Mr Fluffy goes to town.

For anyone with a Mr Fluffy house - now in Queanbeyan, North Sydney, Manly & Parramatta and coming to a suburb near you.

Why should this become a problem for the state/federal government when the product was legal when it was installed and a diligent building inspector would have picked this up with a roof inspection noting it in the report?
 
As far as I know it's mostly in Canberra, with a very small number in NSW.

I don't think it will affect our state government's budget, which is flush with stamp duty funds from the Sydney property boom anyway, and will soon be flush with land tax increases next year.
 
I think the answer is in the first post:



i.e. it shouldn't have been legal, which is where people are pointing fingers at the government for allowing it.

Not saying I agree, just that's how I suspect it came about.

If that is the case, then is the government going to pay to have all the other asbestos (walls, ceilings, eaves) removed from the houses where it was used? I also think it is strange that the government is involving itself in this.
 
The problem isnt the removal of the product. In most cases this was done years ago.

A few years ago a Mr Fluffy house in Canberra was demolished. The asbestos had been removed years before. There was a thorough examination of the house and soil and it was found that it was impossible to completely remove Mr Fluffy fibres from the house and that residents were in very real danger of contracting asbestos related diseases.

The only safe way to do it was to demolish the house and remove the soil.

I agree, not a govt prob, however I would hate to be in the position of losing everything. Very stressful time for those involved.
 
If that is the case, then is the government going to pay to have all the other asbestos (walls, ceilings, eaves) removed from the houses where it was used? I also think it is strange that the government is involving itself in this.

I can only assume its pure risk analysis - asbestos sheeting is nowhere near the health risk of the loose fibre filling used in insulation. Perhaps they want to avoid a james hardy style class action (whether this is likely or not). Hmmm.
 
If it was a government approved product then I think we need to adopt a benevolent approach. Sometimes, when people have done all they can the government needs to "just fix it".

It would be devastating to have paid off your home and then be destitute when it is not your fault.

Governments have wasted vast sums of money on far less sensible things than buying a few homes that are dangerous.
 
My heart bleeds Macca - if a developer buys a contaminated site, they pay an appropriate amount for the site 'as-is' or pay market if the vendor undertakes remediation. Is it discoverable by proper due diligence? Does the vendor provide any warranty with the house? Tell them to get a class action up against CSR.

Why is it any different in this case?

If it was a government approved product then I think we need to adopt a benevolent approach. Sometimes, when people have done all they can the government needs to "just fix it".

Other things are/were legal too eg tobacco, cars, ddt (banned), dieldrin (banned termite treatment), er do we pay out every person who comes in contact with something dangerous?

It is not the government's fault that the product causes an issue is it?
 
If that is the case, then is the government going to pay to have all the other asbestos (walls, ceilings, eaves) removed from the houses where it was used? I also think it is strange that the government is involving itself in this.

It's not the same as walls/ceilings/eaves. Those products are relatively safe in comparison, and can be lived in and danger only comes up during renovations.
 
Back
Top