Deb Foskey in Public Housing Debate Gets More Exposure

What rubbish Maelinar speaks. Morality is a left/right issue, taxpayers own all government property, only right wingers toil. What absolute crap. The point here is that opinionated idiots like you are always right, your views are the only valid ones and we only exist in communities because you and those like you are willing to tolerate the human scum of the rest of us being able to breath similar air. For all your rules, wars and markets you fail to realise that there are no individuals there are only society, if the Thatcher line were true why don’t all the right wingers just fuck off and live by themselves in their own little nation states and pay the cost of everything as a user pays example of rightouessness.

That a MLA remains in a ACT Housing Property paying market rent dealing with such a bureacracy and putting up with publicly provided maintenance, is her decision, ethically ok or otherwise. It is within the rules. Security of tenure may strike you as a bad idea but there are benefits to the community as a whole.

I am sure you and your kind are very happy to play hard with the rules when it comes to tax, development and employing people so get off your horse and go away.

Word around town is that “our Debs” will be appearing on “Today Tonight” at 6.30pm.

Actually it’s not the rules that I care about (rules can always be changed if they are stupid, though I agree with you about retroactivity), I just don’t think that anyone should be kicked out of their house based soley on how much they earn. I believe this for a couple of reasons, firstly because if you do then people are less likely to want to cross that threshold (what ever it is), so your talking about a disincentive to work. And secondly I see no reason to force people out of their homes when they are paying market rent and so therefore neither costing the government money, nor taking a place from someone needy.

You’ve again talked about how she should be buying a house, but like I said earlier maybe she can’t get a mortgage (old age, lack of job security), or can’t borrow enough money to get a place in her electorate. I’ve always said I thought it was politically stupid for her to stay in public housing, but I’m willing to (and have) fight for the concept of tenure. This whole issue would be a non issue if there was enough public housing to go around, but as she’s not making the problems worse, and is in fact making it better I don’t really see the issue (well I do, but it’s all one of appearances).

P.S. I could be mistaken but I don’t think I had talked about the payrises at all.

Maelinar – I’ll take a look over the weekend & see if it can be changed. As long as it isn’t too disruptive to the rest of the page layout I don’t see why we couldn’t do that.

Jazz (RA)

JB: have you ever considered increasing the size of the ‘Your Comment’ box ?

*grins*

areaman, you missed my point.

However that’s no problem, you are a left winger and I am right (hope that’s not news to you), that’s one of the things that makes this country the unique places that I have been proud to defend in the past.

You just have far too much tissue paper stuffed into your ears to allow reason to penetrate into your argument.

I will state another example, and I am providing it as an example of the laws and rules of this country that you are so curiously abiding by even though you are a lefty and that’s traditionally something that us righties have been pedantic about:

The policy of changing prison sentences on a prisoner who has committed a heinous crime in order to keep them in jail longer.

As a central-rightie, I am dissapointed that the rules have been changed after the fact, because I know that if I had accepted my 25 year jail sentence, and then had it changed to 30, 40, 50 or even 75 years, I would make it my sole mission in life to escape such a ridiculous and inappropriate abuse of position of power.

This is regardless of the crime I had committed, at the time of sentencing if the punishment was deemed appropriate, I would accept that punishment, my statement is against the retrospective alteration of the playing field.

Now that’s an example of where if the situation changed I would buck and fight and kick and scream, reach for burning torches, pitchforks etc…

Your next argument is going to be that only reinforces your statement that she hasn’t done anything against the rules, and my argument strengthens your story that we shouldn’t kick her out because her situation has changed isn’t it ?

I was right wasn’t I ?

Well that’s where we differ, because it’s her that’s changed in situation, not the house, not the rules, not the laws.

If I committed additional crimes in prison I would accept the consequences of my actions as well.

Now let’s swing this back into the argument here:

I’m not disputing the fact that her situation was dire when she obtained public housing, nor do I dispute the fact that up to a certain limit you should be able to continue to stay in said house, regardless of ‘market rent’ or not. Frankly I’d love to market rent a house in Yarra-Yum-Cha for that amount of money a week, but I’m not arguing that.

I’m saying that upon taking up her position as a public figure, and obtaining a substantial payrise (I hope we’re not going to continue your diatribe about the lower scale payrises as previously discussed), the solution for me personally would have been obvious – start buying a house.

Rules, Laws, Market Rent still unchanged, that would have been my course of action because it is the most appropriate, and sensible thing to do.

And yes, I do believe that public housing is a privelege, all I need to do to justify that is ask anybody who doesn’t have public housing. If you want to have public housing for all and sundry as you seem to be continuing to advocate, then perhaps you should look into communism or socialism.

So here we are caught between the rules and commonsense, you on your left side, me on my right.

The fundamental change here is somebody has moved within social standing from nobody to public figure, with commesurate salary. Only a small amount of pitchforking in the right direction should indicate the way to go here.

I dont give a f^ck if you like the house, it’s not yours. It never was yours, It never will be yours. I dont give a f^ck if you elect to pay ‘market rent pennance’ in order to attempt to appease the rioters.

