Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Canberra's most awarded family
owned real estate agency

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 Newest
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

dungfungus 2:09 pm 05 Oct 14

HenryBG said :

Tezza7420 said :

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

I really can’t see how the people of the ACT are financially liable for the misfortunes of the people that have Mr Fluffy homes. It comes under the heading “bad luck”.

Agreed.
And seeing as the chief component of these “misfortunes” consists of self-inflicted hysteria, I am very much against the ACT Ratepayer being further abused to provide these irrational people with financial windfalls.

Why “self inflicted”? These people were all advised to get asbestos inspections. Many were told their houses need remediation. Some were told to get out of their houses immediately.

A/ it’s not blue asbestos
B/ We’re talking about tiny quantities of fibres that are mostly locked up under floors and in walls. If you’re concerned about having broken into these areas and released tiny amounts of non-blue asbestos, just vaccum it up and seal the hole. Or pay somebody to do it for you.
Talk of demolishing homes and demanding hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars compensation is an over-the-top hysterical reponse. One 3-day visit to Shanghai or Delhi will see you breathe in far more asbestos fibres than you will in a year of living in one of these Fluffy homes.

Fair comment Henry, especially about the comparative risks between inhaling asbestos fibres in different parts of the world. Perhaps a greater risk is diesel and petrol exhaust particulates. Most diesel powered vehicles now have mandatory, problem creating DPFs fitted but the motor industry is resisting moves to extend the requirement to petrol powered vehicles.
Re the colour of asbestos, I lived in a guvie-duplex in Griffith 30 years ago and it had a “blue colour” asbestos loose insulation in the ceiling. A family member has since contracted cancer but it would be a long bow to draw to link it to what was in the ceiling.
I had some involvement with a chrysotile asbestos mine 40 years ago but the mineral extracted was used only in the building industry. This was a long fibre asbestos for structural applications but when used for lagging I understand it was processed to reduce the fibre length.

Tezza7420 9:19 pm 04 Oct 14

HenryBG said :

Tezza7420 said :

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

I really can’t see how the people of the ACT are financially liable for the misfortunes of the people that have Mr Fluffy homes. It comes under the heading “bad luck”.

Agreed.
And seeing as the chief component of these “misfortunes” consists of self-inflicted hysteria, I am very much against the ACT Ratepayer being further abused to provide these irrational people with financial windfalls.

Why “self inflicted”? These people were all advised to get asbestos inspections. Many were told their houses need remediation. Some were told to get out of their houses immediately.

A/ it’s not blue asbestos
B/ We’re talking about tiny quantities of fibres that are mostly locked up under floors and in walls. If you’re concerned about having broken into these areas and released tiny amounts of non-blue asbestos, just vaccum it up and seal the hole. Or pay somebody to do it for you.
Talk of demolishing homes and demanding hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars compensation is an over-the-top hysterical reponse. One 3-day visit to Shanghai or Delhi will see you breathe in far more asbestos fibres than you will in a year of living in one of these Fluffy homes.

Actually, some houses do have blue asbestos and even the white, brown/grey asbestos in loose form is far worse than bonded asbestos products. While your friend might have been very lucky and not yet had any asbestos fibres found inside their house, there are houses at the other end of the scale that are uninhabitable and impossible to clean. The testings are showing that, in countless cases, the fibres are migrating into the houses as the buildings deteriorate and age. A hairline crack in a cornice for example, is enough to release thousands of microscopic fibres into that room and a breeze or ducted heating system can easily disperse those fibres through the whole house.

Your amusement about why people are wearing PPE is ill informed and sad too as these people most likely have been advised or told to wear this equipment before they can enter their abandoned house or at least some areas of their home. In any event, I don’t understand why you would think someone is being hysterical by wearing PPE in a contaminated house – perhaps to rescue what few possessions they are allowed to remove and get cleaned – especially if it will avoid them bringing fibres on their clothes back to their new homes and expose their children further.

Oh and vacuuming up fibres is a bit naive too. You can’t see what you’re cleaning, most vacuum cleaners are unsuitable for vacuuming these fibres without making the problem even worse by recirculating the fibres, and the fibres can’t be removed from items such as clothing, soft furnishings or certain wooden materials.

You sound as ill-informed as the fellow in the videowho put the stuff in the houses in the first place.

creative_canberran 7:03 pm 04 Oct 14

“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.

HenryBG 5:40 pm 04 Oct 14

Tezza7420 said :

I would wish that it was you that had lost your home and all of your contents or, .

A close relative has one of these Fluffy homes. Not being a hysterical fluff-wit, he hasn’t panicked, he doesn’t wander around his house wearing a space-suit, he doesn’t ring the radio station in hysteria, and he is amused at the idea the ACT Ratepayer might fund him to replace his house with a brand-new one – something he was keen to do anyway.

HenryBG 5:38 pm 04 Oct 14

Tezza7420 said :

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

I really can’t see how the people of the ACT are financially liable for the misfortunes of the people that have Mr Fluffy homes. It comes under the heading “bad luck”.

Agreed.
And seeing as the chief component of these “misfortunes” consists of self-inflicted hysteria, I am very much against the ACT Ratepayer being further abused to provide these irrational people with financial windfalls.

Why “self inflicted”? These people were all advised to get asbestos inspections. Many were told their houses need remediation. Some were told to get out of their houses immediately.

