David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the ACT Government Loan Bill 2014 comes to the House with bipartisan support. I rise to highlight that I am flabbergasted that, in 1968, when there was such a long history of the risks of asbestosis, Mr Fluffy was able to fill houses with free-flowing asbestos. It boggles the mind. Early occupational health reports in the twenties and thirties in America and in Western Australia identified it as potentially toxic to the lungs of workers, causing asbestosis—which is like silicosis, a fibrotic lung disease—or, worse, mesothelioma, the deadly cancer lining the lungs.

To have up to 1,000 houses in Canberra, near the town I grew up in, with free-flowing asbestos pumped into the roofing for insulation just beggars belief. I continue to be shocked that it went on for so long. It seems ironic that Mr Fluffy himself passed from this world due to the effects of asbestosis and mesothelioma.

This measure is non-controversial. A loan of up to $1 billion, to be appropriated as a result of this bill, will be utilised by the ACT government to purchase the affected properties, many of which are very large blocks of land in Canberra. The plan, I understand, once the affected buildings and land are remediated, is to sell them off. I am not sure, but, if the ACT government have any commercial nous, they will subdivide these very large blocks into smaller blocks, recoup the $750 million to $1 billion in funds from the Commonwealth and be able to repay their loan in due course.

The bill is pretty straightforward, but it sends a sobering message to anyone involved in occupational health and safety. When you see these early reports of things that might be dangerous, you must look at them extensively before you go headlong into the consumption of something that might end up being toxic. I commend this bill to the House.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The ACT Government Loan Bill 2014 provides the appropriate mechanism for the provision of $750 million in the form of a concessional loan to the ACT government to deliver a program to buy back and demolish houses in the ACT affected by Mr Fluffy loose-fill asbestos. It is part of the $1 billion loan facility agreed between the federal and ACT governments on 28 October 2014. Seven hundred and fifty million dollars will be paid this financial year, with the remaining $250 million to be paid next financial year. The ACT government then plans to buy and demolish 1,021 homes contaminated with Mr Fluffy loose-fill asbestos insulation.

The Mr Fluffy asbestos affair has affected thousands of Canberrans. It involves 1,021 properties across 58 suburbs, directly impacting approximately 4,500 people. The ACT government personal support team has intensively engaged with homeowners to deal with their individual circumstances. They have six officers and a dedicated Canberra Connect task force call team also has six officers. There have been payments of financial emergency assistance to families now exceeding $1.2 million, which includes support for hazard reduction works of properties, temporary accommodation and the replacement of essential contaminated items. This has been deeply traumatic for the many families involved in the ACT. I pay tribute to the Gallagher government for the way in which they have handled this unique situation, which has affected so many Canberrans.

I myself have heard firsthand from many of these families about the impact that it has had on them and on their lives. Last Thursday, the member for Canberra and I tabled the first group impact statement, 'Hope in grief: confronting Mr Fluffy's toxic legacy in Canberra and Queanbeyan', compiled by the Fluffy Owners and Residents' Action Group. Many of the Mr Fluffy affected families were in the Federation Chamber as I spoke.

And as soon as I turned around I saw tears running down many of their faces.

It has affected families because they have regarded their homes as being safe and sacrosanct, and now they find that their homes have contained loose-fill asbestos—potentially deadly. This has been traumatic for families who have young children, where those children may have been affected. One woman told me about her sense of betrayal for her friends. She had conducted extensive renovation work on the home, including work where many of their friends had helped out, and had moved through the roof cavity. The feeling, now, that she had exposed her friends to potentially toxic loose-fill asbestos left her feeling deeply pained.

The Mr Fluffy legacy is a 50-year legacy and the ACT government has been informed that the homes affected cannot be made safe. That is why the ACT government has taken the approach that it has. Following 600-odd assessments that have been conducted this year, the ACT government has opted to demolish the 1,021 houses. As Chief Minister Gallagher has noted:

Canberra is a kind and caring city. This is part of what makes it a great place to live. We have seen it over the years that when some are struggling or suffering, the community rallies to support them and do what we can to help.

That is what the ACT government is doing in the case of Mr Fluffy—partnering with the Community and Expert Reference Group, Canberra Connect, the ACT Medicare Local and the Chief Health Officer. As Chief Minister Gallagher has done, I acknowledge Sue Packer, Simon Corbell, Andrew Kefford—the taskforce head—and Brianna Heseltine for their work in particular on behalf of those affected by Mr Fully loose-fill asbestos.

In the time remaining I wish simply to quote from some of the accounts in the impact statement which I tabled earlier in the Federation Chamber. Clare of Hackett says:

More than anything, I hope that our daughters have not been exposed to a dangerous amount of amosite. Will I spend the rest of my life wondering? Will I die wondering?

Christina of Ainslie says:

We don't have people over any more. We meet up with friends and family at their houses. We don't change the light bulbs anymore—two are blown in the lounge room but I don't want to disturb the fittings and release any fibres. When the wind blows hard, I lie awake wondering if it will stir up the remnant fibres in the subfloor or walls and bring it into the house ... We can never relax while we live in this house.

Christine of Ainslie says:

I have lived in my home since 1978, my three children were raised there and it is the home I shared with my late husband.

The first we new about Mr Fluffy was during the 1980s-90s clean-up program. It had been installed prior to our purchasing the home. Our entire family was uprooted during the clean-up and moved back in under the impression that our home had been made safe.

She goes on to say:

The re-emergence of Mr Fluffy into my life has been hugely traumatic. I am a 66-year-old, semi-retired widow living alone in my family home. I have never in my life known such stress and anxiety for such an extended time.

An anonymous contributor to the impact report, who is from Aranda, says:

I am profoundly worried for our son who is now six years old.

That we have inadvertently exposed him to this form of asbestos is something that we will live with for the rest of our lives. The burden of time lays heavily on us as we face years of waiting to find if his life will be shortened. All we can do is hold on to the hope that his genetic path isn't interrupted by Mr Fluffy.

Jenny of Aranda says:

We have been fortunate in that our asbestos assessment did not find any asbestos in our living areas, although a number of remediation tasks need to be undertaken. This test result was very welcome but it plays on my mind that other people have also been given clear test results only to have them overturned at subsequent assessments. I still do not feel safe.

An anonymous 36-year-old from Belconnen is a constituent who has been living overseas. She says:

Our work overseas will finish in early 2015. I am pregnant with our first child, and will give birth shortly after returning to Canberra. We will have nowhere to live, and unless the government provides generous compensation, we will be financially insolvent. This is not the environment we had imagined bringing a baby into the world.

