Mr Fluffy – a Parallel

Wouldn’t the responsible solution be to simply say the magic words “I’m not a scientist but…” “the jury is still out on asbestosis”, and “we really can’t afford to do anything until Burkino Fasso acts”?

Then sack all the scientists, remove all funding from anyone who disagrees, and never go on Q&A again?

JC said :

creative_canberran said :

JC said :

The first house clean up was started in MAY 1989. Source this article dated 10th May showing a house wrapped ready to go.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/122261118?searchTerm=mr%20fluffy&searchLimits=l-state=ACT|||l-decade=198

The first ACT Government did not SIT and hence come into being until 11th May 1989, which if my maths is right is the day after this article was written.

So quite clearly the method of cleaning was worked out prior to self government, otherwise please explain the article and the picture above?

That isn’t the ‘first’ house, it was a trial house, not the first trial one either. Commonwealth had first experimented with removal of the fluff about three years earlier. They ended up covering a street in asbestos dust when it went badly wrong.

But you are correct, the method that was ultimately used for the bulk of homes, was developed prior to self-government, but it wasn’t chosen yet. On May 11 when they started cleaning that house in the article you link to as a trial, the tenders and contracts for the clean up proper were yet to be done and the exact method was not yet chosen. Hence it was the new ACT Labor Government as I said that decided what the cleaning companies would be contracted to do for the public portion of the clean up.

The “clean up” as we refer to it was actually separate cleans ups over a 5 year period, both public and private. You can generally refer to the public portion, the bulk of homes covered by, as Bloc 1 and Bloc 2. And even after the first contract for was signed, it was a debacle. It was only really with the second clean up contract which covered the bulk of homes and used a better contractor that they started getting their act together and enforcing the proper standard.

Whilst that was indeed a trial, the same ariticle does say:

“The work is to be tendered to licensed contractors with the vacant Scullin house a trial project to test the efficiency of equipment and procedures that contractors will have to use. The pre-qualifled tenderers will be taken through the trial and the contracts are expected to be signed by the end of July, with work to begin in August.”

Note the bit where it says the house was a trial to test the “efficiency of equipment and procedures that contractors will have to use”

Says to me that the processes and methods had already been choose, prior to self government, which is what I’ve been saying all along. Didn’t mention anything about when contracts were signed or the like.

JC,

I think you can give up on this one, sounds like Creative Canberran has a bit more in depth knowledge of the process.

Options and trials were obviously being investigated but if the official clean up didn’t begin (and contracts weren’t signed) til afterwards, then the local government is responsible for the option chosen.

creative_canberran said :

JC said :

The first house clean up was started in MAY 1989. Source this article dated 10th May showing a house wrapped ready to go.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/122261118?searchTerm=mr%20fluffy&searchLimits=l-state=ACT|||l-decade=198

The first ACT Government did not SIT and hence come into being until 11th May 1989, which if my maths is right is the day after this article was written.

So quite clearly the method of cleaning was worked out prior to self government, otherwise please explain the article and the picture above?

That isn’t the ‘first’ house, it was a trial house, not the first trial one either. Commonwealth had first experimented with removal of the fluff about three years earlier. They ended up covering a street in asbestos dust when it went badly wrong.

But you are correct, the method that was ultimately used for the bulk of homes, was developed prior to self-government, but it wasn’t chosen yet. On May 11 when they started cleaning that house in the article you link to as a trial, the tenders and contracts for the clean up proper were yet to be done and the exact method was not yet chosen. Hence it was the new ACT Labor Government as I said that decided what the cleaning companies would be contracted to do for the public portion of the clean up.

The “clean up” as we refer to it was actually separate cleans ups over a 5 year period, both public and private. You can generally refer to the public portion, the bulk of homes covered by, as Bloc 1 and Bloc 2. And even after the first contract for was signed, it was a debacle. It was only really with the second clean up contract which covered the bulk of homes and used a better contractor that they started getting their act together and enforcing the proper standard.

Whilst that was indeed a trial, the same ariticle does say:

“The work is to be tendered to licensed contractors with the vacant Scullin house a trial project to test the efficiency of equipment and procedures that contractors will have to use. The pre-qualifled tenderers will be taken through the trial and the contracts are expected to be signed by the end of July, with work to begin in August.”

Note the bit where it says the house was a trial to test the “efficiency of equipment and procedures that contractors will have to use”

Says to me that the processes and methods had already been choose, prior to self government, which is what I’ve been saying all along. Didn’t mention anything about when contracts were signed or the like.

