Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Politics

Sponsored by Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

Minister announces ACT Tennant and Garden of the year but avoids awarding Freeloader of the year award

By Jonathon Reynolds - 7 December 2005 64

Minister Hargreaves has announced the winners of the ACT (public housing) Tennant of the year and garden of the year awards. The media release can be read here .

Congratulations to these two people who seem more than worthy for the accolades they have been given – I’m sure they will be given a nice plaque for the wall or trophy to sit on the mantelpiece for their efforts.

There was great anticipation and expectation that the inaugural ACT Tennant Freeloader of the Year may have been awarded to fellow MLA Deb Foskey. Unfortunately it appears that Ms. Foskey missed out this year and can continue to sleep soundly in the knowledge that she continues to block (by insisting that she will remain living in a ACT Housing property instead of renting on the open market) those genuinely needier and on a fraction of her income, access to Government accommodation.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
64 Responses to
Minister announces ACT Tennant and Garden of the year but avoids awarding Freeloader of the year award
1
areaman 1:39 pm
07 Dec 05
#

Except that it’s not how the ACT public housing system works. It’s pretty simple, but I’ll explain it again for the slower amongst us. People who pay market rent for pubic housing make a profit for ACT housing, that profit is put back into expanding the stock of public housing, ergo not having people paying market rent in the system would mean there would be less houses in total. So in other words no one paying market rent is “blocking” anyone else, and anyone who still thinks so is either horribly misinformed or a complete moron.

I agree, living in public housing as an MLA looks bad and is politically stupid, but it doesn’t actually disadvantage anyone else.

Report this comment

2
Mr_Shab 1:49 pm
07 Dec 05
#

If Foskey was paying ACTUAL market rent (somewhere around the $450-$500/week mark in that suburb, rather than the pittance she actually coughs up), perhaps fewer people would find her situation so galling.

I’m not going to argue the point any further, because I’m sure there’ll be a queue of RA contributors lining up to take a swing at you, areaman.

Report this comment

3
Maelinar 1:54 pm
07 Dec 05
#

Areaman, again I’ll inform you;

Housing stocks are the terminology applied to housing companies, such as the Defence Housing Authority, ad nauseum. They are the people who are in the business of making money out of housing.

The ACT Government isn’t in the business of making money out of housing, and therefore the structure behind your entire argument is flawed.

The public housing department gets allocated money by the ACT Government. They don’t obtain profit from housing stocks that are collecting ‘market rent’.

They also probably have a maximum cap of housing imposed upon them by the government, further enhancing the requirement to piss off dead weight and house those who are in the most need.

As far as I have seen, Deb Foskey isn’t in need of anything other than a diet and some time with the two chicks from what not to wear.

Report this comment

4
Thumper 2:09 pm
07 Dec 05
#

I’m not even going to comment on the Foskey issue, except that i just did….

Congratulations to the winning tennants, it makes up for the others that have three and a half falcons in various states of disrepair on their front lawns, grass six foot high, no fly screens, and sometimes no doors, and a dozen mongrels in the backyard.

okay, bad stereotype. I retract it.

Report this comment

5
bulldog 2:23 pm
07 Dec 05
#

Thanks Mael, you saved me the time from pointing much the same thing. Any alleged ‘market rent’ collected by ACT Housing goes into consolidated revenue.

Is anyone able to find out an ball-park of what Ms Foskey is paying? I’ve said it before, but I am truly curious to see just what is deemed to be “market rent”.

Report this comment

6
areaman 2:37 pm
07 Dec 05
#

I really should just ignore you Maelinar, because you never seem to do any research at all, which is just slack and shows how little you think about what you’re posting. Profits from market rents don’t go back in consolidated revenue and are instead used by ACT Housing to subsidise other people in public housing. Proving that at least one of us bother to do some research, from the
Final Report on Affordable Housing in the ACT: Strategies for Action

areaman said :

The Taskforce recognises that under existing arrangements market renters cross-subsidise rebated tenants as ACT Housing does not receive a funding allocation to cover rent rebates that total almost $40 million per annum. Market renters accounted for 36 per cent of total rent collected or approximately $19 million in 2001-02. Replacing market renters with tenants on rebated rents,
would create a minimum revenue shortfall of approximately $12 million per annum for ACT Housing.

In addition, there is no cap on how many houses they can own, and if you’re going to make stupid shit up, you could at least make it believable. There are plans for how much new stock they will buy, but this is limited by funding, not by legislation.

Report this comment

7
areaman 2:41 pm
07 Dec 05
#

bulldog, as I just said market rents don’t go into consolidated revenue and I doubt anyone paying market rent has issue with paying what ever it is deemed to be, but that is an issue with the independent assessors they use not for the tenants.

Report this comment

8
Kandy A 2:44 pm
07 Dec 05
#

I will gladly swap my current ACT Housing neighbours for Ms Foskey. I would also be pleased to swap existing horrors for up to three and a half falcons disrepaired, grass of any length, no doors, and anything less than a dozen mongrels in the backyard. Can ACT Housing arrange such swaps?
Im living next to Bad Boy Bubby’s mum

Report this comment

9
Indi 2:58 pm
07 Dec 05
#

I discovered a document entitled the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement – a major tenet of the agreement stipulates the following:

In entering into this Agreement the Commonwealth and the States recognise that the provision of housing assistance to people requiring access to affordable and Appropriate Housing is essential to reduce poverty and its effects on individuals and on the community as a whole. The aim of this Agreement is therefore to provide appropriate, affordable and secure housing assistance for those who most need it, for the duration of their need.