An anonymous person who has been living in an ex-guvvie home for 45 years says:

Living in one of these houses is like living on a knife edge, we never know from one day to the next if our health is going to be a problem. As grandparents we don't worry so much about our health, as that of our family—will they have full and happy lives or are they going to suffer because of the contamination already in their bodies? The uncertainty of how long this whole mess will take to resolve and what the result will be, adds to the many problems we face.

An anonymous 38-year-old in Chapman says:

We have put ourselves and more distressingly our young children at risk of terrible health issues, not to mention our friends and family, who had been in our house, staying for periods of time, or just visiting, for the entire time we have lived there. We have had to deal with having to explain to people what is going on, the stigma attached to "Mr Fluffy" and seeing their minds realising that they have been put at risk (or worse, verbally attacking you for putting them and their children at risk).

An anonymous Deakin resident says:

We have worked hard to make this house our home: we have spent considerable time, effort and money over the years to achieve the sanctuary we enjoyed. Our garden is my husband's work of art. His tireless work in this area has yielded a pleasing outside environment for our home—an environment that will most likely be destroyed, along with our house.

Jennifer, 42, of Dickson says:

We discovered that our home was a Mr Fluffy house only a few weeks ago in July 2014. We had just returned from a family holiday and the registered letter was waiting for us. I remember distinctly my response to the letter … acute nausea. I lost 2kgs in about 4 days, experienced many sleepless nights and was nervous, trembling and teary. I could not perform at work. I could not reveal my emotions to my children. I felt I was wound tight … tight like a spring.

Matt, 37, of Duffy says:

I don't want to live in the house I was so proud to have bought on my own 15 years ago! I hate my house and I hate the fact I have to live in it until the government makes a decision. I tell my wife every day that I do not want to live in this home and I feel I have let my family down and given them a death sentence for allowing them to live in a home that was a Mr Fluffy home. I believe that if my wife or my children become ill with an asbestos-related disease that it will be my fault for buying this house and for trying to upgrade it.

Sharon and Damien, in their 40s, of Flynn say:

Our plans, no, our world was shattered at 6:00 pm on 16 July 2014, when we read the registered letter, we were not prepared for the enormity, the impact or the gamut of emotions the words contained within held.

We have cried for what we have done to our children.

Leonie, 39, of Hackett says:

My husband took on a project to install a large water tank in the garden, he spent three whole days in the subfloor space putting the plumbing together.

We have both lost parents to cancer and we are well aware of how horrific it is. The thought of our children going through the same is unbearable.

Sharon, 36, of Kambah says:

I am now regrettably one of the 31 families that have been moved out of their family home. We received a phone call on Wednesday 6th August 2014 and were informed that asbestos fibres had been found in all our 4 wardrobes, linen press and heater intake. … I arranged for our family to stay with friends, I packed some toiletries and left the house literally with the clothes on my back.

Nina, 39, of Kambah says:

My husband and I purchased our unrenovated almost-original 1975 home in Kambah in late 2002, a couple of months after getting engaged. We renovated every inch of it.

But now, she says:

… three positive samples have been found in the house.

I am 39 years old and have poured more than a decade into creating our home; made up of both our physical property and our two beautiful children. What do we have now?

Edwina and Joh, 42 and 37, from Kambah say:

What haunts us is the knowledge that both of our sons have been under our home, an area that we now know is contaminated.

Katie, 25, from Kambah says:

Our report came back positive on all six samples with a high reading for asbestos fibres. The assessors informed us that we were no longer to enter the house. We have since done the heartbreaking task of telling our family and friends that they have been exposed to asbestos fibres whilst helping us renovate and that we are so sorry for putting them in this situation where their health might be at risk in the future.

Lisa, from Latham says:

… our worst fears materialised as we were notified that we had Crocidolite (Blue asbestos) in every cupboard in every bedroom, our linen closet and worst of all, in our heating ducts. Blue asbestos had likely been airborne in our home via the ducted heating, allowing it to settle on or in carpet, furniture, toys, beds, clothes, linen and most frighteningly the lungs of only my husband and myself, but our two precious children.

We had to leave with only the clothes on our backs, which also needed to be promptly replaced and disposed of like toxic waste.

She then goes on to tell the story of her three-year-old son's birthday on 21 July 2014, when she received a phone call from the asbestos assessor. Lisa said:

I was now in the middle of an emotional breakdown in a shopping centre food court. … A stranger approached me and said: "I don't know what is wrong, but I can see you are very upset. Let me take your baby and feed her so you can talk to whomever you are talking to. Let me help you." This lovely lady sat at a table with me and kept my baby content while I fell apart.

This story speaks to the generosity with which Canberrans have reached out to those affected by Mr Fluffy asbestos.

Betty, 80, of Watson says:

I used to look back on our time in this home with such fondness and love. Bringing our babies home, milestones in their lives and the many happy occasions and celebrations we shared. Those once beautiful memories are now tarnished with fear. Fear for the multiple generations of our family who have been exposed to deadly fibres.

The impact report contains many more stores that speak to the Mr Fluffy legacy. It has scarred this generation. I pay tribute to the emotional strength those affected by Mr Fluffy have shown through this extraordinarily difficult time in their lives.

Nickolas Varvaris (Barton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to offer my unequivocal support for the ACT Government Loan Bill. The federal government is faced with a pressing challenge that it must deal with in order to ensure the safety and health of residents the ACT. At present the government is aware that there are potentially more than 1,000 homes in the ACT that still contain residual asbestos fibres. The government is also aware that when dealing with this issue time is of the essence to ensure the wellbeing of affected residents. By providing assistance in the form of a loan to the ACT government, the Commonwealth government aims to provide the ACT with the funds to undertake an urgently needed asbestos remediation program.

In responding to this challenge the ACT government would have to deal with the fact that the cost of the program would add about 20 per cent to their annual budget and cause significant pressure on their fiscal situation. As a result the federal government seeks to propose the provision of a $1 billion loan in order to ensure the ACT government has the ability to commence the remediation program.

The federal government hopes that this loan bill will attract support from both sides of the House. In doing so we hope to continue the long-standing tradition of bipartisanship shown in the house whenever urgent issues affecting the livelihood and wellbeing of Australians are at issue.

The Asbestos Remediation Program, which the federal government seeks to provide a loan to facilitate, will involve the purchase and demolition of more than 1,000 homes in the ACT that contain residual asbestos fibres that were not entirely removed 20 years ago. The problem in this particular instance stems from the use of loose-fill asbestos during the insulation of homes in the 1960s and 1970s, and it is now up to this parliament to finally help deal with this issue once and for all.