A/ it’s not blue asbestos
B/ We’re talking about tiny quantities of fibres that are mostly locked up under floors and in walls. If you’re concerned about having broken into these areas and released tiny amounts of non-blue asbestos, just vaccum it up and seal the hole. Or pay somebody to do it for you.
Talk of demolishing homes and demanding hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars compensation is an over-the-top hysterical reponse. One 3-day visit to Shanghai or Delhi will see you breathe in far more asbestos fibres than you will in a year of living in one of these Fluffy homes.

Tezza7420 6:49 pm 03 Oct 14

HenryBG said :

dungfungus said :

I really can’t see how the people of the ACT are financially liable for the misfortunes of the people that have Mr Fluffy homes. It comes under the heading “bad luck”.

Agreed.
And seeing as the chief component of these “misfortunes” consists of self-inflicted hysteria, I am very much against the ACT Ratepayer being further abused to provide these irrational people with financial windfalls.

Why “self inflicted”? These people were all advised to get asbestos inspections. Many were told their houses need remediation. Some were told to get out of their houses immediately.

And buying back the properties would hardly be a windfall – for the homeowner at least. Many don’t want to leave their homes but likely will have no choice and many won’t be able to afford to buy back into their current suburbs.

If it wasn’t such a terrible punishment, I would wish that it was you that had lost your home and all of your contents or, to put it in perspective for you, your whole life savings perhaps. You can’t get insurance for any of your loss and even after you have found somewhere to live and replaced some of your contents, you are left watching your children wondering, statistically, which one of them might die from an asbestos related disease in the future.

HiddenDragon 6:18 pm 03 Oct 14

I hope this can be handled on a truly bipartisan basis, as I don’t think any good purpose will be served by politicisation (particularly of the emotional kind). I also hope (forlornly, I suspect) that whatever decision we get from the federal government, people don’t kid themselves that it would have been more helpful and generous if there was a federal Labor government.

Finally, and a little gratuitously, gold star to Steven for “bated breath” (with “baited” being all too common in the blogosphere).

Antagonist 5:26 pm 03 Oct 14

pajs said :

Antagonist said :

HenryBG said :

… I am very much against the ACT Ratepayer being further abused to provide these irrational people with financial windfalls.

^^^ This bit here for me.

What a silly and insensitive thing to say. In at least some of these buildings, loose fibres have been found in wardrobes, cots and clothes. Put yourself in the shoes of parents getting that news. Not an irrational response to leave and not unreasonable to want the problem fixed. This is a pretty clear example of regulatory failure:
– government was told of the risks associated with loose fill asbestos, but allowed it to be used
– government later got advice that there were risks a removal rather than demolition option would not get rid of all the fibres, but decided to go with the cheaper removal option
– still later, government finds out that those risks have come to pass.

The Cth is the responsible government here, but good to see the ACT Government doing more than buck-passing.

It is hardly insensitive at all. A break even situation to cover *genuine* financial loss is fine with me, but to provide them with financial gain (ie. a windfall) at ACT taxpayer expense is wrong.

watto23 4:20 pm 03 Oct 14

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

Steven Bailey said :

I take your points. Perhaps a complete ‘mass buy-back and demolition scheme’ would be excessive, but a balance between ‘you’re on your own’ and social compassion should be met. We also have to take into consideration the dividends for the tax payer that could be achieved once the land was developed and resold – but that depends on how the scheme is constructed. I maintain that if it was a Commonwealth issue 25 years ago and the issue wasn’t resolved properly, it should remain a Commonwealth issue.

A mass buyback and demolition will end up with no buyers for the “tainted” sites so the government, unable to recover any money, will transfer the leases to ACT Housing for construction of public housing.
This will excite the conservative neighbours as some of the properties are in suburbs currently devoid of the public housing blight.

No buyers?

Why not? If the building is demolished and the site properly remediated then what’s the issue? I’d happily live there.

It only takes one tiny fibre………
The houses were supposed to deemed “asbestos free” when they were “cleaned” 20 years ago and look what happened.

Which is why demolishing or leaving as is are the only two viable options. Leaving as is means that the people can keep living there for as long as they want without much risk at all. It only takes one fibre, but majority of cases involving asbestos, are for people with a far greater exposure to asbestos, like working with it. As far as I know, there have been no recorded cases from Mr Fluffy homes since they did a crap clean up job. But this really is a federal govt issue. They should be paying to remediate these houses as they were built, insulated and supposedly cleaned while ACT was governed by the Federal govt. It extends into NSW as well.

chewy14 4:10 pm 03 Oct 14

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

Steven Bailey said :

I take your points. Perhaps a complete ‘mass buy-back and demolition scheme’ would be excessive, but a balance between ‘you’re on your own’ and social compassion should be met. We also have to take into consideration the dividends for the tax payer that could be achieved once the land was developed and resold – but that depends on how the scheme is constructed. I maintain that if it was a Commonwealth issue 25 years ago and the issue wasn’t resolved properly, it should remain a Commonwealth issue.

A mass buyback and demolition will end up with no buyers for the “tainted” sites so the government, unable to recover any money, will transfer the leases to ACT Housing for construction of public housing.
This will excite the conservative neighbours as some of the properties are in suburbs currently devoid of the public housing blight.

No buyers?

Why not? If the building is demolished and the site properly remediated then what’s the issue? I’d happily live there.

It only takes one tiny fibre………
The houses were supposed to deemed “asbestos free” when they were “cleaned” 20 years ago and look what happened.

It only takes one lightning strike or shark to kill you also. It’s a risk, but a tiny one.

With regards to the previous clean up, they failed to do the job properly, leaving fibres under floors and at the bottoms of wall cavities. A demolition job would be much easier and much more likely to remove all of the problem. As I said, I would be happy to buy one of these blocks of land after demolition and remediation.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site