Page 758 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 17 March 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
indicate that we still have outstanding issues and concerns with the government’s buyback scheme, particularly a range of issues that arose from the bipartisan PAC inquiry into Mr Fluffy.
The bill creates the right for the government to efficiently acquire Mr Fluffy houses without, for example, additional and unnecessary processes for those surrendering their homes. To do this, the bill amends nine acts and regulations: the Civil Law (Sale of Residential Property) Act 2003, the Dangerous Substances Act 2004, the Dangerous Substances (General) Regulation 2004, the Electricity Feed-in (Renewable Energy Premium) Act 2008, the Information Privacy Regulation 2014, the Land Titles Act 1925, the Planning and Development Regulation 2008, the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 and the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011.
The bill allows the minister to create a register of Mr Fluffy houses and identify on that list Mr Fluffy houses that have been acquired by the government. The bill allows but does not require the minister to make the register public. The minister has indicated that the list will be released in the future. I note that that is an issue of particular sensitivity. The bill also has a provision for properties, having been remediated, being removed from the register.
While supporting this measure, it does seem perhaps a little surprising that, having identified the 1,049 Mr Fluffy homes back in the 90s and the seriousness of this issue, a comprehensive register has not been kept to date.
There are some issues around definition. To identify houses to be listed on the register and to be subject to the buyback, the bill defines what are commonly known as Mr Fluffy houses. The bill defines “loose-fill asbestos insulation” as “loose-fill amosite and crocidolite”—good luck pronouncing that one, Chief Minister, in your speech—that was used as ceiling insulation. It helps with facilitating the buyback. One of the cornerstones of the buyback scheme is that the houses surrendered will be demolished and the blocks remediated. It is therefore pointless and a financial burden to expect the usual property documentation relating to building reports and the like to be prepared by sellers.
The bill enables owners who have negotiated solar feed-in tariff rights on their Mr Fluffy homes to transfer those rights to new houses. With respect to tenancies, while many tenants of Mr Fluffy homes have already moved out of affected houses, the bill resolves issues and legalities surrounding the termination of existing tenancies in Mr Fluffy houses.
There are a number of important steps in this bill. We recognise that. It will assist with the process of enacting the government’s buyback scheme, which I note a number of people to date have signed on to. Obviously, there are concerns that remain, and I take this opportunity to highlight some of those. Members of this place would be aware that we debated the bill and that there were four members of the committee who unanimously called for a number of recommendations to make this buyback scheme fairer. We heard some harrowing stories on that committee, without doubt. With respect to the problem with the government’s scheme, I am not saying that the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video