Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Home loans made clear

Mr Fluffy Crisis – Canberra Waits

By Steven Bailey 2 October 2014 30

asbestos

Between 1968 and 1979, private ACT contractor Mr Fluffy insulated people’s homes by pumping loose asbestos fibres into the roof cavities of houses in Canberra. In 1989, the Federal Government acknowledged the devastating health risks of loose asbestos and conducted an investigation of homes in the ACT constructed before 1980. It was discovered that 1.5 per cent of ACT homes built before 1980 contained loose asbestos fibre insulation.

As the ACT Government only came into existence in 1989, the disaster was the responsibility of the Federal Government – and still is. As such, the Federal Government funded a 100 million-dollar Loose Asbestos Insulation Removal Program. Obviously, it was not successful. This year, it has come to light that, so far, 1049 homes still contain this deadly material.

Since this year’s discovery, the ACT Government has established a dedicated taskforce and disbursed in excess of 1.1 million dollars in emergency cash relief to residents who have been adversely affected. With bipartisan support, the ACT Government has moved swiftly, concluding that a mass buy-back and demolition scheme would be the most desirable outcome. Last week Senator Eric Abetz listened to the stories of people affected by the crisis, and an announcement on the Commonwealth’s contribution is imminent within days or weeks.

In my opinion, there have been a few unhelpful hiccups of late. The ACT Government has mailed out stickers that are to be affixed by the homeowner to meter boxes and switch boards of the affected properties. The point of the stickers is to warn tradespeople in the future that they may be working on a property that contains loose asbestos fibres. The penalty for not displaying the stickers before the beginning of next year is $4,500. Instead of potentially frightening already traumatised residents, surely the ACT Government could just take it upon themselves to affix the stickers – and without the threat of penalty.

Additionally, founder of the Fluffy Owner’s and Residents’ Action Group Brianna Heseltine has this week defended her decision to conceal that she has recently joined the ALP and has political ambitions. What is clear from the fiasco is that the major parties have attempted to recruit the community advocate for the 2016 election in the light of her rising public profile. Heseltine may take heed of that timeless Labor rallying cry for the feminist movement which was ‘the personal is political’, and you can’t hide one from the other.

Regardless of those hiccups, what is most important to all concerned is that those who are affected by this crisis are cared for by a reasonable response from the Federal Government. It seems that Canberra waits together in silent solidarity, hoping for the best with bated breath… and whispering.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
30 Responses to
Mr Fluffy Crisis – Canberra Waits
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Pragmatix 6:46 pm 10 Oct 14

creative_canberran said :

Steven Bailey said :

There are a few reasons that I’ve said that. The first is that the ACT had been administered by the Commonwealth up until the Legislative Assembly was founded in 1989. Up until then, the ACT had no executive power. What ever power it did have it was afforded by the Federal Government, notwithstanding the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act of 1988.

You really don’t know what you’re talking about. Point is the ACT always part funded the program, and the ACT not the Commonwealth designed the clean up.

Steven Bailey said :

The Federal Government did acknowledge the devastating health risks of loose asbestos in 1989, yet I take your point that I could have been more specific by saying that initial action commenced in 1988,

Actually initial action commenced in 1984 and they acknowledged the risk to residents in 84 and to trades even earlier.

You haven’t done one bit of original research. You’ve written something based on recycling some other flawed summaries all in the name of political opportunism. I think’s that’s very weak and it garners you no respect.

Really? What is the matter with you? Steven has been quite gracious with you. You haven’t backed up your claims and you’re just trying to be nasty with him. Do you think that any other writer would have bothered with your petty and incorrect whinging? Actually, the risks were acknowledged on many occasions. The article isn’t a historical dissertation and there is nothing factually incorrect in it. I think it’s very weak and it garners you no respect to clutch at straws (in anonymity) simply to be self-righteous and obnoxious. You haven’t corrected Steven on anything, you’ve only added superficial information which isn’t in dispute. Get over yourself. These forums should be used to discuss the issues that impact our community, but people don’t bother doing that because they don’t want to get caught up in the type of nauseating wrangling of the likes of yourself.

creative_canberran 5:55 pm 10 Oct 14

Steven Bailey said :

There are a few reasons that I’ve said that. The first is that the ACT had been administered by the Commonwealth up until the Legislative Assembly was founded in 1989. Up until then, the ACT had no executive power. What ever power it did have it was afforded by the Federal Government, notwithstanding the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act of 1988.

You really don’t know what you’re talking about. Point is the ACT always part funded the program, and the ACT not the Commonwealth designed the clean up.

Steven Bailey said :

The Federal Government did acknowledge the devastating health risks of loose asbestos in 1989, yet I take your point that I could have been more specific by saying that initial action commenced in 1988,

Actually initial action commenced in 1984 and they acknowledged the risk to residents in 84 and to trades even earlier.

You haven’t done one bit of original research. You’ve written something based on recycling some other flawed summaries all in the name of political opportunism. I think’s that’s very weak and it garners you no respect.