The deadly effects of asbestos related injury, including asbestosis and mesothelioma are now well-known to the Australian public and they would expect nothing less than a strong bipartisan resolution to this problem. A solution would not only ensure that further physical damage and injury does not occur but would be a step forward in resolving the uncertainty that still exists for the affected families.

Whilst the previous federal government program removed the bulk of the dangerous material, unfortunately residual fibres have been discovered on some properties. As such, the ACT government has decided that the risk to families and individuals is unacceptable and has sought to ensure that safety is given priority over all else. The coalition agrees that this is a prudent course of action and that to provide a concessional loan would be an effective way to empower the ACT to deal with the issue of houses affected by residual asbestos fibres. By buying and demolishing the potentially affected homes we can ensure that we are helping to take another significant step towards closing the dreadful chapter of asbestos-related issues that have affected thousands across the country.

Last week, the impact statements of 330 families living in affected homes were tabled in parliament. Indeed, the ability for these families to have their experiences recorded in Hansard will assist in providing some valuable perspective for members of both sides to understand exactly why this concessional loan is needed. To enable the granting of this loan, the proposed bill will specifically allow the minister administering the ACT (Self-Government) Act 1988 to enter into the agreement on behalf of the Commonwealth. As the minister who currently administers the act is the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, the appropriation will be provided to that department which will then enable him to provide the loan to the ACT.

The plan to support the asbestos remediation program will involve the commitment by the government to provide a loan for $750 million in the present financial year. Further payments of up to $250 million may be made available via appropriation in the 2015-16 financial year. This is to ensure that there remains a capacity for flexibility in any loan agreement so that the objectives of the program can be met, given that families will be given up until 30 June of next year to lodge their applications for involvement in the buyback scheme. The Consolidated Revenue Fund will be appropriated as an administered assets and liabilities item for the purposes of making payments determined by the written agreement made between the ACT and the Commonwealth government. This will allow the loaned money to be used in an effective way strictly for related purposes concerning the remediation program.

It is important to note that this initiative is not about what the Commonwealth is doing on its own but about what can be done in collaboration with the territory government, who will be administering the remediation. The success of the program is entirely contingent on the close collaboration between the ACT and federal government and it is up to the House to ensure that the Commonwealth government can act in the best interests of the affected property owners. The bill also outlines that whilst the loan is given pursuant to an agreement between the ACT and the Commonwealth, the loan will not exceed $1 billion. This is to ensure that the loan provided to the territory is utilised effectively and in a way which directly addresses the concerns related to residual asbestos fibres in the properties in which it was installed by the insulation company in question, Mr Fluffy. As part of the remediation program, which the government is providing the loan for, the ACT will purchase the affected houses at market price so that the affected home owners and families will not be financially compromised as a result of circumstances which were completely out of their control. The market price will be calculated as if the affected properties did not contain asbestos so that individuals who choose to sign up to the government buyback offer will be compensated for the full value of their property.

The Commonwealth is also aware that the fiscal impact of the asbestos remediation scheme will result in an almost unprecedented blow on the ACT budget. With this in mind, the Commonwealth has resolved to ensure that the financial assistance provided by any appropriation would not additionally burden the territory unreasonably. In order for this to occur, the funding provided by the government will be in the form of a concessional loan, which will reduce the interest cost to the ACT compared to a scenario where the territory would have had to seek a loan on its own. This would have resulted in an additional unfair economic burden on the ACT's budget in the wake of this issue.

This financial year will see $338 million put towards the purchase and demolition of affected homes whilst $412 million will be put towards the buying of land and incurring a modest interest bill of $12 million. A proportion of the loaned amount will also be put towards the safe disposal of the asbestos from the affected properties. This will include the safe removal of the contaminated material following the most stringent of safety protocols. Any contaminated material will arrive at the waste disposal site in a bonded state and be covered with 30 centimetres of soil every day. These procedures will be put in place to ensure the safety of all people in surrounding areas. It is also of value to note that the $1 billion loan will operate as a line of credit and have no impact on the federal budget's bottom line. Once the affected homes have been cleared it is expected that the ACT government shall use the proceeds from the sale of the blocks to repay up to three-quarters of the loaned amount directly from the sale of the cleared properties.

There is no doubt that each family affected by the installation of asbestos in their homes will face a tough road ahead in moving forward with their lives. For many the process of rebuilding homes and lives will be a difficult challenge which will further test their resolve. However, we can at the very least offer the consolation that we have a result so that the process of moving forward can begin. There is no doubt that this a highly emotive issue that faces our parliament today but I am confident that if we can approach this issue in a bipartisan manner we can do our part in ensuring that those most affected can look to the future in a more positive way. I commend this bill to the House.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to address the House on an issue I have spoken about many times before, and that is Mr Fluffy asbestos. This is an issue causing significant distress in my electorate of Canberra and throughout the ACT and New South Wales. The lives of around 1,000 Canberra households and some 4,000 Canberrans have been completely turned upside down this year as these Canberrans have had to come to grips with the legacy of Mr Fluffy. Perhaps some members who are not from Canberra or the capital region do not realise how serious the Mr Fluffy crisis actually is because the name 'Mr Fluffy' is quite misleading. It does not portray the absolute devastation this substance has brought.

Mr Fluffy is a type of loose-fill asbestos that was used in the ACT in the late sixties and seventies. A small business called D Jansen & Co Pty Ltd—known as Mr Fluffy—pumped crushed raw blue and brown asbestos insulation into about 1,100 homes in Canberra and Queanbeyan. I am pleased to see that the member for Eden-Monaro is here in the chamber today because I understand that there are about 20 or 30 houses in Queanbeyan that have been affected by Mr Fluffy. I understand that work is being done by the state government on trying to get an understanding of the level of contamination in those houses and I also understand a task force has been established. The member for Eden-Monaro is nodding his head and I trust that he has been very active in this space and will continue to advocate on behalf of those families that have been affected by this Mr Fluffy crisis.

Mr Fluffy was a cheap and effective form of insulation, pumped into the walls and roof cavities of homes, to provide protection from our extreme weather conditions in Canberra—and we are all very familiar with the extreme weather conditions in winter. The uptake was quick, and Mr Fluffy was installed in homes across more than 70 Canberra suburbs, with the highest uptake rates in the Canberra suburbs of Curtin, Pearce, Kambah and the Weston Creek area.