You know when something happens that’s quite extraordinary that just doesn’t quite fit within all the rules and laws that are in place ?

Well we’re there now.

When things get into that ‘grey’ area, it’s time to reapply our set of rules and balances to the situation. That’s where we are now.

No amount of heartfelt ‘but my workplace efficiency will be reduced by up to 25%’ is going to change the fact that upon reassessment, she’s on her ass with the rest of us getting told to swallow another shovelful of crap while our ever increasing social welfare economy is living off the fruit of us right wingers out there’s toil.

Somebody once said that ‘the pen is mightier than the sword’.

I say ‘Write that on Mr Pitchfork’.

Means Test her.

JB – if you want your rent to be lower you’ve got to accept one of two things. 1. have a co-tenant or 2. live somewhere cheaper.

The 25% rule for Housing ACT is on total household income (as a generalisation)

Other housing jurisdictions in Australia have a similar security of tenure arrangement so what we are doing here is nothing new. Deb Foskey is doing NOTHING wrong, nothing against any regulation, and nothing against the law. If you don’t like her situation; vote for someone who will change it in a few years time and then watch the carnage.

Hmmmmmmm……interesting !

I don’t want to discuss the universal declaration of human rights here. I will delete any comments which attempt to do so. That’s exactly how little I want that debate here.

But before we apply it to Deb Foskey I feel we should apply it to the kids in Quamby who’s rights under that document have been found to be breached.

And also, for everyone earning under $70,000, give me, and the rest of us, my guaranteed house and Deb can keep hers.

If my rent was guaranteed to never be more than 25% of my income I’d live my life very differently and much more happily.

And all the readers would have a much better website.

Areaman, you completely misread my post. No non-sequiter, no circular arguement.

ANy argument made for her can be turned right back on her, you don’t have to even refute. Because she is wrong on so many levels, which have been gone over ad nauseum on Riot ACT, it makes it all that much easier.

I’ve met her maybe once, but I think I’ve met Bill Stefaniak as many times. I didn’t even vote for her (well my vote didn’t get down to her, I probably had her prefenced somwhere in there). I’m not a member of the greens, never have been. I handed out some stuff for the greens about 10 years ago, but that’s about it.

You really don’t have a clue about this Maelinar do you. I’ll go through this point by point.

My comment on means testing was a reflection of the fact that for whatever reason or another, this person is getting a substantial payrise for 4 years or perhaps even longer. In anybody’s mathematics 100k a year is enough to put a roof over your head, and you have to be blatantly stubborn, hiding under a rock, and covering your ears with your left-wing tissue paper to deny that fact.

Yes it’s enough to rent somewhere else, that’s not the point. The point is that she shouldn’t be forced out because she now earns more.

As far as I am concerned, the rights of a public housing tennant start and end with the taxpayer who is putting them in there, as it is by our grace as a society that they have a roof over their head at all.

So housing is a privilege not a right? I’m pretty sure the universal declaration of human rights disagrees.

So as a taxpayer, I’m reaching for my flaming torch and pitchfork, because since I earn substantially less than that figure, and I’m expected to pay the exorbitant and inflated prices for a house in Canberra just like all us other middle classers out there, I feel robbed, disgusted and abused by a person in a public and high profile position flagrantly abusing the system to their own ends.

How many times do you have to be told she’s paying market rent. This means she’s not actually getting anything more from the system than someone with a private lease.

Now I’m not saying this is incentive to not get a job, infact I’m saying the opposite, what I am saying is that once you get into a job above a certain threshold, for example one where you can buy a standard 1br flat in Canberra within 3 years outright at your current wage comfortably, then it’s time to have a reality check.

Again your not making an sense. You say it’s not an incentive not to get a job, then you go on to explain exactly how it is. If you are going to kick some one out of their house if they are going to get a new job then they are less likely to want to get one, it’s as simple as that.

This by no way is intended at somebody in a public house getting a job down at KMart earning 30k a year, it is intended at somebody in a high profile position, earning a song, that if she had any financial sense in the first place would have been looking at buying a house as soon as she got the job.

I’m not sure how old she is, I’d guessing at least late 40s, and banks aren’t all that keen on giving mortgages to people that old, especially if there is a major chance that they might loose there job in four year.

Or perhaps I’ve just hit the nail on the head…

Cheap rent for 4 years offsetting your rent payed against a standard mortgage repayment against interest gained from your higher wages – and then buy a house outright ?

Not a dumb prospect given the house/mortgage prices these days, perhaps she’s not so financially deficient as I have already suggested…

Yet again, SHE IS NOT GETTING CHEAP RENT. My understanding is that she has no problem paying whatever ACT housing determines market rent to be, she just doesn’t want to leave her home.

I’m applying greengrocer math to this situation…

If there’s a rotten apple in the barrel you don’t leave it in there do you ?

My comment on means testing was a reflection of the fact that for whatever reason or another, this person is getting a substantial payrise for 4 years or perhaps even longer. In anybody’s mathematics 100k a year is enough to put a roof over your head, and you have to be blatantly stubborn, hiding under a rock, and covering your ears with your left-wing tissue paper to deny that fact.

