Given the ACT government's response to the Mr Fluffy disaster will involve an overall spend of about $1 billion, of which a bit more than half is probably recoverable, there is a compelling argument for an independent review to determine if taxpayers' money has been managed appropriately.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Such a review could take the form of a royal commission which, among other things, would examine the history of the debacle that led to the contamination and make a determination on how much responsibility, moral and legal, remains vested in the federal government.
Because the installation of the loose fill asbestos was permitted before self government, and the first attempts at rectification also occurred before that date, federal parliamentarians and bureaucrats originally had carriage of this issue.
The ease and rapidity with which the federal government sidestepped any accountability for the disaster, which has resulted in the forced relocation of more than 1000 Canberra families and the ongoing demolition of their homes, has been criticised by ACT politicians in the past.
Chief minister Andrew Barr even said intransigence on the part of the Commonwealth was a major impediment to conducting an inquiry.
Given all of the above, you would expect him to be the keenest and most vocal of all possible supporters for a Fluffy probe.
This, as a letter from the ACT's first citizen to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull released by his office after months of pressure from this newspaper, and the Fluffy Full Disclosure Group reveals is not the case.
"The proposal for a royal commission into the Commonwealth, NSW and ACT governments' response to the toxic legacy of loose fill asbestos in over 1000 Canberra region homes ["Mr Fluffy"], whilst important is not a priority," Mr Barr wrote.
One possible explanation for the apparent contradiction between what was being said publicly and what was being said privately is that neither the ACT nor federal governments want an inquiry or royal commission to proceed.
Politicians are notoriously sensitive about initiating independent inquisitorial processes that they fear may ultimately return adverse findings on their own actions.
By failing to embrace such a process, both governments are creating the impression that they are not entirely comfortable with the way they have handled the Mr Fluffy affair and don't want to expose the process that was followed to independent, and ultimately public, scrutiny.
This perception will only gather speed and momentum until both jurisdictions sign off on a review process, royal commission or otherwise.
On Wednesday Shane Rattenbury called for "tripartisan" support for a Mr Fluffy probe. This seems to be both appropriate and timely.
It remains to be seen if ACT Labor and the Coalition will come aboard as part of a concerted campaign to drag the federal government to the table, however.
A great deal of public money has been spent. The public is entitled to know whether or not the process has been well managed.