At this time, the ACT did not have self-government and was governed entirely by the Commonwealth. Mr Fluffy was installed in the ACT on the Commonwealth's watch. I want to make that point again: Mr Fluffy was installed in the ACT on the Commonwealth's watch. This is an important point, and I will come back to it.

The ACT gained self-government in 1988, and, that same year, the Commonwealth government initiated a $100 million program to remove affected homes, in order to protect families and the broader community from the serious health risks posed by this particularly toxic form of asbestos. A survey was conducted of every house in the ACT to determine whether it was a Mr Fluffy house. Over 1,000 homes were identified and, over five years, the Commonwealth removed asbestos from more than 1,000 Canberra homes. Homeowners were issued with a certificate of completion on asbestos removal, and, for a while, we thought we were rid of Mr Fluffy.

Houses were bought and sold. Families grew up and moved out, and new families moved in. Houses were extended and renovated. The underneath of houses were dug out for studies and garages and storage areas. Countless trades people did countless jobs. In many cases, the certificate of completion of asbestos removal was lost, and families did not know they were buying or living in a Mr Fluffy home. Families new to Canberra did not even know what Mr Fluffy was.

At the end of last year, that all changed. A report by Robson Environmental on a Mr Fluffy home in Downer was published late last year—and it was at this point that the community started to realise that the Commonwealth's remediation program may have failed. The report found that the home at 25 Bradfield Street in Downer presented with 'extensive' contamination—was, in fact, uninhabitable—and the house was subsequently demolished.

Following this report, which was released to the public under Freedom of Information laws, the ACT government wrote to 1,049 Canberra householders in February, reminding them that their homes had been included in the removal program more than two decades ago. This came as a shock to hundreds of homeowners who had absolutely no knowledge that their homes had been tainted by Mr Fluffy almost half a century earlier. In the letter, the ACT government recommended that residents did not disturb any internal wall or subfloor spaces and that they get an asbestos check by a licensed assessor to ensure fibres were not migrating into their homes.

As these checks were conducted, it became apparent just how serious the situation was, as a significant number of Mr Fluffy houses were found to contain residual asbestos fibres at dangerous levels. In many cases, these fibres had made their way into the living areas, into cupboards, and into the heating and cooling vents of the houses, putting their inhabitants at extreme risk.

The CEO of the Australian government Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency, Mr Peter Tighe, raised the alert in April this year, putting to bed any doubt over the seriousness of the problem. He called for the demolition of Mr Fluffy homes due to the unacceptable health risks they posed to residents and the community.

For the families who own these homes, the situation is dire. It is devastating. Over the past months many families have been living in limbo, awaiting the federal government's response. They have been grappling with costs in the tens of thousands of dollars for testing, removal, temporary accommodation, new clothes, new toys, new teddies, new baby cots, and new cars.

And all of these issues are secondary to the biggest concern of all, and that is the potential health impact. Exposure to this type of loose-fill asbestos has potentially fatal consequences, as it increases the risks of asbestosis, other non-malignant lung and pleural disorders, lung cancer, mesothelioma, and other cancers. More than 10,000 Australians have been diagnosed with mesothelioma since the early 1980s, and up to 25,000 Australians are expected to die from mesothelioma in the next four decades.

The only safe way forward to solve the Mr Fluffy saga once and for all is to demolish the affected houses. In June, the ACT government set up the Asbestos Response Taskforce to provide assistance, information and advice to those affected. However, ultimately, both the installation and the remediation happened on the Commonwealth's watch, and so the Commonwealth needed to come to the table. The ACT Chief Minister, Katy Gallagher, met with employment and public service minister Eric Abetz a number of times during the year to try and establish funding from the federal government. In October, the chief minister and the minister announced that the Commonwealth would provide a $1 billion loan to the ACT, enabling it to buy back and demolish these houses. This bill provides the appropriation mechanism for the provision of $750 million, in the form of a concessional loan, to the ACT government to deliver this demolition program.

While I acknowledge that this will provide some relief to the 1,000 or so households who are victims of Mr Fluffy, particularly those who have been forced into emergency accommodation, it is disappointing that the Commonwealth is not taking a greater financial responsibility. I have said many times that this crisis is a legacy of the Commonwealth's, and the fact that the Commonwealth has not come to the table with a better offer will leave many Mr Fluffy homeowners worse off.

Since the problem came to light at the start of this year, I have met with or spoken to scores of families struggling to come to terms with the legacy of Mr Fluffy. I have met with families who have been forced to leave their homes, leave behind their children's toys, leave behind their clothes, and start from scratch. They have gone in, the assessment has been done, say, on a Friday, and they have been told to get out of the house immediately—immediately. So they have spent the weekend trying to retrieve as much as they can but, quite often, they cannot actually take the toys, they cannot take the cot, they cannot take the blankets, they cannot take their clothes; they leave in the clothes that they are standing in.

This issue does not discriminate. It has affected Canberrans across a diverse cross-section of the community, spanning all ages and socioeconomic backgrounds. But one theme is consistent—they have all been placed under emotional, psychological, financial or health-related stress. The stories are heartbreaking. That is the only word you can use to describe them—they are absolutely heartbreaking. There are stories I have heard from the many, many Canberrans I have spoken to about the fact that their children's friends won't come to their house because they too scared to enter the house. One family have teenage children and the girlfriends just sit in the car when they are going out for an outing. They sit in the car while she runs outside to go off to the outing because her friends' families do not want them to come into the house. There are parents who do not know how to tell the children, not wanting to scare them. There are parents who have been told that their children's bedroom or study contain dangerously high levels of asbestos. Can you imagine being told that your child's bedroom, that your child's toys, that your child's cot, that your child's blankets, that your child's pillows, that your child's clothes contain dangerously high levels of asbestos. There are families who homes are so contaminated that have been told to drop everything and leave immediately. There have been families who have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars renovating their homes, building their dream home for their children to grow up in—their forever after home—who will now have to see that home demolished, that investment lost. There are homeowners who have worked on their homes themselves, worked in the roof space, in the underfloor, exposing themselves to this toxic and potentially fatal substance. There are tradespeople who have worked on homes having no idea they were contaminated. There are homeowners who are scared that they will be liable for the exposure tradespeople and visitors have had in their homes. I have had phone calls from people who have run businesses out of their homes who are too scared to even say their name on the phone for fear of the devastating repercussions for their business and their livelihood.