Steven Bailey 2:17 pm 10 Oct 14

creative_canberran said :

Pragmatix said :

This is a bit like arguing with a brick wall. The information in the article is correct. You’ve just arrogantly made claims which you can’t substantiate, can you? The discussion should be about the issue and shouldn’t be hijacked by someone who thinks that it is fine to say what he/she wants and then refuses to back anything up. Have you ever had an argument before? They rely on reasons, not just claims. Do you understand the point that I’m making?

“As the ACT Government only came into existence in 1989, the disaster was the responsibility of the Federal Government – and still is. As such, the Federal Government funded a 100 million-dollar Loose Asbestos Insulation Removal Program.”

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/102013832?searchTerm=asbestos%20survey&searchLimits=l-state=ACT|||l-decade=198|||l-year=1988|||sortby=dateAsc|||l-category=Article

“In 1989, the Federal Government acknowledged the devastating health risks of loose asbestos and conducted an investigation of homes in the ACT constructed before 1980.”

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/102015773?searchTerm=asbestos%20survey&searchLimits=l-state=ACT|||l-decade=198|||l-year=1988|||sortby=dateAsc|||l-category=Article

Okay, fair enough. There are a few reasons that I’ve said that. The first is that the ACT had been administered by the Commonwealth up until the Legislative Assembly was founded in 1989. Up until then, the ACT had no executive power. What ever power it did have it was afforded by the Federal Government, notwithstanding the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act of 1988.

The reason that the Mr Fluffy issue is not as liable an issue for the residents of NSW, is that it would argue that the State had legal authority over, and responsibility for the welfare of, the people of NSW, where the Commonwealth had legal authority over, and responsibility for the welfare of, the people of the ACT during the time that Mr Fluffy was operating – even at the time the articles that you have sent me were written. It isn’t disputed that the Commonwealth took responsibility for the issue.

The Federal Government did acknowledge the devastating health risks of loose asbestos in 1989, yet I take your point that I could have been more specific by saying that initial action commenced in 1988, and that the 100 million-dollar Loose Asbestos Insulation Removal Program was supplemented by the ACT. I didn’t write the aforementioned because I didn’t want to bore my audience, which I fear I may be doing now.

I hope that this explanation satisfies you and, as I’ve said, I’m happy to respond to any refutations, so long as they are substantiated. Cheers

creative_canberran 2:28 am 09 Oct 14

Pragmatix said :

This is a bit like arguing with a brick wall. The information in the article is correct. You’ve just arrogantly made claims which you can’t substantiate, can you? The discussion should be about the issue and shouldn’t be hijacked by someone who thinks that it is fine to say what he/she wants and then refuses to back anything up. Have you ever had an argument before? They rely on reasons, not just claims. Do you understand the point that I’m making?

“As the ACT Government only came into existence in 1989, the disaster was the responsibility of the Federal Government – and still is. As such, the Federal Government funded a 100 million-dollar Loose Asbestos Insulation Removal Program.”

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/102013832?searchTerm=asbestos%20survey&searchLimits=l-state=ACT|||l-decade=198|||l-year=1988|||sortby=dateAsc|||l-category=Article

“In 1989, the Federal Government acknowledged the devastating health risks of loose asbestos and conducted an investigation of homes in the ACT constructed before 1980.”

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/102015773?searchTerm=asbestos%20survey&searchLimits=l-state=ACT|||l-decade=198|||l-year=1988|||sortby=dateAsc|||l-category=Article

Pragmatix 5:50 pm 08 Oct 14

creative_canberran said :

Steven Bailey said :

No, that’s not good enough mate. Practice what you preach. I have referred to more than just the publications you’ve mentioned, and I’ve conducted my own research on the issue. You’re the one who has given the conceited commentary without anything to support your statements. The onus is on you to tell me what is ‘inaccurate’, ‘ccompletely wrong’, ‘incorrect factually and legally’, and ‘incorrect’ – that’s how an argument works. If the information is so ‘readily available’, it’ll be easy for you to just post a few links and outline the discrepancies. I’m actually very happy to be corrected, and I’ll take it on the chin, so go then, correct me…

The onus is on the author to ensure what they have written is correct, it isn’t.

This is a bit like arguing with a brick wall. The information in the article is correct. You’ve just arrogantly made claims which you can’t substantiate, can you? The discussion should be about the issue and shouldn’t be hijacked by someone who thinks that it is fine to say what he/she wants and then refuses to back anything up. Have you ever had an argument before? They rely on reasons, not just claims. Do you understand the point that I’m making?

creative_canberran 4:04 pm 08 Oct 14

Steven Bailey said :

No, that’s not good enough mate. Practice what you preach. I have referred to more than just the publications you’ve mentioned, and I’ve conducted my own research on the issue. You’re the one who has given the conceited commentary without anything to support your statements. The onus is on you to tell me what is ‘inaccurate’, ‘ccompletely wrong’, ‘incorrect factually and legally’, and ‘incorrect’ – that’s how an argument works. If the information is so ‘readily available’, it’ll be easy for you to just post a few links and outline the discrepancies. I’m actually very happy to be corrected, and I’ll take it on the chin, so go then, correct me…

The onus is on the author to ensure what they have written is correct, it isn’t.

