Vaughan Cox presentation on the problems with the ACT Gov. buyback scheme for Mr Fluffy Home owners

1. Mr Fluffy Crisis
• 1968-78, “Mr Fluffy” installed in some 1050
ACT homes, also Qbyn and SE NSW
• Govt advisers recommended against it
• 1988-1992 Cwth/ACT remediation program.
Houses ‘cleared’ of loose-fill asbestos
• Advice at time that there were residual fibres.
• ACT Govt reports in 2005 and 2010?
• Downer House (2013)

2. ACT Govt Buyback Scheme
• 1021 houses
• ‘voluntary opt-in’ scheme, ACT will purchase
homes at 28 October 2014 market value
• Average of two independent valuations
• $10K + $2K per child relocation cost
• Reimburse stamp duty (‘waiver’) on value up to
value of buyback home
• First dibs on cleaned block at new market value
• Buyback closes 30 June 2015

3. Buyback Issues
• Value set at 28 October 2014
• REIACT says fluffy crisis will have a ‘serious’
impact on home values, rising market
• Must borrow/pay interest on stamp duty
• ‘waiver’ only applies to ACT
• For many, relocation costs insufficient
• Many other costs not addressed
• No realistic ($$, timing) scope to buyback
block, increased value/3-5yrs out

4. Buyback becomes ‘Payback’
• Payback starts 1/7/2015 - details unclear, intent
clear
• Restrictions on home use, irrespective of
condition? (e.g. no central heating, cooling)
• Asbestos management at owner cost. New laws to
target fluffy owners.
• ACT Govt releases the list of homes.
• Threats of forced acquisition, MV will reflect
asbestos contamination.
• No Buyback ‘concessions’.

5. My family’s concerns
• Buy block at ULV and rebuild option not available
• Delays finding a suitable replacement home, in a
thin, rising/bubbly market, bidding against other
fluffy owners and new entrants
• Borrow/pay interest on stamp duty, SD waiver
budget neutral. Should waive all SD.
• Amend the Act to ensure asbestos excluded from
forced acquisition market value
• Living areas loose fill free, no restrictions required
• Provide support and incentives, not
coercion/threats.

6. Myths
• Its voluntary!
• Its flexible!
• Fluffy owners would benefit from more Fed
cash. No – will only improve ACT budget
bottom line only