There is one woman, a single mum, who is not only living in a Mr Fluffy home but she is also battling with the fact that her son has some mental health issues. He has been hospitalised or put in and out of high and low levels of care and she is battling with this Mr Fluffy crisis. I spoke to another woman who had just finished paying off her house. She is in her late 50s on the verge of retiring. She had this black humour in her response. She had just finished paying her house off, great excitement, and had taken about a month's leave to paint and tidy up her house. She was told that her house was going to be demolished. She said, 'Well, at least, Gai, I don't have to go out to Bunnings and get the paintbrushes. I have a month to sit around and do I do not know what but at least I won't be painting.'

There are some other messages I have received. This one is from Katie:

Our report came back positive on all six samples with a high reading for asbestos fibres. The assessors informed us that we were no longer to enter the house. We have since done the heartbreaking task of telling our family and friends that they have been exposed to asbestos fibres whilst helping us renovate and that we are so sorry for putting them in this situation where their health might be at risk in the future.

This is from Jenny:

Our home was purchased in good faith in 1992 when I was pregnant with my first child. I now have four children. I love the area and home. The only concern around the original purchase was "leaky taps". Now I feel shattered for our family's health (particularly my husband who spent time under the sub floors digging out space for storage), tradespeople, friends and of course my children. The financial concern is overwhelming as our retiring asset is now worthless.

This is from Ellen:

We are now effectively bankrupt and living in a home that is a danger to our children.

I worked very hard over the last six months to advocate for these homeowners and residents, and other affected Canberrans. I listened to their concerns, I have cried with them, and I have supported them in any way I can. I have advocated to both the ACT and Commonwealth governments, and I have spoken in this place many, many times. So I am pleased that we are at this point now, which will allow many homeowners to move on.

As I mentioned earlier, this provides the appropriation mechanism for the provision of $750 million—in the form of a concessional loan—to the ACT government to deliver this buy-back and demolition program in the ACT to the affected Mr Fluffy homeowners. The bill provides for the authority for the Commonwealth to enter into an agreement to make the loan to the ACT government for an amount not exceeding $1 billion.

While I acknowledge that without such a loan arrangement, the ACT's capacity to deal with this issue would have been significantly reduced, I do see the Commonwealth as having some responsibility for this crisis due to the fact that the remediation took place on the Commonwealth's watch.

These families deserve support, they deserve compensation and above all they deserve certainty. While some homeowners are elated to have a way forward, others are disappointed. But this bill will give residents confidence that the buyback will go ahead.

I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the bravery of Mr Fluffy homeowners. They have faced the last year with enormous courage. They have supported each other and they have truly a proven that in times of adversity our community is at its best and it comes together.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the ACT Government Loan Bill 2014, clearly a very serious issue—in particular, serious to the people who own these homes in Canberra. I can see by the people that are here in the House, the clerks and the staff how they are definitely affected by what is going on.

Chrysotile is, of course, a naturally occurring mineral substance. There are many, many types of asbestos, but chrysotile is the one that is found most often. It is something that is in our lives and it will be in our lives some time in legacy items and equipment. It is something that is found in fibro sheet, switchboard boxes and doors. It is in an enormous amount of places which have been built over the last 20, 30 or 40 years.

Fortunately, many state governments—and, of course, the federal government—made decisions over recent years to ban asbestos. That only happened within the last 20 years. So we have literally decades worth of buildings they were constructed not only with chrysotile but with asbestos such as amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite fibres. The difference between the two classes is very, very straightforward. Chrysotile is a fibre which can basically be wound. In recent years I attended the Canton Fair in Guangzhou, China, probably the biggest trade fair in the world. You can imagine my surprise to come onto the floor of asbestos products at the Canton fair, including machines demonstrating how they wind chrysotile to produce, in particular, asbestos bags. I rapidly departed from that floor and went somewhere else. However, this is not an option that is available to the people in Canberra who are affected by Mr Fluffy. They are most likely to have amosite, which is the brown asbestos, or chrysotile, which is the blue asbestos. These are the most dangerous and these fibres are less than five micron. They are invisible to the naked eye; you cannot see them. You certainly cannot take action, because you simply do not know that it is there.

Blue asbestos was most commonly used during the forties and fifties. I can tell you that, as someone who has worked in this industry for many years, I am most likely to have been exposed myself. My colleagues were exposed and certainly a number of my workmates have passed away in recent years from mesothelioma. It is involved in heavy industry, in steam pipe lagging in boilers. It is in many, many locations Australia wide. This will be a problem which will go on for many decades.

Unfortunately, the typical problem with mesothelioma is that people who have been exposed to blue asbestos have passed on. Generally, there are not as many of those as there are who are now affected by chrysotile. The numbers have still not reached a peak. We still have an increasing number of people with claims for asbestosis and mesothelioma caused after working in certain workplaces. I guess that will continue until we work our way through the people who have worked with these products in the seventies, eighties and probably even the early nineties.

I have actually seen things like blue asbestos mattresses and pillows, which were advertised during the twenties and thirties where it was typical to go to bed and have a cigarette. So the claim to fame for those was: 'You will certainly not die from the bed catching on fire, if you happen to fall asleep while smoking your cigarette.' I have seen all sorts of things involving asbestos. It really was a product that worked very well for what it was used for.

However, it is without doubt, absolutely deadly. The exposure limits for asbestos are typically 0.1 of a fibre per millilitre. That means one sole fibre, under five micron, in 10 millilitres of air. It is a very small exposure limit because these products are incredibly dangerous. If you compare that with areas such as asbestos pulverisers and disintegrators that were used in the asbestos cement industry, they were typically 150 fibres per millilitre or, for the baggers at Wittenoom, a location where most of the asbestos came from, up to 600 fibres per millilitre.

I recall a conversation I had with an occupational physician, a specialist who deals with these types of diseases. In his opinion, everybody will eventually get asbestosis if they live long enough because, quite simply, we have all been exposed. The risk, the likelihood of mesothelioma, lung cancer, and asbestosis is directly related to the exposure level, the type of asbestos and of course how long that exposure ran for. Imagine people who work in an area with 600 fibres per millilitre; you could literally see that through the air. Of course, I am sure that the people who are unfortunate enough to be in the circumstance with Mr Fluffy asbestos are having great difficulty in dealing with these issues. As someone who has employed occupational hygienists in the past, I can tell you that to get a clearance inspection for an asbestos-related clearance is exceptionally difficult. You need to basically run a wet wipe and have that tested to see whether there are any fibres picked up. The sampling that these people would have gone through is incredibly intrusive, with pumps that would run in their homes for eight to 10 hours. It is a very difficult situation. I really do feel for them.

