The Mr Fluffy debacle is a traumatic episode in Canberra’s history that is still being felt.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
This week, the ACT government made the decision to publish a list - republished by The Canberra Times - of the remaining asbestos-affected homes. The register listed 67 Mr Fluffy properties, 66 of which were still standing.
While the publication of the register has upset owners who have chosen to remain in their properties - they say the public disclosure of their addresses will draw unwanted attention - the government has good reasons for making this information public.
Deputy director-general of the Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate Geoffrey Rutledge says the register will allow visitors, particularly tradespeople, to make an informed decision before they enter a Mr Fluffy property.
The disclosure could also help remove the stigma attached to homes that had been listed on the 2015 register but had since been razed and replaced.
The new list is a demonstration of the fact the Fluffy saga is alive and ongoing, and it’s fair to say that we will never put it behind us until every affected house is demolished - it’s the "only lasting solution” to the problem.
But for every homeowner who has complied with the government’s directive to either demolish their house and rebuild, or take a compensation payment and move somewhere else, there’s another for whom the idea of leaving their home is unbearable.
We should have great sympathy for anyone in this situation. While houses are, to all intents and purposes, assets that can be bought, sold, exchanged and rebuilt, for many people a house is home. It is a symbol and repository of everything they hold dear, filled with memories and imbued with a sense of security.
To ask someone to simply raze it to the ground can be unthinkable. And for around half of those homeowners listed on this latest register, the unfolding Fluffy debacle has been too much to bear.
It is especially to difficult to be told, decades after the fact, that you have inadvertently put yourself and your family at risk, merely by laying down roots and building a home.
Owners who choose to stay in their properties must have an asbestos management plan to minimise the future risk of exposure to themselves, other occupants or visitors.
Twenty-nine of the homes have either a compliant or partially-compliant plan, two properties are in the process of being privately demolished, and the government owns the other 19 properties, which are vacant.
Seventeen properties do not have such plans, the government says. And it’s an issue that needs to be dealt with, no matter which way you look at it. And it is unhelpful to take the view that the government is using “bullying and coercion” tactics to force people from their homes: the continued existence of contaminated homes is a public health issue.
But in the meantime, we should spare a thought for those who want to maintain control of the future of their home, or who simply find the thought of tearing up those roots unbearable.