Page 2067 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 6 August 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
inspection were issued for those homes. The commonwealth loose-fill asbestos insulation program identified 1,049 so-called Mr Fluffy homes.
In a $100 million program, the commonwealth then removed or attempted to remove the loose-fill asbestos from ceiling cavities, under the houses and from accessible wall cavities of those identified houses. It is known that at least four homes were not identified as part of that process and were not remediated in the 1990s, including the house known as the Downer house.
The problem was believed by the general public to have been fixed and that the remedial action taken by the commonwealth had removed any potential future health impact of loose-fill asbestos from Mr Fluffy. Certificates stating that properties had been treated and cleared of asbestos by the commonwealth program were then taken as an assurance that those properties were safe. Since the 1990s owners and tenants have relied on those government-issued certificates. Despite the commonwealth-funded clean-up program, asbestos fibres are still, however, in the wall cavities and subfloors of most of the remediated properties, and in some cases asbestos fibres are now in household living spaces.
The ACT government has evolved its understanding and become aware of this emerging problem. In 2005 the ACT government commissioned the ACT asbestos task force report. As a result of that report Mr Fluffy home owners were sent a letter by ACTPLA co-signed by that task force. In that letter home owners were advised regarding undertaking additions or alterations.
There was then the issue of the Downer house, which is one of those houses that had been missed. In the demolishing of that house inspections were done. They were done forensically, and identified that the loose-fill asbestos would have essentially got into the cavities and would not have been removed adequately through the commonwealth program.
On 18 February this year the government sent letters to most affected home owners as a reminder that it was likely that some insulation material remained in the Mr Fluffy homes. I would note, though, that those letters were sent to generic addresses. Not all letters reached home owners, or particularly tenants—those who were renting the properties. After February many home owners continued to live in houses, unaware of the health risk posed by the loose-fill asbestos.
During 2014, as a result of inspections of some Mr Fluffy houses, ACT Worksafe have issued prohibition notices, which means that some families have had to be forced out of their homes after being told asbestos had made it unsafe for them to stay. Affected residents have been trying without success between 18 February and June to get a substantive hearing from the government.
I commend Mr Smyth for the work he did in liaising and engaging with the affected residents. Indeed, I would like to take this opportunity to commend Brianna Heseltine, who I think all of us know now, on the work she has done with the Fluffy Owners and Residents Action Group. Her efforts in lobbying both sides of this chamber, and, indeed, the federal government, have been very effective in making sure that we as politicians have responded to the needs of those affected by Mr Fluffy.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video