In terms of the control measures, I believe there is no other way apart from the way the ACT government is moving forward to demolish these homes. To do that safely you will see the large circus tents go up around Canberra. There will be negative air pressure and clearance monitoring. People will work in white suits with breathing apparatus and they will have to go through a number of different areas to be cleaned. And when all that material has gone, they then have to remove 100 mil—that is four inches—of topsoil from those locations and then backfill across the top. It is incredibly difficult. It is long, arduous and hard work. And it is incredibly expensive.

However, I am very pleased that the Commonwealth has been able to come up with an opportunity to provide the money that is needed by the ACT government—a loan of up to $1 billion. Of course, the people who are affected by Mr Fluffy have gone through a very difficult period. I recognise the speakers and what they have said in previous contributions. It is a terrible thing. The latency period for most of these diseases is up to 40 years. That is 40 years that they will have to sit through these things to see what happens. So it is incredibly difficult. But I see this as something similar to a natural disaster. It is a disaster in this region.

I am pleased that the federal government has been able to provide an opportunity for up to $1 billion, to support the ACT government to clean up this mess. Asbestos will be an ongoing problem for many decades and we have lots of legacy items and that is the unfortunate position in which we are in.

Peter Hendy (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not intend speaking for long on this bill, the ACT Government Loan Bill 2014, but I do particularly want to make reference to the implications of loose-fill asbestos in my electorate of Eden Monaro. This bill is to give effect to a recent decision by the Commonwealth government to assist the government of the Australian Capital Territory to meet its financial obligations due to a major public health issue—indeed, an issue that can be deadly. As the Minister for Employment, Senator Eric Abetz, has previously stated, the Commonwealth government will provide the ACT government with a concessional loan of up to $1 billion to deliver a program to buy back and demolish over 1,000 houses in the ACT affected by Mr Fluffy loose- fill asbestos. This facility will, very specifically, allow the ACT to borrow up to $1 billion at the Commonwealth's interest rate for a period of 10 years, allowing savings to the ACT government. Because of the one-off size and the cost of dealing with this issue, it represents about a fifth of the ACT's annual budget. Without such a loan arrangement, the ACT's capacity to deal with this issue would have been significantly curtailed and threatened the ACT's credit rating.

Senator Abetz has noted that this loan will ensure that the ACT government is in a position to deliver a well-structured remediation program over the coming years. The Commonwealth has also offered to provide in-kind assistance in the form of expertise to assist the ACT in developing the program. This has been a bipartisan issue and I acknowledge the contribution of Chief Minister Katy Gallagher, Senator Seselja, Senator Lundy, as well as the members for Canberra and Fraser. The latter two have spoken eloquently in this House today.

The reason I am speaking on this bill is that the loose-fill asbestos problem does not stop at the ACT border. We also have issues in my state of New South Wales. It is known that houses in my electorate in Eden-Monaro have been affected by Mr Fluffy activities, principally in the 1960s and 1970s.

On 15 August 2014, for the first time ever, despite the matter being known about for decades, the New South Wales coalition government announced that it would be conducting a New South Wales WorkCover investigation to assist in determining the number of properties affected by loose-fill asbestos in New South Wales and how those properties have been managed in the past. It is my understanding that so far 13 affected properties have been identified in New South Wales, but the full extent of the issue is unknown. The New South Wales government is undertaking an investigation carefully and methodically and is offering a free testing service for residents in potentially affected local council areas. That government will be considering the findings of the investigation once completed and possible measures to assist affected householders.

Further, I want to report to the House that I recently had discussions with both relevant federal and New South Wales ministers on this topic—that is, Senator Eric Abetz and the New South Wales Minister for Finance and Services, Dominic Perrottet. I want to note that they are both keen to work together to get the best outcome for the people adversely affected by loose-fill asbestos in their residences. Although it has only recently done so, the New South Wales government has now submitted to the federal government a request for financial assistance in the matter while acknowledging that it will have a part to play itself in financing.

I am supporting the New South Wales government in its approaches to the federal government and have previously written and spoken to the federal minister asking whether federal government assistance is possible. As I have said, the New South Wales government has been proactive in doing something about the issue. It is undertaking the New South Wales WorkCover inquiry. To date, that has led to the methodical checking of nearly 600 homes across the state. At this point I want to emphasise that this matter is not a Queanbeyan issue or an Eden-Monaro issue alone but a New South Wales issue. The WorkCover inquiry covers some 26 local council areas, with seven in Sydney alone. I am in the process of writing to all my federal colleagues whose council areas have houses that are being inspected. These include the council areas of Warringah and Manly, which are in the Prime Minister's electorate; North Sydney, which is in the Treasurer's electorate; and Albury, which is in the electorate of the Assistant Minister for Education. The list also includes the members for Berowra, Mackellar, Bennelong, Mitchell, Bradfield, Riverina, Banks and Hughes. I will ask them all to seriously consider the matters at hand and support any calls for federal assistance from the New South Wales government. With their support, I would hope that there is an increased chance of assistance.

This is a major public health matter, traumatic to those affected, and my job is to do what I can to assist my constituents, particularly in Queanbeyan. Finally, I thank the House and commend the bill.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At last year's federal coalition campaign launch the then opposition leader promised that if elected he would govern for all Australians. A government must be ready, willing and able to commit itself and work towards improving the lot of all Australians, regardless of political affiliation or any other characteristic. Good governance is above politics. It is above the partisan divide. As such, this government has endeavoured to be an exemplar in bipartisanship and good governance. The ACT Government Loan Bill 2014 serves as a way to provide funding to the ACT government in order to carry out urgent work to preserve lives and protect health. This loan will help the ACT government to fund the purchase of affected homes, removing residents from the danger of Mr Fluffy. These properties will then be destroyed and the land sold off once the all-clear is given.

More than 1,000 houses are known to contain Mr Fluffy loose-asbestos insulation in the ACT. In the 1960s and 1970s Mr Fluffy pumped loose-fill asbestos into Canberran walls and ceilings to provide much-needed protection from chilly Canberra winter nights. While insulation is generally a much loved and cherished part of any home, Mr Fluffy was anything but. As we now know, and have known for some time, Mr Fluffy loose-fill asbestos, like all asbestos, is highly dangerous to one's health. Asbestos is dangerous to anyone and everyone; it takes no prisoners and casts no judgement. It is a silent killer. In the past, asbestos was commonly used in roofing and fire-proofing, or as insulation, as we see in this case. Sadly, it has remained undetected in many buildings across the nation.