I was encouraged by the statement as it implies that a person in need can access housing assistance when they need it, for the duration of need. This could be construed as the central point of the argument to be had in this thread – the State will gladly support you and offer housing (subsidised for all tenants, regardless of status) and when you no longer require it due to a change in your personal/financial position, you move on and allow another needy person the chance to make a better life for themselves.

I’m of the opinion that Social Housing is an essential service and any government should be working towards fulling funding it as part of the social welfare ‘net’ and not attempt to operate it as a ‘profit making excercise’ via collecting full rents to cover the rest.

When the number of full market renters has dwindled to around 13% now and will obviously continue to decline, how prepared will government be to fund the ‘loss’?

Report this comment

10
areaman 3:05 pm
07 Dec 05
#

I still don’t see the need to force people to move out of their home just because their financial situation has changed, as long as they aren’t costing someone else a spot (which people paying market rent aren’t). Sure we should encourage it (for their own benefit as much as anythign else), but I’ve yet to hear an argument for why we should force them out.

Report this comment

11
jr 3:11 pm
07 Dec 05
#

Areaman – I have no problem with ACT Housing running at a (greater) loss so long as they can ensure more (or preferably ALL) people who are in genuine need of Government accommodation are properly catered for.

Whilst we have the likes of Foskey occupying an ACT housing premise there will always be someone else that misses out.

Remember that she is earning close to $100K (if not more) for a guaranteed minimum of four years (what does the affordable housing report say about where the poverty line is?). Come the end of the current govenment term should her circumstances change such that she once again could be eligible for Government accommodation then she should be required to join the end of the queue like everyone else.

Unfortunately the current ACT Housing policies allows the like of Ms. Foskey to keep her snout in the trough and continue feeding regardless of circumstances.

Report this comment

12
bulldog 3:12 pm
07 Dec 05
#

areaman – hold the phone, I am going through the linked document and found that;

a) it was published nearly four years ago – some of the data used is from as early as ’96!
b) it sems more than a little contradictory in it’s reccomendations and it’s ‘current’ (and I use that term loosely) modus operandi.
c) it’s exceedingly dull. More dull, in fact, than a night at the cross with Fred Nile.

Now, as I am no techno-nerd, if I ever work out how to cut and paste from pdf’s I will be happy to point out some of this seemingly flawed logic.

I will however concede that I was unaware that rent collected did not go to consolidated revenue.

However – “ACT Housing does not receive a funding allocation to cover rent rebates that total almost $40 million per annum.” This mentions nothing about ‘market rent’ collected being used for the purchase of new housing stock, merely that it can assist in offsetting the subsidies handed out to people requiring rental assistance.

Time for a retraction of your own before we move on to round two. Here’s what I’m talking about;
“but I’ll explain it again for the slower amongst us. People who pay market rent for pubic (sic) housing make a profit for ACT housing, that profit is put back into expanding the stock of public housing, ergo not having people paying market rent in the system would mean there would be less houses in total.”

Report this comment

13
Jazz 3:29 pm
07 Dec 05
#

Nicely done Areaman. Despite that document being 4 years out of date that is still how it is done.

Mael – even in public housing the properties are refered to as housing stock.

In all state and territory housing bodies there is an element of full rent paying tenants (% veries between states) and invariably, that revenue is used to offset some of the cost to state governments of running a subsidised housing program. The Commonwealth State Territory housing agreement sets out guidelines and obligations to each state govt that it must meet in order to get a slice of the commonwealth pie allocated each year to fund housing programs.

Report this comment

14
areaman 3:31 pm
07 Dec 05
#

bulldog, well yes an no. Technically they don’t buy any more housing, but that’s because, in my understanding, the percentage of people paying full market rent is pretty stable and so they subsidise the other existing tenants. Now if the amount paying market rents grew ACT housing could buy more houses, and if it shrank they would have to sell some. So the correct way to put it would be that that profit is put back into subsidised public housing tenants, who already cost more than government is able to fund. That doesn’t however invalidate my final conclusion that not having people paying market rent in the system would mean there would be less houses in total.

Jr, ACT housing can’t just run at a loss for ever, so if you want it to continue to have the same amount of housing stocks as it currently does it either needs to get significantly more money from the government (from higher taxes or other service cuts) or make profits from other parts of it’s business, which is what it does now. Not I’m all in four of higher taxes for better services, but I’m not sure if the rest of the populace is with me.

But that leads on the bigger issue of if she’s costing someone else a spot, in the current system she isn’t. If she wasn’t there there would be less houses in total. The fact of the matter is that there is no snout in the trough as she’s not getting any extra money from the government, instead she’s actually giving to needy people in the form of housing subsidies rather than just to wealthy landlords (not that I’m claiming we should all be living in public housing, but I don’t see the need to kick some one out of their existing home after their finances change when they aren’t costing anyone a spot and are actually making the public work better rather than worse).

Report this comment

15
Jazz 3:32 pm
07 Dec 05
#

bulldog,

everything areaman has said in this thread to date has been spot on

Report this comment

1 2 3 5

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site