JC said :

The first house clean up was started in MAY 1989. Source this article dated 10th May showing a house wrapped ready to go.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/122261118?searchTerm=mr%20fluffy&searchLimits=l-state=ACT|||l-decade=198

The first ACT Government did not SIT and hence come into being until 11th May 1989, which if my maths is right is the day after this article was written.

So quite clearly the method of cleaning was worked out prior to self government, otherwise please explain the article and the picture above?

That isn’t the ‘first’ house, it was a trial house, not the first trial one either. Commonwealth had first experimented with removal of the fluff about three years earlier. They ended up covering a street in asbestos dust when it went badly wrong.

But you are correct, the method that was ultimately used for the bulk of homes, was developed prior to self-government, but it wasn’t chosen yet. On May 11 when they started cleaning that house in the article you link to as a trial, the tenders and contracts for the clean up proper were yet to be done and the exact method was not yet chosen. Hence it was the new ACT Labor Government as I said that decided what the cleaning companies would be contracted to do for the public portion of the clean up.

The “clean up” as we refer to it was actually separate cleans ups over a 5 year period, both public and private. You can generally refer to the public portion, the bulk of homes covered by, as Bloc 1 and Bloc 2. And even after the first contract for was signed, it was a debacle. It was only really with the second clean up contract which covered the bulk of homes and used a better contractor that they started getting their act together and enforcing the proper standard.

rommeldog56 said :

As I recall, the remediation was either Federally funded, co-funded with the new ACt Gov’t or was fully ACT Gov’t funded – I’m not sure which.

It was done to the standards prevailing at that time.

It was Katy Gallagher, who admitted that as long as 10 years ago as the then ACT labor Gov’t Housing Minister, she was told that the remediation that had been undertaken was not satisfactory by the prevailing standards that applied later and that the risk remained.

She did next to nothing – not even warned residents of those affected houses or tradies who worked on them.

Certainly, the Federal Gov’t is the original sinner.

But to me, the ACT Gov’ts sin is much, much worse.

I am certainly not a member of the Katy Gallagher glee club.

Co funded.

Oh BTW some houses where cleaned before hand being funded by the owners. Though the cost was refunded when the official program kicked off.

I recall going to school in Holt in 1988 and seeing a house in Southern Cross drive Holt (353) being wrapped and cleaned. By 1989 I was going to College so didn’t go that way.

creative_canberran said :

JC said :

creative_canberran said :

The Commonwealth should have significant responsibility for ignoring warnings and permitting the issue to arise. However John, do not forget that it was the ACT Labor Government that chose the method of remediation that means we now have this issue again to deal with. And the ACT signs a document in which it accepted responsibility for the design and implementation for the remediation.

Your party is just as responsible for this mess as the Commonwealth.

I think you will find that the re-mediation method was chosen by the Commonwealth task force that was established to kick off the Mr Fluffy clean-up before being handed over to the then new ACT Government to run.

No, it wasn’t. The Commonwealth’s involvement went no further than the audit and deciding the subsequent funding model.

Perhaps your confusion is because even after the ACT took over, the staff responsible formerly with the Commonwealth carried on under ACT authority.

The first house clean up was started in MAY 1989. Source this article dated 10th May showing a house wrapped ready to go.

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/122261118?searchTerm=mr%20fluffy&searchLimits=l-state=ACT|||l-decade=198

The first ACT Government did not SIT and hence come into being until 11th May 1989, which if my maths is right is the day after this article was written.

So quite clearly the method of cleaning was worked out prior to self government, otherwise please explain the article and the picture above?

rubaiyat said :

rommeldog56 said :

1. Zed is MA on this and also on uts to the APS, etc.

Abbott didn’t want him in the Senate so he wont want to rock that boat too much I would think.

2. Self Gov’t was forced on the ACT & the associated minimual financial handout – by the then Commonwealth Labor Gov’t as I recall.

3. Re the low interest loan.

Given the current Lib Commonwealth Gov’t – I dunno what more anyone could have expected in reality.

Agree its pathetic.

4. Was the low interest loan “negotiated” and agreed between the Feds & the ACT Gov’t ? Or was it a take it or leave it offer by the Feds ? I dont really hear the ACT Gov’t attacking the Feds about it too often.

