Mr Fluffy a step closer to resolution, despite Commonwealth parsimony

Many of the statements are suffused with anger, guilt, fear, disbelief and uncertainty – and little wonder. Many Mr Fluffy homes were bought in complete ignorance (particularly by interstate buyers), or in the belief that the asbestos pumped into their roof cavities had been effectively disposed of during a government-supervised clean-up in the late 1980s, and which supporting documentation appeared to verify.

Those people, unware of the dangers of remnant asbestos and who enthusiastically embarked on renovations or DIY projects (frequently with the help of children), now blame themselves for having potentially exposed their offspring to deadly mesothelioma or asbestosis. These illnesses can take decades to manifest themselves, which has added to the sense of anguish many parents now experience. Even those who promptly fled their homes on the advice of environmental consultants appear unable to reconcile the fact that they placed their loved ones at risk, albeit unwittingly. As the statements vividly attest, homes have been abandoned and future plans – whether for a secure family life, for retirement, or for downsizing – derailed. Indeed, some people have expressed doubt as to whether they have the financial or emotional resources to start over again.

The offer put by Eric Abetz, the federal minister responsible for the asbestos issue, is far less magnanimous than the Territory government might reasonably have expected. ACT Chief Minister Katy Gallagher frequently pointed out what she believed was the Commonwealth's moral obligation to contribute to the costs of cleaning up a mess which had occurred in the 1960s and '70s and when it administered the Territory . And in July this year, she claimed the memorandum of understanding underpinning the original cleanup in the late 1980s acknowledged the likelihood that properties might be missed or not cleaned entirely and that it contained a provision under which the Commonwealth agreed to contribute in the event of further costs arising.

That neither moral suasion, precedent nor apparently legal undertakings made in 1989 should have convinced the Commonwealth to fairly contribute toward cleaning up a mess of its own making is galling, the more so given its preparedness to waste billions of dollars on programs of dubious economic value, the detention of boat people on Manus and Nauru being the most glaring of examples. Mr Abetz's suggestion that the concessional loan will "allow savings to the ACT government of up to $32 million over the life of the loan" is particularly shameless.

A lingering sense of bitterness would be understandable in such circumstances. But, implicit in the Commonwealth's offer and the Territory government's ready acceptance is the promise of resolution, or at least the start of the process. Ms Gallagher's oft-expressed and genuine desire to do the decent thing by Mr Fluffy homeowners should also be regarded as an encouraging sign of quick and satisfactory progress.

No one will be under-estimating the logistical difficulties that lie ahead in developing a program to survey and value affected houses, purchase them outright, demolish them and then clean up the blocks preparatory to resale. In all likelihood, the Gallagher government will need to enact a legislative framework to support the buy-back and demolition. It may also need to demonstrate a willingness to allow some homeowners, especially the elderly, the option of staying on in their dwellings if they so desire and if the public health risk is deemed to relatively small, whilst reserving the right to demolish those dwellings at some future point. But pending resolution of those finer legal and technical points, Mr Fluffy homeowners can now at least allow themselves to contemplate the end of uncertainty, and even perhaps envisage some kind of closure.