Page 4332 - Week 13 - Thursday, 4 December 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
So they are again in a situation where they have been forced to leave their home, leave many of their belongings behind. They are in the tough situation, two weeks before Christmas, of trying to decide whether, as the emergency funding runs out, they pay their mortgage or they pay their rent. This is where some more flexibility needs to be built into the process. A family should not be conflicted between whether they pay the rent to keep a roof over their heads now or whether they pay their mortgage so they can once again achieve the great Australian dream of owning their own home without a bad mark against their credit history.
On the topic of families who had no choice but to leave or seal up parts of their home, there is an area where there has been very little debate or discussion at this point—the contents that these families have had: the soft furnishings, the linen, the wardrobes, the clothing, belongings that were stored underneath the home where the amosite asbestos has been discovered again. There has been great discussion and great focus by the task force on the bricks and mortar aspect, on the physical property, but not on the contents, not on the things that have furnished these people’s homes and have been great belongings. The government needs to acknowledge the loss of contents if it is to be a fair scheme.
For officers from WorkSafe to walk into these homes after asbestos inspections have discovered remnants of the Mr Fluffy product in cupboards, wardrobes and linen presses, and seal them up with tape and give strict orders that they not be opened again—if the government is going to take that step, there needs to be the acknowledgement that some sort of compensation that is fair is provided to cover the costs so that home owners and families are not unnecessarily out of pocket for the cost of furnishing their homes.
There have been a lot of parallels drawn with the bushfire experience and the number of families that this displaces and the like. The big difference between bushfires or floods, a natural disaster, compared to this Mr Fluffy contamination is that home owners can do the right thing. They can take responsibility, insure their property and insure their contents. If there is an unforeseeable disaster that forces them from their property, they are covered; they are insured against that loss. In this instance there is no insurance. The government has taken some responsibility to purchase the property back, but the issue of the contents is something that is being passed over. The focus has not been on that but I think it is going to become a real issue and an area where, again, there needs to be some more flexibility and some more consideration given by the government and by the task force.
In closing, I will touch very briefly on the experiences that many of these families shared. Some of them come from a similar background to mine, in the construction industry, and are experiencing some of the practicalities and the realities that come with building work. A one-size-fits-all approach is not necessarily always going to work, but sound guidelines and principles are what should guide how building work, remediation or, in this instance, seeking to prevent the spread of contamination are handled.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video