties followers’ of course, being poor housing.

Labour had no sooner arrived into office than James Fletcher, of Fletcher Construction,offered to help with this housing plan. Plans for building houses in large numbers, and quickly as well, were soon drawn up – and large numbers of state houses, available forrent depending on means, were built during Labours first 14 years in office, till 1949.

During the war, 1939-45, New Zealand’s new found sense of security was, of course, threatened. Over two thirds of the male population, and some 10,000 women, aged

between 18 and 45 had served in the armed forces, both in New Zealand and overseas.

In so far as population growth in New Zealand was concerned, it was a story different from that of 1932, after the war ended in 1945... And this was despite the consequent loss forever of some 11,625 servicemen during the war. Those servicemen and womenthat did return home contributed to a ‘marriage boom’, which led to the consequent arrival of 175,000 children in the four years between 1946 and 1949 – the ‘baby-boomers’ these were.

In so far as migration was concerned (stalled also in the early 1930s) there had been migration during the war of refugees, and of children from Britain sent by their parentsto get them away from the war as well. Between 1946 and 1949 migration had added nearly 25,000 to the total population. And by 1949 assisted migration was under way again.

All of this, of course, when the first National Government was elected in 1949, added to an already acute housing shortage. Labour had not been able to keep up. By 1949, those who qualified for, and were in line for State houses, numbered 45,000 or more. Many more, not eligible for a State house, were living in substandard accommodation.

Labour and National had some ideological differences you could say as to who should own houses anyway. Labour had constructed houses, as part you could say, of its overall social re-construction package. Houses were built during their first period in office (1935-1949) not just to provide a roof over people’s heads but also, as an investment in productive activity that would lead to further activity... Subsequent rent from housing, while not set at a high level, was to be consolidated and put to further use to the same ends.

Another stance that truly marked National out from Labour concerned the sale of the State houses Labour had built. National took exception to tenure of the State houses being able to be passed on by nomination before death of the sitting tenant. Here was property then, built by the state, that couldn’t be bought and sold, and effectively remained the property of the tenant in perpetuity. This was very much against a National tenet - that from ‘Gentleman Jack’ Marshall (the first National Minister placed in Charge of the State Advances Corporation, with responsibility for the Governments housing policies, and the minister who would eventually precede Robert Muldoon as Prime Minister) and in his memoirs published in 1983:

'Our policy was based on the belief in private ownership. Our election slogan was “Own your own”; our objective, “A property-owning democracy.”

'The emphasis was on providing the opportunity for people to build or buy their own homes. We recognised that, in some circumstances, renting a house was the best and, in some cases, the only way in which a family cold be housed. But we believed (as I still do) that home ownership was to be preferred for the great majority of families, giving, as it does, a permanentand secure base for the family, a sense of social stability within the community, a pride of ownership, an incentive to maintain and improve the house and grounds, the means to save through the regular payment of mortgage instalments, and, as events have turned out, a good hedge against inflation as property values rise...'

In order that those on a low income could become property owners National would improve the lending policies of the State Advance Corporation. By keeping rates of interest low, and by increasing loan limits, and by allowing a longer period of time for repayment, they would in that way make repayments affordable. Mortgage protection insurance would also be introduced, so that on the death of the person repaying the mortgage, the mortgage would automatically be repaid.

What National (or should we say the Rt Honourable John Marshall) found though whenthey entered office, was that policy had to be filtered down and that this would take time. And at the same time there was still an urgent need for housing and much of what needed to be built would still have to be made available in the way that it had been during Labour’s tenure. There was simply no other way then. In constituency offices, including the Rt Honourable John Marshall’s, there was many a sad tale related.

After their first year in office the Rt Honourable John Marshall summarised in his reportto the National Party caucus, this:

'The first year of the National Government in housing is a story of record achievement; more house have been built, more state houses let, more house bought and sold, more housing materials produced, than in any previous year in the history of the country. In addition, an extensive building programme for hospitals is under way and more commercial building and alteration work is being done...'

Later, admitting to some discomfort with his summary of the situation then, Sir John Marshall (he had been knighted by then), outlined some of the very real problems that also existed then in the building industry.

