In the four years since then chief minister Katy Gallagher made that statement, the ACT government's position on the asbestos crisis that rocked the residents of 1023 ACT homes has not changed.

But what happens to the homeowners who won't participate in the government's voluntary buyback and demolition scheme or arrange a private demolition before 2020, when the government wants the final Mr Fluffy homes razed?

Nobody knows. Not the homeowners. Not even the government.

"You've got this thing hanging over you, but you can't see it, you can't touch it, you can't do anything with it," Mr Fluffy homeowner Lorraine Carvalho said.

"But it stops you going forward."

A stand-off is brewing between the ACT government and homeowners like Mrs Carvalho, who still lives in her Mr Fluffy home in Lyons and wants to know how the government will respond if she refuses to leave.

There are 77 properties still on the Asbestos Response Taskforce's affected residential premises register as the buyback and demolition scheme's expected end date of mid-2020 draws closer.

Of those 77 properties, the ACT government requires 48 to have an asbestos management plan.

The government says 21 are considered non-compliant and a further four are partially compliant, with no change to those figures since last month despite WorkSafe ACT commissioner Greg Jones writing to non- or partially compliant homeowners for the fourth time on September 26 to remind them of their legal obligations.

Mrs Carvalho said she didn't need a management plan because three separate inspections have cleared living areas in her home of asbestos, which had been only found beneath the original section of the house.

She refused to participate in the buyback and demolition scheme after being offered $985,000 for her property in 2014, believing it was undervalued and was actually worth more than $1 million at the time.

With a smaller block nearby having recently sold for $1.35 million, Mrs Carvalho said the government had better make her a better offer or come with a court order if they wanted her and husband Leo to move out.

"They won't get me out of here unless it's an involuntary acquisition, or if we come to terms before 2020, but it'll have to be a lot better than what they've offered," she said.

Ministerial responsibility for the ACT government's Asbestos Response Taskforce sat, until August, with Mick Gentleman.

Despite the looming end of the buyback and demolition scheme, Mr Gentleman told an ACT government select committee on June 29 that the issue of Mr Fluffy homeowners refusing to leave their homes in 2020 was "a hypothetical question".

Opposition leader Alistair Coe refused to accept that response, insisting it was a real scenario and one the government had had years to consider.

"At this stage, there has been no decision on that," Mr Gentleman replied after being asked what the government would do if a homeowner said, "No, I'm not budging."

Rachel Stephen-Smith became the minister responsible for the taskforce after a reshuffle in August, but the situation has not changed, with no clear exit strategy in place to dictate how the ACT government will deal with owners who refuse to move out.

"The ACT government’s position remains that properties affected by loose-fill asbestos insulation should be vacated as soon as possible, and that the only way to remove the physical, financial and social risks is through demolition," a government spokesman said this week.

"The [Asbestos Response] Taskforce continues to work with homeowners and individuals affected by loose-fill asbestos insulation and will work to determine the best course of action between now and 2020."

In the meantime, those who remain in their Mr Fluffy homes are left in the dark about their futures.

That situation is all too familiar according to Felicity Prideaux, a former Mr Fluffy homeowner who acts as a spokeswoman for the Mr Fluffy Homes Full Disclosure group.

The former public servant and Mrs Carvalho were unaware of the change in ministerial responsibility for the taskforce until told by the Sunday Canberra Times, despite the ACT government's insistence that it maintained regular contact with affected homeowners.

Asked how often she and other Mr Fluffy homeowners found out about major developments in the Mr Fluffy crisis through the media or the rumour mill, Mrs Prideaux replied: "Every time."

"As far as [the government] is concerned, the less they can tell the Mr Fluffy people, the better," she said.

"There is a complete lack of communication, except for threatening letters, between the government and the Mr Fluffy community. It's horrendous.

"The stress on [the homeowners] is enormous."

Mrs Prideaux's reference to threatening letters relates to WorkSafe ACT's correspondence with homeowners who don't have an asbestos management plan in place despite the government requiring them to have one.

In the fourth round of letters, sent on September 26, WorkSafe ACT commissioner Greg Jones repeated the government's warning that regulatory action could be taken against owners who failed to comply.

The letters were sent after The Canberra Times revealed last month that more than half the ACT homes required to have asbestos management plans were non-compliant or partially compliant, and that WorkSafe ACT was open to taking regulatory action on a case-by-case basis.

Mrs Carvalho, who refuses to pay what she calls "dead money" for a two-yearly asbestos management plan, which can cost more than $1000, said the latest letter was almost identical to the three others she had received from the work safety commissioner since May 2017.

The only real differences, Mrs Carvalho said, were that her name had been spelt incorrectly this time and that the latest letter included a new list of phone numbers for people who required an interpreter.

"It's virtually the same thing I've had before and my position hasn't changed; I'm not getting one," Mrs Carvalho said.

"We didn't cause the problem and neither did the other 1000-odd [Mr Fluffy] homeowners, so we shouldn't have to keep paying for it."

Mrs Carvalho said given living areas in her Lyons home had been cleared of contamination and because she was getting no value from the buyback and demolition scheme, it would not be unreasonable for the government to cover the costs of the assessment.

Mrs Prideaux agreed, saying the ACT government should put money towards more than just the buyback and demolition scheme.

After participating in an Australian National University study that found a link between living in a house with loose-fill asbestos and developing mesothelioma, Mrs Prideaux fears she and her husband could one day be struck down by a disease contracted in their former Mr Fluffy home in Hackett.

"What about providing some health testing for people [who lived in Mr Fluffy homes]?" Mrs Prideaux said.

"The government hasn't even offered to help with that.

"If they're really, really worried about helping people, why don't they start with health testing?"

An ACT government spokesman said the Asbestos Response Taskforce would continue to work with Mr Fluffy homeowners in the lead-up to 2020.

He said seven homeowners had brought forward their surrender dates in 2018, with one self-funded private demolition also taking place this year and a further four being considered or already underway.

"The taskforce expects movement in surrender dates and private demolitions to occur over the next year, further decreasing the number of remaining affected properties," the government spokesman said.

"It would therefore be premature to provide advice now when the final number and circumstances of those remaining is not known."

Far from being unclear about her circumstances, Mrs Carvalho knows exactly where she wants to be in 2020.

"We're going to paint the house, probably this spring," she said.

"I want to live out my days here."