Canberra police end Mr Fluffy theft investigation with no charges laid

"ACT Policing conducted a thorough investigation, and did not identify any criminal offences or acts of impropriety by current contractors or employees," a police spokesperson said.

The Asbestos Taskforce confirmed Caylamax was free to bid for more Fluffy demolitions, with 48 homes contracted to the company so far and eight of them still to be demolished.

In early May a large wall cabinet and other items were found inside a shipping container in the Griffith yard used by demolition contractor Caylamax. The items were discovered and photographed by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union after a whistleblower worker was sacked and went to the union with his concerns.

The cabinet was identified by the former owner of a Kambah home, Eden O'Mara, who said this week the police had shown her photographs of three other household items she identified as having come from her house: more wall units and other wooden furniture. She also had concerns for the fate of a piano she left behind.

The discovery of the large wall cabinet led to an internal government audit and a police investigation. The internal audit was completed about a fortnight ago and Caylamax was allowed to resume full demolition work on July 4. The taskforce has refused to release the audit report. It has also refused to release the pre-demolition survey of the property, which sets out areas of contamination and how furniture and other items must be treated.

Neither the police nor the taskforce has explained how they believe items of furniture ended up in a shipping container.

A taskforce spokeswoman said the audit had found "no evidence of systemic reuse or resale of fittings and fixtures by Caylamax". She confirmed the shipping container was still at the site.

Mrs O'Mara said she was "over it all" and no longer believed anything would be done about owners' concerns. The lack of action over the alleged theft suggested the taskforce was happy to have household items make their way into the community, potentially spreading contamination, she said.

The taskforce said tests of the wall cabinet showed no contamination, but Mrs O'Mara said she had been told there was no way of determining it was free from asbestos, because the back of the cabinet was not sealed.

"Asbestos works its way into the wood and over time it works its way out if it's unsealed. And that unit wasn't sealed," she said.

"We left a whole house full of furniture and no one can tell me where it went."

Mrs O'Mara is more concerned still at the possibility of contamination spreading well beyond her house. During an extension of the home, soil from under the home had been spread over the backyard, she said. The soil should be considered contaminated with asbestos, and she had informed the taskforce, but the demolition rules only require soil testing around the house footprint, with the taskforce not testing soil in backyards and not pursuing an early plan to scrape blocks clean.

"They're not gong to do any tests on it, and it's buyer beware," Mrs O'Mara said.

But the taskforce spokeswoman rejected the claim, saying testing had been done beyond the demolition footprint at the house and come back clear.

When it allowed Caylamax to resume demolitions, the taskforce said the company would trial a new approach. Soft furnishings would continue to be allowed to be removed from houses, but hard furniture would be disassembled and entirely sprayed with the same dyed bonding agent used for the interior structure of houses. It would be left inside the house until demolition. The process was being refined with Caylamax before being rolled out to other contractors.