He had only been able to oversee the building of 600 more houses than the 16,400 that labour had overseen the building of the year before. (Looking back this seems a not inconsiderable achievement none the less.) And in order to improve on this they needed more trained ‘men’ than were available. Added to this there was fast developing a shortage of the native heart timbers that had been used ‘…so lavishly in the past’. And subsequently with their scarcity, an increasing cost attached to the purchase of that type of timber. Tawa, the heart of which is not particularly suitable foranything except dunnage (for shipping sheep?), was fast becoming the only hard woodsuitable for flooring left that was widely available. Tawa, though, had only been left standing (while the natives around them had not been), because of its susceptibility to borer. And Pinus radiata, also susceptible to borer, was too soft for flooring in any case.

At the end of 1952, after their first three year term in office, National found that they had only been able to maintain the level of house building – at around 16,000 dwellings a year. Sir John Marshall said that they found that they were ‘running hard, but not getting very far’. On top of this there was still the problem of advancing National's policy in so far as home ownership was concerned. The idea of a Housing Conference, at the end of National's first three-year period, appealed, as it seemed such a conference, as well as eliciting the views of every interest group as to the problems for the building industry (as they saw them), the National Government would

further gain an opportunity to air its policy on home-ownership, this property owning aim again...

After an extensive period of preparation, the National Housing Conference 1953 was convened to meet from the 4th of August until the 7th. Some one hundred and sixty-eight delegates and observers from forty-two separate organisations attended. In the afternoons and up until quite late in the evenings those attending the conference divided into three committees. From twenty-three recommendations of the committees, housing policies were revised, put to the Government Caucus, and then proceeded with.

In his memoirs Sir John Marshall commented on the frustration he felt when, while trying to get cheaper houses built and more of them, he had also to face the:

'…conservative and restrictive attitude of the Board of the State Advances Corporation to the use of both Pinus radiata and tawa timber in houses on which they were spending money...'

This was a situation that would have affected one of the recommendations that had come out of the Housing Conference had it not already been dealt with. Briefly, one of the conferences recommendations had been that the State Advances Corporation be compelled to buy for State stock any house, which, if built from approved plans, could not be sold by its builder. Also the State Advances Corporation could be required, if finance was needed, to provide a mortgage to an approved purchaser. It was measures like these, that Sir John Marshall in his memoirs said, saw ‘New houses… spring up like mushrooms…’ – as you could imagine!

While, on the one hand Marshall had had to consider the opinions of his departmental advisors; he had also had to face the continual representations from timber millers andbuilding industry representatives asking that Tawa be allowed to be used for flooring. Further there was the question of whether Pinus radiata might also be put to use? Sir John Marshall said he ended up with no choice but to set up a committee of enquiry:

'Specifically the inquiry was into the efficacy of the treatment of these timbers by borax-boric acid, and the extent to which they could be used when so treated. The committee found that these timbers, so treated, could be used in houses for flooring and other internal uses. I instructed the corporation accordingly…The committee [had] also recommended the establishment of a Timber Preservation Authority to test, approve and supervise the several methods of timber treatment and the numerous treatment plants which were being set up. The Authority was duly formed in 1955 under the jurisdiction of the Department of Industries and Commerce...'

The scientific evidence prepared for the enquiry was presented by Mr Harrow of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Auckland. His position there was as Senior Wood Technologist, Plant Diseases Division. He was assisted in his presentation by an associate, L.W. Tiller, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Agriculture and Biology). Muchof the work on Anobium, the common house borer, had been continued with by Don Spiller, the Entomologist at the DSIR, while Mr Harrow had been overseas during the war. Their work comparing the effects of differing treatments to different types of timber had begun in 1938. At the time of the enquiry Mr Spiller was overseas.

Mr Harrow, advocating the borax –boric acid process, presented his evidence on the first morning of the enquiry. The enquiry was then adjourned until the next morning. Then for the following one and a half days Mr Harrow was cross-examined by any, including the parties who opposed the introduction of the borax –boric acid process, who wished to. He later said that he found the experience ‘harrowing’. During cross-examination he found that the interested parties were taking the opportunity of gettingat each other through him.