5. Is it not the ACT Gov’t “rules” on how the loan $ are to be allocated, that is as much an issue as the Feds offer of a capped low interest loan. eg. If you can afford to buy back your block/part hereof and build again, there is apparently no offer of compo if you have to rent for 18 months or so. Plus the inevitably higher cost of building because of the artificially high demand. Thats hopeless.

6. Will be interesting how the separate legal actions by Fluffy owners against the Feds goes. I’m sort of surprised that the ACT Gov’t hasnt been included in that because by their own admission, they knew about this problem about 8 years or so ago, but did nothing.

At the end of the day, its the poor Fluffy owners who are hurt – those responsible get away scott free.

If you are always so keen to finger the “Original Sin” why are you ignoring that Mr Fluffy happened under the federal Liberal Government of the day, despite the problem of asbestosis was already well known for decades before that.

As I recall, the remediation was either Federally funded, co-funded with the new ACt Gov’t or was fully ACT Gov’t funded – I’m not sure which. It was done to the standards prevailing at that time. It was Katy Gallagher, who admitted that as long as 10 years ago as the then ACT labor Gov’t Housing Minister, she was told that the remediation that had been undertaken was not satisfactory by the prevailing standards that applied later and that the risk remained.

She did next to nothing – not even warned residents of those affected houses or tradies who worked on them.

Certainly, the Federal Gov’t is the original sinner. But to me, the ACT Gov’ts sin is much, much worse.

I am certainly not a member of the Katy Gallagher glee club.

JC said :

creative_canberran said :

The Commonwealth should have significant responsibility for ignoring warnings and permitting the issue to arise. However John, do not forget that it was the ACT Labor Government that chose the method of remediation that means we now have this issue again to deal with. And the ACT signs a document in which it accepted responsibility for the design and implementation for the remediation.

Your party is just as responsible for this mess as the Commonwealth.

I think you will find that the re-mediation method was chosen by the Commonwealth task force that was established to kick off the Mr Fluffy clean-up before being handed over to the then new ACT Government to run.

No, it wasn’t. The Commonwealth’s involvement went no further than the audit and deciding the subsequent funding model.

Perhaps your confusion is because even after the ACT took over, the staff responsible formerly with the Commonwealth carried on under ACT authority.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

JC said :

creative_canberran said :

The Commonwealth should have significant responsibility for ignoring warnings and permitting the issue to arise. However John, do not forget that it was the ACT Labor Government that chose the method of remediation that means we now have this issue again to deal with. And the ACT signs a document in which it accepted responsibility for the design and implementation for the remediation.

Your party is just as responsible for this mess as the Commonwealth.

I think you will find that the re-mediation method was chosen by the Commonwealth task force that was established to kick off the Mr Fluffy clean-up before being handed over to the then new ACT Government to run. Though yes it was a Labor Federal government.

Apart from pety point scoring don’t see what the issue is about what happened in the past and who was or wasn’t in power. At the time the Commonwealth took responsibility and in conjunction with the new ACT Government did what they though was a) reasonable and b) would clean up the mess.

It has since been found to not be the case and needs fixing and the the current Federal government is doing bugger all to help. End of story.

“…….the current Federal government is doing bugger all to help……….”
Thank goodness you don’t get involved with petty point scoring.

Statement of fact there Dunfingus not point scoring. A well documented one too.

What happened 25+ years ago however is irrelevant and point scoring because the Federal government DID help and did what all the experts thought was reasonable. No arguments, ifs or buts.

You are too modest, JC.

When the lose asbestos was being removed from houses years ago, I was very sceptical. I thought what about all the asbestos that has fallen down the wall cavities? How can they get it all? I certainly wouldn’t have wanted to buy a house that had had lose asbestos, as I didn’t believe it could have all been removed. It’s so sad that people weren’t warned they were buying houses still with lose asbestos. Lives disrupted. Sad.
When this is all ‘finished’ with, I think the next thing to look at are asbestos roofs. At least fibro walls are painted, keeping the fibres in, if not disturbed, but most roofs are not; plus they get hit by hail, etc in a way that the walls don’t. I know someone who had one of these roofs cleaned, before painting. Apparently the garden was covered in white fibres after. So these roofs apparently can’t be painted like the walls and covered up, as they must be cleaned first, so the paint doesn’t flake off. And if paint can flack off, so can the asbestos. We have a lot of asbestos roofs in the ACT, but I imagine this should be a simpler problem to remedy than lose asbestos.