And that is the problem here in the ACT, a problem that the loan authorized by this bill will go towards solving. Asbestos fibres permeate the air and, if inhaled, linger in the lung tissue of unsuspecting victims. As we know from the successful anti-smoking public awareness campaign, every cigarette does you damage. And just like cigarettes, every asbestos fibre does you damage. It cuts and tears at the lung, digging deep into the lung tissue. Over time, this builds up and up, and greater harm is caused. Sadly, continued exposure can lead to painful and debilitating diseases, such as mesothelioma and asbestosis. It can take years—decades even—for the harm of asbestos to be seen. The delayed onset of asbestos related diseases makes it even more terrifying than it already is.

Ever since we have known fully of the dangers of asbestos, governments—federal through to state, territory and local—have worked to minimise the risk and protect the people, which brings me to the crux of this debate. The government's role is to protect—protect property, protect lives and protect society. When thinking of the role of government I am often reminded of what President Reagan once said:

Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.

And often protecting the people involves one government working with another, just as we see in this bill. If the ACT government was to fund this on their own, it would total up to one-fifth of their budget. We cannot expect the ACT government to fund this up-front—nor would we want to—for many ACT residents would themselves suffer if the ACT government suddenly had one-fifth less money to deal with. It would mean a fifth less programs, a fifth less for community safety. In order to help the ACT government protect both those in homes ruined by Mr Fluffy and the wider community as a whole, we can and must provide this loan.

I look forward to the day when no Australian has to grow up with the fear of asbestos—the great unknown; the shadow behind every wall, in every tile and in every roof. Over the past decade, it has been my wont to stand up in this place to support brevity in our legislation. At only four pages long, though, I wonder if the present bill being debated is in fact too short and incomplete. The fear I have is of what might come from a lack of clear vision. There is no clear understanding or detailing of how the execution of the plan will look. In short, I want to see justice done for all the families suffering duress due to the Mr Fluffy disaster.

This disease, mesothelioma, is an insidious thief. It attaches to a healthy body and waits and waits. In fact, a person exposed to asbestos will only begin to exhibit the signs and symptoms of the disease many years after the incident. The heart-wrenching stories told by those diagnosed with this disease go some way to explaining the urgent need for this bill—as does an understanding of what it must be like to be a parent having have to constantly live with the fear that you might be consigning your child to a death sentence, a slow and painful death. Think of the children that have moved away. The fears of their fathers and mothers remain. It would be churlish to comment on the current investigations. However, I will make this point: I ardently hope that the plan to fix the situation today is executed in a fully professional and comprehensive manner. This is not what has happened previously. Remediation and amelioration programs in the past have been nothing short of debacles.

Fewer words leave less for specification. Without specification there is always the danger of the unintended consequences of project black holes and budget blow-outs. I welcome and support this bill and the succour it will give to many families here in the ACT. Indeed, by studying the issues around this bill, I have gained a greater understanding of mesothelioma. This understanding will not only help shape my policy responses to this crisis; it will act as a well from which to draw when we come to deal with our own issues in WA. There are many homes in my electorate of Tangney that have asbestos. It is impossible to put an accurate figure on the number of homes affected. Many live in blissful ignorance—or fear that their suspicions may be proved correct. Needless to say, one home endangering just one person's future life is one too many. It is terrifying to think that the thing we define as the embodiment of safety—our home, our castle—could give us a life-ending cancer. Time will tell who is at fault and if there were issues of responsibility or negligence on the part of the federal government.

What is beyond doubt, however, is the need to act. The hope must be that this is a bipartisan approach that not only appeals to 'the better angels of our nature'—to quote President Lincoln—but is a process of moving forward together. There is nothing so wrong with our community that cannot be fixed by what is right with our society. My thoughts and prayers are with those fighting a most terrifying battle. My hope is that, whether in Canberra or in Perth, they know that we in this place put the health and wellbeing of the people above all else. I wish them to know that in this their most challenging and dark hour, the light is not far away. It is always darkest before the dawn. I believe the spirit of Australia is a defiant, rugged resourcefulness and I hope that from some of these sufferings a terrible beauty can be born—a beauty of not having to repeat this sorry story again and of not having other Australians go through something similar in the future. That is my hope. That is my wish. This first step, this concrete action, will get concrete moving. People's lives will be able to be built again. They can move forward without fear; that is what this bill is all about. This bill will return a little hope, reward and opportunity to those who need it most.

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with a level of gravity that I speak on this bill, and I acknowledge all the wise words from both sides of the chamber. It is very nice to have members of parliament talking about something that is really about achieving a good outcome and cleaning up the mess of what was a mistake in the past. We do not know all the history of why people thought asbestos was safe, but we do know the consequences of asbestos in people's houses, of this particular product and what it is doing.

It pleases me somewhat that we live in a country where people are prepared to acknowledge and clean up the mess. I remember several years ago being in Odessa, in Ukraine, where you could still buy asbestos sheeting for roofing; it was quite common and people were still using it. It seemed to me somewhat appalling that we had learnt so much in modern First World countries but in Third World countries this dangerous product was still available and still being used; but, hopefully, we can replicate the knowledge that we have learnt.

This bill is about cleaning up a mess. It is about cleaning up a mistake of the past and also recognising that, to the average Australian, the great Australian dream is your family home. The home should be a place where you come and you feel safe. The home should be a place where you put your children to bed and know that they are safely in that bed. Even the thought that the house you are living in could be killing you, could be putting your children at risk, is a thought that is unfathomable. It is something that we, as Australians who value our home and value that as our major asset, really repulse against. Given that it takes so much to buy a house, it even takes so much effort to find a house, to then have a situation where your house is actually so dangerous that you cannot be in it, so dangerous your children cannot be it, is recognition of the need to do something about this.

I think the fact that the government is now providing money as a loan to the ACT government to allow these houses to be knocked down in a very controlled and knowledgeable way—now that we know how to minimise the risk of asbestosis and are able to clean those houses up, clean those blocks up, and of course those blocks will rebuild safe houses for many happy people to live happier lives in—is a great thing. This is going to be a very worthwhile thing. I think it does show that the Australian people, at times, will pull together; Parliament House can work collectively and constructively to minimise the risk for our people. It is for that reason that I very much commend this bill to the House.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I also join the debate in relation to the ACT Government Loan Bill 2014. I welcome and support the bill before the House. I would like to commend the many members who have spoken in relation to this bill and also commend the minister and the ACT Chief minister for working together to achieve an outcome of what has been a very long running saga. As the member for Canberra correctly indicated, it has been a long-running saga which has caused enormous distress and economic loss to people in the Canberra region and also beyond.

