A parliamentary committee has called on the government to explain when it had decided not to scrape Fluffy blocks clean and has highlighted conflicting messages about the need to clear the former asbestos-contaminated blocks entirely.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The Asbestos Taskforce had said soil should be removed to at least 10 centimetres across blocks and replaced by clean soil, then grassed.
Now, demolition crews are simply removing the house. Soil is tested within the immediate footprint, leaving gardens and other structures intact.
The ACT's public accounts committee, made up of two Labor and two Liberal members, also called on the government to provide an update on allegations of theft from Fluffy properties in the control of demolition contractors, after two inquiries found no case to answer, and on the impact of heavy rain on the demolition scheme, with the West Belconnen tip closed for five days in June.
The information should be reported by the end of next week when Parliament rises for the final time this term of government, the committee, chaired by the Liberals' Nicole Lawder, said.
The committee highlighted "inconsistent" information about clearing blocks.
When the scheme was announced in 2014, then chief minister Katy Gallagher said, "The block is essentially scraped, so the trees will go, the garden will go, the pool will go, everything will go."
The taskforce report in October 2014 said at least 10 centimetres of soil would be removed, clean soil would be brought to sites, and blocks would be topsoiled and grassed.
In November 2014, taskforce head Andrew Kefford said the ground would be excavated down 10 centimetres in the footprint of the house and two or three metres beyond. If asbestos were found, workers would keep digging out and/or down until testing was clear.
In late 2015, the taskforce said it would not clear blocks, but remove "those structures affected by Mr Fluffy". "In most circumstances this will just be the house and any attached structures such as garages or pergolas."
In estimates hearings in June Mr Kefford said although the taskforce had contemplated scraping entire blocks, the plan had "evolved" and it was not considered necessary, he said.
In a detailed written answer two weeks ago, Mr Kefford said it was there was no evidence or scientifically based suggestion that it was necessary to raze each block to eradicate asbestos.
The Land Development Agency and real-estate agents had also advised that established gardens and trees were more attractive and added value to the blocks, he said.
The decision not to clear blocks entirely avoided unnecessary cost.
"It is not necessary, desirable or efficient to clear affected blocks corner to corner," he said.
"Completely clearing affected blocks would add significantly to overall scheme costs, as well as the volume of waste to be safely disposed of, without any health and safety benefit in relation to loose-fill asbestos insulation and at a likely significant detriment to land sales revenue and individual and community satisfaction and amenity," he said.
The estimates committee also called for better and more-regular updates on the scheme, including updates on cost. The government says the $1 billion buyback and demolition of about 1000 homes will have a net cost to the taxpayer of about $400 million once the cleared blocks are sold again. But it has not updated that figure since early in 2015.
Auditor-General Maxine Cooper made a similar call in May for costs to be regularly reported, updated and made public.
