Greens candidate Tim Hollo will push for a Commonwealth-supported inquiry into the Mr Fluffy crisis, while ACT Greens leader Shane Rattenbury will not rule out moving a motion for a lower-level probe in the Legislative Assembly.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
As the buyback and demolition program draws closer to its conclusion, homeowners have reiterated their calls for scrutiny of the circumstances that led to it.
They want to know why "Mr Fluffy" Dirk Jansen was allowed to sell and install the asbestos insulation for more than a decade despite warnings from federal bureaucrats about the dangers, why owners were allowed to sell and rent Fluffy homes without alerting new owners and tenants, and why the government approved renovations - exposing owners and tradespeople to asbestos - without explicit warnings.
They also want a review of the earlier clean-up program, when 65,000 homes were surveyed and about 1080 homes were found to contain the asbestos. While the asbestos was removed from ceilings, it remained in floors and walls.
Any inquiry would require Commonwealth cooperation in handing over documents and other information about the program, a fact Chief Minister Andrew Barr said killed the prospect of a full board of inquiry - the ACT's version of a royal commission - into the affair back in 2016. Mr Barr did promise to have a review of the events leading up to the government's decision to instigate the buyback, but not until the program was finished in 2020.
But a Greens spokeswoman said candidate for the lower seat of Canberra, Mr Hollo, would seek to negotiate the Commonwealth's cooperation for any inquiry.
Mr Rattenbury also would not rule out moving a motion in the Assembly for an inquiry. In 2016, he promised to push for an inquiry before 2020 and said this week: "With the demolition phase coming to an end, this is the time to have an inquiry if there is to be one".
"It should review the efficacy of the buyback program, give affected people a chance to provide their views if they wish, and to reflect on lessons learned from the whole Mr Fluffy saga," Mr Rattenbury said.
"It remains unclear whether this needs a formal board of inquiry as defined under the legislation, or whether another approach could be equally effective.
“It would also be useful to try and gauge the current level of community desire for an inquiry. Do people still want to go through this, or will it be less painful to let the chapter close? I imagine there would be a mixture of responses to that question, but it is one worth contemplating.”
Fluffy homeowner Erin Hunt, who sold her house in Fraser, said many people would not be able to move on without an inquiry.
“I can't start healing until I've been heard,” she said.
“A board of inquiry would be perfect, because not only does all of Australia need to know that this won't happen again, but processes need to be put in place so that something like this doesn't happen again.”
Felicity Prideaux, another Fluffy victim, said a board of inquiry would go some way towards giving victims a voice, and ensuring such a thing never happened again.
“Until we have a board of inquiry and we actually understand how this was allowed to happen and why so many consecutive governments basically swept it under the carpet … then no, there's not going to be any respite from the concerns,” she said.