And yet finally, as a result of this evidence the use of Tawa for flooring was accepted and the use of Pinus radiata also became widespread in the building industry; and gave no problems either until (leaks to one side) the borax –boric acid process of treatment for timber was no longer required by law to be applied to all Pinus radiata used internally for housing framing.

The core results of scientific investigation carried out in New Zealand by Mr Harrow and his colleagues at The Department of Scientific Research, Mt Albert:

'(1) That boric acid is toxic to Anobium [common house borer or furniture beetle], the toxicity lying between 0.043 per cent and 0.022 per cent.(2) That boric acid is toxic to Ambeodontus [two tooth longhorn], the toxicity lying between0.09 per cent and 0.046 per cent.(3) That boric acid at a concentration of approximately 0.5 per cent is completely toxic to arange of wood -destroying fungi.(4) That to achieve a minimum core retention of 0.2 per cent which would give an ample safety margin against attack by the two major New Zealand wood-boring insects [Anobium and Ambeodontus], it is necessary in the diffusion treatment to aim at an over-all concentration of between 0.6 per cent and 1 per cent, giving a surface concentration that is toxic to fungi.'

Support for these results was derived by the Department of Scientific Research, from the work of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Melbourne. The main concern for the Australians was with infestation, due to their more voracious pests, rather than with decay due to dampness and thence bacterial and fungal growth. The main Australian concentration on the process was not so much on the ‘efficacy’ of the treatment (they were happy that that was established), but with the leaching, or weeping, of the treatment from the timber after the treatment process. They had decided that ‘an average loading somewhat lowerthan 0.5 per cent of boric acid should give reasonable protection against termites provided the timber was protected from leaching’. (See report p. 16)

Concerned about leaching the Committee of Inquiry in New Zealand in their report (1952) had this to say:

'Since… the cellular structure of wood offers great resistance to the passage of water, leaching of preservative due to the passage of water through the wood can be ruled out as a possibility occurring in house timber… the committee does not therefore regard leaching as a risk when the surface of treated wood is wetted for a short time, or when, due to ill-ventilated conditions, water vapour condenses…'

Finally in New Zealand the loading decided upon in 1952 was the minimum core retention of 0.2 per cent achieved by the over-all concentration of between 0.6 per cent and 1 per cent – the surface concentration that is also toxic to fungi.

Any argument ever that attempts to establish that, as the timber in many completed but leaking homes is not being subject to attack by borer - therefore the treatment of timber is not also at issue - is specious. Worse it adds to the confusion of those affected.

If the 1952 Committee of Enquiry had decided that it was only necessary to protect against infestation they could have set the minimum core retention level some four times lower than they did.

It remains but to comment on modern claddings (why not then):

Inadvertent ventilation, such as that obtained when weatherboards are fixed overlapping each other, prevailed before the advent of modern claddings. It may well be that the coatings that are being applied to the modern houses are so effective (leaks from cracks in the cladding aside), that the dwellings are also ‘sweating’ in the framing cavities from the heat of human habitation – in effect humans are producing the moisture upon which fungi and bacteria thrive. One commentator likened living in some modern dwellings as to be ‘like living in a plastic bag’ (don't ask who though?).

(Section deleted).

Originally when this interested party undertook to comment on the leaky building syndrome this party was going to finish by asking what Sir John Marshall might have had to say about the leaky building syndrome and the subsequent damage to the framing timber. And we still imagine he would have said something like this now:

“Now look, the framing timber affected would never have been able to have even been used if it had not been for the advent the Borax Boric acid Process. We would have just had to build out of stone or something… anything but that...”

We find ourselves more interested now though, in the response of a National government once to a housing shortage. At that point the point was to build more houses, to innovate even, but two pronged, also to ensure that ordinary citizens had a stake in New Zealand then, through that sort of stake, property ownership again...

(Moving on again).

Speaking of things set in stone once, we could have, if Tawa had been planted as freely as Pinus, continued to have used Tawa for flooring rather than particle board also. Still could. Tawa, an attractive, durable timber, is one native hard wood that doesgrow quite quickly - though not as fast as Pinus radiata of course! But nothing like bang for your bark. And if you would like to see what a Tawa floor might have looked like in your home, you can visit the old New Market Borough Council Offices – now Whitcoulls (well it was when this was first penned), on Broadway, in New Market last.