Advertisement

Canberra Liberals Call for $5 Million in Emergency Assistance for Mr Fluffy Affected Homeowners and Residents

By 25 June 2014 8

asbestos

The terrible effects caused by Mr Fluffy insulated properties are taking a major toll on many Canberra families and it’s time for the ACT Labor government to start offering financial assistance for those in the worst circumstances, Leader of the Opposition Jeremy Hanson said today.

“Today I’m calling on the Chief Minister and government to allocate $5 million for families who are facing crisis situations as a result of Mr Fluffy affected properties. Many people need financial help for things like accommodation and medical testing. I’m also calling for both rates and land tax to be frozen on Mr Fluffy affected homes,” Mr Hanson said.

“In my view, liability rests with the Commonwealth, but emergency support is needed now. The government needs to move quickly and I’m willing to work with Katy Gallagher to get assistance to the families which need it most.

“I have met with the Fluffy Owners and Residents’ Action Group and it’s getting to the stage where everyone knows someone who is affected by this saga. There are no easy answers to long term solutions, but we do know there are families suffering now and emergency assistance is required.

“The Action Group is calling for help and the government needs to respond with a financial commitment for the people who are being impacted now and can’t wait,” Mr Hanson concluded.

(Jeremy Hanson Media Release)

Please login to post your comments
8 Responses to Canberra Liberals Call for $5 Million in Emergency Assistance for Mr Fluffy Affected Homeowners and Residents
#1
Chop713:15 pm, 26 Jun 14

“In my view, liability rests with the Commonwealth” ……why?

Why does the taxpayer have to pay for peoples unfortunate buying decisions? Is the government expected to bail out every individual who makes a misguided investment?

I feel for these people and agree it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to waive rates and fees etc. But fronting up $800million to replace their homes …… I doubt anyone is going to do that willingly.

#2
cranky6:02 pm, 26 Jun 14

Can’t agree with you Chop.

These homeowners were given a certificate stating that the asbestos had been removed. What else did they have to go on?

They now find that their houses are still deadly. Any normal person would decide that they should vacate immediately, as the risk to all occupants/visitors is unacceptable.

Who pays? ACT Gov could be in a sticky situation giving out worthless certificates. Ideally, each house should be demolished, and the top 150mm of topsoil removed. If the vacant blocks were then auctioned, I would anticipate about 2/3 of the original (potential) selling value of the properties would be returned. This leaves the 1/3 balance (say 200K) plus the demolition costs.

Maybe an acceptable number?

#3
Postalgeek6:04 pm, 26 Jun 14

Chop71 said :

“In my view, liability rests with the Commonwealth” ……why?

Why does the taxpayer have to pay for peoples unfortunate buying decisions? Is the government expected to bail out every individual who makes a misguided investment?

I feel for these people and agree it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to waive rates and fees etc. But fronting up $800million to replace their homes …… I doubt anyone is going to do that willingly.

Where did the $800 million figure come from?

#4
thatsnotme9:28 pm, 26 Jun 14

Chop71 said :

“In my view, liability rests with the Commonwealth” ……why?

Why does the taxpayer have to pay for peoples unfortunate buying decisions? Is the government expected to bail out every individual who makes a misguided investment?

I feel for these people and agree it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to waive rates and fees etc. But fronting up $800million to replace their homes …… I doubt anyone is going to do that willingly.

You’re under the misguided assumption that everyone affected knew they were living in a Mr Fluffy home. Firstly, the ACT Government has never published a list of all of the homes that contained this insulation. Secondly, many people bought homes never knowing that they originally contained Mr Fluffy. Unless the person selling the home volunteered the information – and afaik they were under no obligation to do so – then they had no idea. How is this a ‘misguided investment’?

#5
gazket11:40 pm, 26 Jun 14

The federal government were told Mr fluffy asbestos couldn’t be fully cleaned up at the time yet they still continued with the cleanup and made false pretenses that it was all cleaned up. Also at the time of the cleanup took place there was a slump in housing prices and the gov could of bought and demolished them all for $ 500m rebuilt New houses and made a profit.

#6
creative_canberran10:32 am, 27 Jun 14

gazket said :

The federal government were told Mr fluffy asbestos couldn’t be fully cleaned up at the time yet they still continued with the cleanup and made false pretenses that it was all cleaned up. Also at the time of the cleanup took place there was a slump in housing prices and the gov could of bought and demolished them all for $ 500m rebuilt New houses and made a profit.

I’m not sure what you’re basing some of that on. The average price of a Canberra home during the clean up was in the 90k range, the price of the Fluffy homes given their age closer to the per house cleaning cost of $60k. I think the homes should have been compulsory acquired back in the day and demolished, but there was never going to be a profit in it.

#7
Chop7110:37 am, 27 Jun 14

Quoted again on ABC 666 this morning $800,000 per home. To demolish a house and remove topsoil? You would have to be kidding.

These homeowners were given a certificate stating that the asbestos had been removed. What else did they have to go on?

Well that would certainly change the game plan. Yes if they had such a certificate then you could argue they may have a case. (against those who issued the assurances and if it was the commonwealth, then so be it.)

Well it may be an “uninformed” rather than a “misguided” investment. They could put the case that in purchasing the property they were not fully aware that they contained Mr Fluffy. That being the case, wouldn’t the purchasers argument be against those who either provided assurances or the agents who (maybe) withheld knowingly information?

This has a long way to play out and there is no way this will be as simple as all the Canberra politicians holding hands and saying “the feds will pay”. I would like to wait and listen to the other side of the argument before jumping on the Mr Fluffy bandwagon.

#8
Tezza74208:10 pm, 01 Jul 14

The Feds are ultimately responsible but the ACT Gubmnt has administered this very badly since self Government. There are so many stories of people not receiving their letters, not being told when they bought their houses or, even, letters going to the wrong houses.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement

Images of Canberra

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.