JON STANHOPE & KHALID AHMED look at the intimidation of Mr Fluffy property owners, some signing their homes away under duress. “There should have been consequences for public servants engaging in any such conduct.”
“I raised the possibility of staying on [in my home] in my one meeting with the TF. AK made it very clear that we would be harassed to our graves if we did.”
–A “Mr Fluffy” homeowner; Mr Fluffy Legacy Project: Consultation Outcomes Report and Recommendations; Community and Expert Reference Group (2019); Page 33.
“This highlights the fact that those of us who signed away our homes did so under duress with no idea of the alternative, and this is what I said to the taskforce person in front of me, looking them in the eye, before putting pen to evil paper.”
–Another “Mr Fluffy” Homeowner; ibid, Page 34.
So much for the claimed “voluntary” program of the ACT government!
In the previous article in this series, we revealed that the Asbestos Response Taskforce’s modus operandi was a compulsory acquisition of property, but without the compensatory requirements, in the statutes, for such an acquisition.
The comments published above, which are merely a sample, provide clear evidence of how affected homeowners were treated by the taskforce.
These statements from affected homeowners are contained in the Mr Fluffy Legacy Project: Consultation Outcomes Report and Recommendations prepared by Dr Sue Packer AM, a former Senior Australian of the Year and chair of the Community and Expert Reference Group (CERG) in 2019.
We do not know the identity of “AK”, who is alleged to have harassed a homeowner into signing away their home, but he/she was apparently a senior official with the Asbestos Response Taskforce.
The behaviour that is described, if it occurred, would surely be unacceptable from a public servant in any circumstance, but even more so when dealing with people in a vulnerable position and deserving of compassion.
We also do not know whether Suzanne Orr, the minister responsible at the time the report was presented, asked for an investigation of these and the many other claims of intimidation reported by CERG.
Nor, for that matter, is there any evidence of a response from the taskforce, or an inquiry by the Head of the ACT Public Service, or a Code of Conduct investigation by the Public Service Commissioner, or by an integrity body such as the Ombudsman.
We have no reason to think that the claims are untrue – they are included in the consultation report prepared by an eminent community representative appointed by the government.
However, it is reasonable that they be tested for their veracity. If found to be true, there should have been consequences for the public servants engaging in any such conduct.
Unfortunately, allegations of inappropriate or questionable behaviour extend beyond the taskforce to the ACT Government Solicitor’s Office, which in principle should be ensuring compliance with the law in its form as well as intent.
For example, from one affected homeowner:
“I have a copy of a letter from the government’s solicitor saying they wouldn’t accept my Under Duress letter. At least I have that in writing. I also noted at least twice, on other paperwork I was forced to submit to the Taskforce, that I was signing under duress. That paperwork was accepted. So somewhere in their records those documents should exist.”
–Another “Mr Fluffy” Homeowner; ibid, Page 34.
Here is a homeowner putting on the record that they were signing the surrender documents under duress, and they are not the only one.
If the government’s solicitor was aware of residents being forced to accept an offer under duress, and had that in writing, then surely it was their duty to advise the government that such a contract would be null and void.
Ordinarily, such conduct would draw a referral to the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner. Faced with the shock of losing their home, hundreds of thousands in costs, and being at the mercy of a disengaged bureaucracy, taking on the government and its lawyers would understandably be the last thing an affected homeowner would contemplate.
The CERG Report advises that their consultation program received more than 600 site visits via the online platform. In total there were 132 engagements either face-to-face or through the online platform.
We are aware of a much larger cohort of disaffected homeowners on an online page where around 450 one-time Fluffy-affected homeowners have remained in contact with each other, sharing similar stories and seeking understanding and moral support.
We have quoted only a small sample of comments relating to bullying and coercion to force people to participate in the so-called “voluntary” surrender program. It is clear from the comments included in the report, and we commend CERG for faithfully reproducing the affected homeowners’ views, that there was discontent with almost every facet of the program.
The CERG Report summarises the outcome of consultation as follows:
“Overall, respondents who participated in the consultation commonly expressed feelings of concern and dissatisfaction with the process of notification, acquisition and demolition.
“Many Mr Fluffy homeowners found themselves unable to re-purchase or re-build in the same location or wait for the land to be remediated, heightening a sense of displacement.
“For those who did re-purchase and re-build significant out of pocket costs were incurred. Ongoing health issues are a factor for members of the Mr Fluffy community and access to adequate services is needed, including mental health services, health screening, practitioner training and research.”
–What We Heard; Mr Fluffy Legacy Project: Consultation Outcomes Report and Recommendations, Page 11.
This is a surprisingly benign summary. Overall the comments in the report are confronting, reflecting raw emotion and deep-seated anger and frustration with both the program and the people administering it.
Was anyone satisfied? The CERG Report advises that only one submission received during consultation on the draft Mr Fluffy Legacy Project Discussion paper expressed satisfaction with the actions of the ACT government.
There may be more, as a small number of owners received a special dispensation and were able to, as the Standing Committee noted, demolish their homes themselves before the program was formally announced. They retained the ownership of the land, and received funding from the government for the dwelling, demolition and cleanup.
Excepting such treatment, the program and the taskforce’s behaviour were widely condemned by those subjected to it.
In 2022, the taskforce delivered its Closure Report – a self-serving marvel of bureaucratic self-aggrandisement. The Closure Report makes no mention of the serious allegations from numerous homeowners contained in the CERG consultation. Oblivious to those allegations, Minister Rebecca Vassarotti nevertheless commended the taskforce.
As for the transaction, we juxtapose the taskforce’s claim and another affected homeowner’s statement.
“It was presumed it was a transaction between willing buyer and willing seller.”
–Asbestos Response Taskforce Closure Report (2022), Page 26
“I was bullied into signing a contract which forced me to waive my rights – I signed under duress, which I wanted noted on the contract and was advised that if I wrote anything on the contract it would make the contract null and void.”
–Community and Expert Reference Group Report (2019), Page 16
Shameless and appalling behaviour? In a further column we will discuss the design of the scheme and how it shortchanged affected homeowners.
Jon Stanhope is a former chief minister of the ACT and Dr Khalid Ahmed a former senior ACT Treasury official.
Leave a Reply