I think it is reasonable that we acknowledge today here in this place that without Commonwealth assistance it certainly would not be possible for the ACT to render the assistance it intends to provide for people affected by Mr Fluffy homes; the ACT's resources would be stretched beyond capacity. So I commend the Commonwealth government for working in partnership with the ACT on this issue. Also, in that same spirit of bipartisanship, I commend members opposite for the work they have done in supporting this bill which is before the House. In particular I would like to acknowledge the local members who are directly impacted by this issue: the members for both Canberra and Fraser, who have spoken quite passionately in relation to this issue. I was in the House just moments ago when the member for Canberra outlined some of the impacts of Mr Fluffy homes on people in her community. We sometimes forget in the hurly-burly of this place, in the robust exchanges that we engage in from time to time, that members of parliament, at the end of the day, are very human; they are very human faces in their community and are called on to do some very difficult jobs. I know you have been impacted by bushfires in recent years in your electorate, Deputy Speaker Mitchell, as have I been in my own electorate of Gippsland, and now there is this case for the member for Canberra. You cannot help be personally invested, emotionally involved, in the challenges that you face in your community. I could tell just by listening to the member for Canberra how this issue has had a considerable toll on her constituents and on the role she played in her community.

It is a funny job being a member of parliament, as I am sure members on both sides would acknowledge. In many ways you are a bit like a parish priest from time to time: you are out there to provide support and comfort to your flock, in this case your constituents. All thoughts of party and political backgrounds are thrown out of the window. It does not matter whether they voted for you or not—and you certainly do not care whether they voted for you or not—if they are in trouble and they need your help, it is the role of the local member of parliament to get in there and support your families, your constituents, to the best of your ability.

Those personal stories that the member for Canberra and others have relayed in this place are important as we consider what is basically an economic bill—a financial bill. The faces and the families behind the stories are important for us all to reflect on. It is enormously unsettling to consider the impacted families right across the ACT. As the member for Mallee quite quickly referred to—and the member for Tangney as well—people are very emotionally attached to their homes. It is horrible to think that your family home, the place where you feel your children will be safe, is the one place where their health has been possibly compromised unknowingly and unwittingly. If there is blame to be apportioned in the future then that should be the case. But to think that your family home is not a safe place, particularly for your children, is something that I think all members share their concerns with.

The scourge of asbestos in our community is something that all members would be aware of. We deal with what is a deadly threat right across the Australian nation. It was used for generations, and I think it will be here for generations in terms of the threat it presents to the Australian community. I would simply use this opportunity to appeal to anyone who is listening to today's proceedings to take the time to better appreciate and understand the potential dangers of asbestos in the home environment, particularly against the backdrop of the 'do-it-yourself' generation, who have a real interest in bettering our own homes and doing work in our own environment. Our professional tradesmen and the occupational health and safety officers in the workplace environment have been very good explaining the risks. People are well trained to manage asbestos in a work environment—far better than they perhaps were in the past. I think the home renovator, the do-it-yourself worker in the home environment, is the one who is perhaps most at risk into the future, unknowingly disturbing asbestos, releasing the fibres into the air in a manner which poses a potential health risk. Before they get to work on the next home renovation project, I urge people to take the time to understand what the potential is, in terms of exposure to asbestos in the family home environment.

In Australia, it is estimated that over 60 per cent of all production and 90 per cent of all consumption of asbestos fibre occurred in the asbestos cement manufacturing industry, with many of those building materials still in use today. The concern is that, after World War II and until 1954, in New South Wales alone, there were 70,000 houses built using asbestos cement. By any estimation, that, in one state, is an enormous number of properties that are potentially a risk to the home renovator. Deciding or figuring out whether you have asbestos and whether or not you need to take the appropriate precautions is very difficult. In many cases it is difficult to identify the presence of asbestos just by looking at it. As a general rule, I would encourage anyone to seek some professional advice before undertaking renovations on their own accord.

It is pleasing to note that new building materials containing asbestos since December 2003 have been banned from sale in Australia. It is pleasing that that has been resolved. But in terms of the residual issues, the issues associated with asbestos already in the home environment and in the workplace, there are still major concerns for our community. With those comments, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to support the ACT Government Loan Bill before the House, and I congratulate again the minister responsible, the Chief Minister of the ACT and all members in this place for the bipartisan way in which they have addressed this very concerning matter, and I thank the House.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to also thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence and the member for Gippsland for his words on this very important bill. I would like to thank all members, indeed, who have contributed to debate on the ACT Government Loan Bill. It is a good outcome for the people of the Australian Capital Territory to see the bill receive bipartisan support. I particularly want to acknowledge the contributions from the members for Canberra and Fraser who represent the people of the Australian Capital Territory in this place. I know that this is an important issue for them and for the people of the Australian Capital Territory, and we have heard them touch on some of the personal stories of those affected by asbestos in their homes in the debate today.

For many Australians, the decision to buy a home will be the biggest financial commitment they make over the course of their lives. Home ownership, for many people, is as much an emotional commitment as it is a financial one. To discover that the home you have lived in most of your life—the home you hope to raise your family in or the home that you hoped to grow old in—is infected with loose-fill asbestos is unquestionably distressing.

The remediation programme to be delivered by the Australian Capital Territory government will present the people of the territory with arguably their biggest challenge since the 2003 bushfires. Without the Commonwealth's assistance, the Australian Capital Territory's capacity to deal with this issue would have been significantly curtailed. By stepping up to provide this loan, the Commonwealth will ensure that the Australian Capital Territory government is in a position to deliver a well-structured remediation programme in the coming years. The execution of that programme is appropriately a matter for the Australian Capital Territory government.

This bill underpins the implementation of the government's commitment to the Australian Capital Territory, as announce by the Minister for Employment on 28 October 2014. The bill provides authority for the Commonwealth to enter into a loan agreement with the Australian Capital Territory for an amount not exceeding $1 billion. The bill also appropriates an initial amount of $750 million for 2014-15, with a further $250 million for 2015-16 to be appropriated through the budget appropriation bills.

The terms and conditions of the loan will be set out in the loan agreement to be concluded on behalf of the Commonwealth by the minister administering the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988, that being the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. A portfolio supplementary estimates statement for the Infrastructure and Regional Development portfolio has been tabled in the parliament. Once again I thank all members for their contributions and commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.