Houses identified as containing Mr Fluffy loose-fill asbestos could be demolished and the sites made safe for public housing.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
This possible use of the land was revealed at the Woden Valley Community Council meeting this week.
Senior director of housing and community services at the Community Services Directorate, David Collett, was presenting a new design for a site as part of the Omnibus Territory Variation Plan, when asked if the government would purchase Mr Fluffy homes and, following demolition and remediation, use the sites for public housing.
He said the government had been considering the option, but he would not expand on the subject when pressed.
The ACT government is yet to reveal whether it will remediate or demolish more than 1000 homes in the territory that were insulated with dangerous loose-fill asbestos in the 1970s.
Despite a $100 million Commonwealth clean-up program in the late 1980s the substance still remains in the homes. A taskforce has been set up to deal with affected residents and make a recommendation about the future of the houses.
A spokesperson for the Asbestos Response Taskforce said it had provided initial advice to the ACT government, and it had been considered by cabinet.
"The government has asked for further work to be completed around the financial impact of the recommendations before a final decision is made. While this work is ongoing, the taskforce will not be speculating on recommendations in the report or its advice other than to say a range of options have been considered."
The spokesperson said the ACT government remained in close discussions with the Commonwealth on this issue, "and there has been a strong commitment by government for an enduring response to the long-term management of loose-fill asbestos in the ACT".
The executive officer of ACT Shelter, Leigh Watson, said there would be no reason public housing properties could not be built on the Mr Fluffy sites if they were remediated and declared safe.
"If it's not safe for private rental, for private development, it's also not appropriate for public housing. Poor people should not have to take second best where health and safety is concerned," Ms Watson said.
"We certainly must stress housing for anybody needs to be safe, and just because you're poor doesn't mean you can't be fussy, and have to decide to live somewhere that is not safe."
She said it could be a dangerous message to send if the sites were limited just to public housing properties and tenants following remediation.
