The news comes as Liberal leader Jeremy Hanson called for the equivalent of a royal commission into the asbestos crisis, saying families in Mr Fluffy houses and ACT taxpayers deserved to know what went wrong over so many years.

Ms Gallagher has received the long-awaited advice on the future of the homes from asbestos taskforce head Andrew Kefford, who is widely expected to have recommended the demolition of up to 1000 homes across the city, contaminated with loose-fill asbestos.

Ms Gallagher had said previously she would release the advice when she received it, but on Thursday she said cabinet had decided to wait for work on the cost - conceding it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars - and for the outcome of negotiations with the Commonwealth about funding.

She has written to homeowners this week asking for patience.

"I'm very conscious that we've got people waiting for this advice … but we've got some other questions that need to be answered before we can finalise our position," she said. "People aren't going to begrudge us a month."

She confirmed the government was "leaning towards a demolition program", given that an attempt to remediate the homes would also mean "a serious amount of money and a serious amount of dislocation" for residents.

The government is considering a buy-back of the houses, which would allow it to develop and sell the land, recouping some of the cost. But Ms Gallagher said that option would still leave taxpayers footing a big bill.

"Part of what cabinet wants to know is, how do we minimise the cost to taxpayers," she said.

She indicated that Mr Fluffy houses in heritage streets or with heritage significance would be treated the same way as the rest, saying, "The advice from the taskforce around some of those issues ... is you basically have to rate the risk associated with asbestos above all other controls."

After revelations on Thursday that the government had been advised repeatedly to raise awareness among homeowners and put in place stronger protections for buyers, renters and tradespeople, Mr Hanson called for a board of inquiry, the ACT's equivalent of a royal commission.

"The families who are affected and the ACT taxpayers need to know what went wrong over a protracted period that has led to thousands of people potentially being exposed to loose-fill asbestos and potentially the ACT taxpayer being out of pocket by hundreds of millions of dollars," he said.

"I can think of few more significant issues in the territory's history that would have had such an impact on ACT residents and on the ACT budget, and I think we need to learn the lessons so that it never happens again."

An inquiry would look at why the ACT government allowed the homes to be extensively renovated and extended, and to be sold and resold, sometimes many times over, despite advice in internal reports that there should be greater awareness.

It could also look at why the company colloquially known as Mr Fluffy was allowed to pump dangerous loose-fill asbestos into the ceilings of more than 1000 Canberra homes over 11 years from 1968 to 1979 despite warnings only months into its operation that it should be stopped in its tracks because of the health risks.

But it is clear from several documents that the government was concerned not to damage people's property values. It bowed to pressure from homeowners concerned about values, with its wording of a letter to residents in 1993, and more recently cited house values as one of the reasons for refusing a freedom of information request for the list of Mr Fluffy homes. Privacy was another key concern.

An inquiry would need to be set up by the government, so would need Ms Gallagher's agreement. The alternative is for the ACT Assembly to vote to force the government to set up an inquiry, but the government controls numbers in the Assembly.

A board of inquiry, presided over by the likes of a former judge, would have broad powers, including the power to subpoena witnesses to give evidence under oath, to access documents, and to issue search warrants, operating like a court.