Many owners of Mr Fluffy homes plead with government to let them stay

One described the plan to scrape blocks clear of trees and gardens as vandalism, and said it defied belief that clearing gardens was necessary to eliminate asbestos.

A couple aged 83 and 84 are among those who want to stay. "My wife and I moved into our home when we were married in 1953," they said in an anonymous submission to an ACT Assembly inquiry.

"None of our family visits us at home. We have been here for 62 years and do not want to leave. Our home was tested in 13 places for asbestos and none was found. It is a double brick house and they say there could be asbestos in the cavity. We are not proposing to do any alterations or extensions. We do not want to leave our home and can see no reason why we should."

Theirs was among 58 submissions to the inquiry into the buyback and demolition of the 1021 asbestos-contaminated homes.

The daughter of a 92-year-old owner said her mother could not get health workers to visit. "She would like a system where she can stay in her home, have the house declared safe and have the health support she needs to see out her final years," she said.

The government has left open the option for elderly people to stay for up to five years - going to the back of the queue for demolition. But it will also require a long list of work to make homes safe, including sealing heating and cooling systems, and downlights.

One couple said fibres had been found in the subfloor but not in the living areas.

"Being in the property and construction industries for over 20 years, we cannot understand the logic in the government's approach in wanting to demolish homes like ours," the de Salis family said, suggesting homes with minimal contamination should be cleaned rather than demolished.

They also questioned the plan to release the list of Mr Fluffy addresses, saying they saw no other reason for the release than "to bully affected homeowners into accepting the government's buyback plan".

Submitter Parsons said their house had been almost completely demolished and rebuilt, with just three short sections of wall and a small subfloor area remaining and no asbestos traces found in the house, subfloor or roof. Another said the government had approved extensive renovations last year, finished in July this year.

Another couple in their 80s said the thought of losing their house was a catastrophe, especially after the man had had major heart surgery 12 months ago.

Submitter Read accused the government of using asbestos as a cover to "get its grasping, greedy hands on the land our homes stand on so it can be subdivided and sold to developers".

Submitter McDonald said those who wanted to stay and rebuild were being "rorted", since there was no need for the government to buy the land as well as the house.

Many submissions pointed to the different treatment of people who demolished their homes before the scheme was announced. They are being allowed to keep the blocks and being are paid the market price of the house plus the cost of demolition.

Many submissions called for owners to keep their land. This option has been ruled out by the government, which wants to recoup some costs through rezoning to allow dual occupancy - a move it estimates will net an extra $90-100 million. But submitters said buying only the house would save upfront costs, interest on the Commonwealth loan, and security and maintenance costs of looking after the homes before demolition.

The Collins family said that when the list was published, the homes would become a target for vandals and squatters.

A number asked for certainty on when they would be able to buy their land back, a demolition schedule, and a cap on the amount they would have to pay.

The Calverts, aged 70 and 72, said they had raised their children in their home and now "delight in having the grandchildren visit". The buyback left them overwhelmed with "disbelief, anger, betrayal, hopelessness and, above all, grief".

They urged the government to allow Fluffy owners over 60 to stay in their homes without having to seal off heating and lights. The government should also ensure tradespeople were available to service the homes.

The Pilkington family said the offer did not give them a reasonable choice, "as the only alternatives are bankruptcy or raising our family in a carcinogenic, contaminated, unlit, unheated, unmaintainable, toxic home".

Another, from Stefanik,

Self-funded retirees the Taylors asked the Government for $6925 in expenses since tenants left their two units in July.