Mr Gentleman and Asbestos Response Taskforce executive director Chris Reynolds appeared before annual reports hearings on Monday and defended the decision to allow the owner of the Ainslie shops building to remove the deadly Mr Fluffy asbestos insulation rather than demolishing the building.

Mr Reynolds said the decision to exclude the two known commercial properties that contained loose-fill asbestos had been made with cost in mind.

Both he and Mr Gentleman said there was no safe level of loose-fill asbestos in a property, but the risk could be managed by the current health and safety laws governing workplaces and the handling of hazardous materials.

"As you would be aware it's an incredibly costly program to the community of Canberra. The current estimates are it is a net cost to all taxpayers of estimated at $307 million for the program as it relates to residential properties," Mr Reynolds said.

"Commercial properties are actually dealt with under a number of different pieces of legislation including the Dangerous Substances Act and the Work Health and Safety legislation.

"Commercial and industrial properties deal with a range of hazardous material in their workplaces and that's what we're talking about so it would be quite a decision to start applying a compassionate yet costly assistance to commercial and industrial premises."

In comparison, Mr Reynolds said regulating safety within people's homes was "quite an entirely different context".

Mr Gentleman issued a statement after the committee hearing, saying the management plan made the Ainslie shops safe to use but the "only permanent solution is demolition".

The Canberra Liberals' planning spokeswoman Nicole Lawder asked if the government would be liable if someone who worked at the Ainslie shops developed a medical condition linked to loose-fill asbestos.

"It's not our position as planning officials and indeed the taskforce to look at liability for government decisions but I would imagine there was certainly a liability on the employer in a normal work health and safety system," Mr Gentleman said.

The building that houses Edgar's pub at the Ainslie shop was the only known building in Canberra where the loose-fill asbestos remained in situ after a Commonwealth clean-up in the 1980s.

In March, it was discovered the asbestos had migrated into the ceiling of the neighbouring building. A positive sample was also returned from the building next to that.

But while Mr Fluffy homeowners were told they had to demolish their homes, either through the government scheme or privately, the owner of the Ainslie shops was told to clean it himself.

That clean-up began last month.

Ms Lawder said there appeared to be "one rule for one and one rule for another".

"I'm sure many of those homeowners would be quite dismayed to hear that they could have perhaps had the option of controlling safely the loose-fill asbestos in their homes," she said.

However Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency chief executive officer Peter Tighe told Fairfax Media the reason the Mr Fluffy houses had to be demolished was because of how houses moved on their expanding and contracting dirt foundations.

That meant there was more risk of the Fluffy fibres migrating, he said.

Mr Tighe said it was difficult to comment on the Ainslie shop without knowing more about its construction, if it was built on a concrete slab and whether the interior walls had been stripped out as part of the clean-up.

But asked if the ACT government could wash its hands should an Ainslie shops worker should contract a disease related to a loose-fill asbestos, Mr Tighe said: "I don't know about that".

"Lawyers acting as counsel for victims usually take a scatter gun approach. They will look at every aspect. You're not going to get Dirk Jansen, he's long gone. It's not like you can sue James Hardy or CSR. To be honest with you I don't know how the government could say it's not us. Whatever was approved, it was approved by them," Mr Tighe said.