Steven Bailey 9:09 am 08 Oct 14

creative_canberran said :

Steven Bailey said :

Okay, well I’m not going to give you a bibliography but just flicking through a few sources now here’s a link to the Eurobodalla Shire Council website which confirms the statistics in my article. I’m always happy to be corrected, so please correct me for the benefit of all of the readers. You could also identify which parts my statements are incorrect. Please, go ahead…

http://www.esc.nsw.gov.au/council-services/public-environmental-health/public-health/asbestos/guide-to-mr-fluffy-friable-asbestos-insulation

Pragmatix said :

I can’t see any errors here and I have been following this matter for some time as I have been working on the issue in a professional capacity. Instead of giving belligerent commentary, why don’t you attempt to correct some of the statements?

For corrections, please refer to materials from The Canberra Times, City News and ABC’s PM and Background Briefing programs as a good starting point. I would post specific corrections if the information where not otherwise readily available.

No, that’s not good enough mate. Practice what you preach. I have referred to more than just the publications you’ve mentioned, and I’ve conducted my own research on the issue. You’re the one who has given the conceited commentary without anything to support your statements. The onus is on you to tell me what is ‘inaccurate’, ‘ccompletely wrong’, ‘incorrect factually and legally’, and ‘incorrect’ – that’s how an argument works. If the information is so ‘readily available’, it’ll be easy for you to just post a few links and outline the discrepancies. I’m actually very happy to be corrected, and I’ll take it on the chin, so go then, correct me…

creative_canberran 2:26 am 08 Oct 14

Steven Bailey said :

Okay, well I’m not going to give you a bibliography but just flicking through a few sources now here’s a link to the Eurobodalla Shire Council website which confirms the statistics in my article. I’m always happy to be corrected, so please correct me for the benefit of all of the readers. You could also identify which parts my statements are incorrect. Please, go ahead…

http://www.esc.nsw.gov.au/council-services/public-environmental-health/public-health/asbestos/guide-to-mr-fluffy-friable-asbestos-insulation

Pragmatix said :

I can’t see any errors here and I have been following this matter for some time as I have been working on the issue in a professional capacity. Instead of giving belligerent commentary, why don’t you attempt to correct some of the statements?

For corrections, please refer to materials from The Canberra Times, City News and ABC’s PM and Background Briefing programs as a good starting point. I would post specific corrections if the information where not otherwise readily available.

Pragmatix 10:34 pm 06 Oct 14

creative_canberran said :

“Between 1968 and 1979, private ACT contractor Mr Fluffy insulated people’s homes by pumping loose asbestos fibres into the roof cavities of houses in Canberra.”

Inaccurate.

“In 1989, the Federal Government acknowledged the devastating health risks of loose asbestos and conducted an investigation of homes in the ACT constructed before 1980.”

Completely wrong.

“As the ACT Government only came into existence in 1989, the disaster was the responsibility of the Federal Government – and still is.”

Incorrect factually and legally.

“As such, the Federal Government funded a 100 million-dollar Loose Asbestos Insulation Removal Program.”

Incorrect.

There has been plenty of coverage, there’s no excuse for so many errors Stephen.

I can’t see any errors here and I have been following this matter for some time as I have been working on the issue in a professional capacity. Instead of giving belligerent commentary, why don’t you attempt to correct some of the statements?

Steven Bailey 2:46 pm 06 Oct 14

creative_canberran said :

“Between 1968 and 1979, private ACT contractor Mr Fluffy insulated people’s homes by pumping loose asbestos fibres into the roof cavities of houses in Canberra.”

Inaccurate.

“In 1989, the Federal Government acknowledged the devastating health risks of loose asbestos and conducted an investigation of homes in the ACT constructed before 1980.”

Completely wrong.

“As the ACT Government only came into existence in 1989, the disaster was the responsibility of the Federal Government – and still is.”

Incorrect factually and legally.

“As such, the Federal Government funded a 100 million-dollar Loose Asbestos Insulation Removal Program.”

Incorrect.

There has been plenty of coverage, there’s no excuse for so many errors Stephen.

Okay, well I’m not going to give you a bibliography but just flicking through a few sources now here’s a link to the Eurobodalla Shire Council website which confirms the statistics in my article. I’m always happy to be corrected, so please correct me for the benefit of all of the readers. You could also identify which parts my statements are incorrect. Please, go ahead…

http://www.esc.nsw.gov.au/council-services/public-environmental-health/public-health/asbestos/guide-to-mr-fluffy-friable-asbestos-insulation

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site