As far as I am concerned, the rights of a public housing tennant start and end with the taxpayer who is putting them in there, as it is by our grace as a society that they have a roof over their head at all.

So as a taxpayer, I’m reaching for my flaming torch and pitchfork, because since I earn substantially less than that figure, and I’m expected to pay the exorbitant and inflated prices for a house in Canberra just like all us other middle classers out there, I feel robbed, disgusted and abused by a person in a public and high profile position flagrantly abusing the system to their own ends.

This has expanded beyond the scope of what the rules say, and has become a matter of removing the rotten apple from the barrel.

Now I’m not saying this is incentive to not get a job, infact I’m saying the opposite, what I am saying is that once you get into a job above a certain threshold, for example one where you can buy a standard 1br flat in Canberra within 3 years outright at your current wage comfortably, then it’s time to have a reality check.

This by no way is intended at somebody in a public house getting a job down at KMart earning 30k a year, it is intended at somebody in a high profile position, earning a song, that if she had any financial sense in the first place would have been looking at buying a house as soon as she got the job.

Or perhaps I’ve just hit the nail on the head…

Cheap rent for 4 years offsetting your rent payed against a standard mortgage repayment against interest gained from your higher wages – and then buy a house outright ?

Not a dumb prospect given the house/mortgage prices these days, perhaps she’s not so financially deficient as I have already suggested…

Regardless, Pitchforks and burning torches are needed somewhere here, even if it’s to remove the charred smoking remains of the rotten apple from the barrel…

No, that’s a bullshit circular argument RandomGit, she’s wrong because… she’s wrong?

As to your non-sequitur about locking bogans out of Yarralumla, so now your also going to limit public housing not only on salary but also on social group? “I’m sorry sir you can’t have anyhwere to live right now becuase we’re only looking for hippies”.

Yeah I know that, so this Foskey character is once again ruining it for everyone by locking Bogans out of Yarralumla.

You see? Any argument can immediately be turned back against her, because she is WRONG to be doing this.

ralph, the market rents for all properties in the portfolio are independantly evaluated and go through several checks and balances to ensure that they are correct. The fact that your friend is paying more is only an indication that the landlord there wants to charge more. Cladding isn’t really a major factor in determining the rent.

RandomGit – While the return on investment might not be as high given the potential sale price of that yaralumla property if Housing ACT sold all of their high price locations and bought cheap ones we would end up with our own version of macquarie fields. Housing ACT’s stock is deliberately diversified into the rest of the community to avoid this type of thing happening.

I have a friend who is (privately) renting a similar clad house in Yarralumla. She’s paying alot more than $270 a week.

$270 a week is probably all they can get for the place. Market rent is a tricky thing. They can try to jack it up as much as they like but market rent is only one of a number of factors that can be taken into account for a review of the rent payable.

What about the nasty old granny who got tenant of the month in todays CT. She is living in a three bedroom place and has been since the 60’s and it’s just her there. Just plain wrong. Boot her into Allawah I say. One bedroom is all she is entitled to. Get her out.

If it was all about propping up public housing and helping it do a better job, wouldn’t it make sense to sell one under utilised, high return Yarralumla location house to buy multiple useful family units in a cheaper suburb?

Someone is addicted to their upper class lifestyle methinks. That their moral arguments can be turned back against them should be picked up by her opponents immediately.

Last time I checked $270 was not the going market rate in Yarralumla.

jazz – Canberra Times reported recently that Dr Foskey pays $270 per week – I think it has also been confirmed by said MLA.

Today Tonight must be full of crap the claim “Apparently there are 6 millionaires living in ACT public housing properties.” can’t be substantiated unless they are cross referencing Tax records. ACT Housing DO NOT collect income details on anyone who does not apply for a subsidy.

JB – The market rates on Housing properties are quite accurate since they reinstituted rent review 4 years ago. Deb Foskey is very likely to be paying 450 a week for her yaralumla property.

Hmmmmmm …..it seems ‘Debs’ has instigated condiderable debate on the matter.

let the market forces do their work, and the more they earn the more they should contribute until they choose to enter the private sector I say.

Given that there is a limited stock of public housing, there should be a limit to how long people can stay once they have independent financial means. There is no value in having the well salaried ‘supporting’ the rest of the housing system if you gradually end up with more and more salaried people, leaving no housing for the genuinely desperate.
– Actually I think 25,000 (450.00 a week) is not a bad deal for a nice hosue in yarralumla…

Why Thumper, that would be the issue resolved surely?

And not just for Ms. Foskey.

Personally I think that $80k (with big pay rise to come) guaranteed for four years is a lot more income AND certainty than most people will ever know.

I also wonder if the Billions (with a B) of Government capital tied up in public housing stock couldn’t be better and more effectively used elsewhere. Replaced with rent assistance schemes and government bond guarantees for those in need.

But, leaving that all to one side. Deb Foskey has done nothing wrong. She has however, highlighted problems with the current policy.

Welfare traps are things best considered before welfare is given, not after the recipient is earning well over the average wage.

The sight of high income earners being evicted is (probably) not something Canberrans would relish.

But why turn once again to tired central administration when self interest can be relied upon?

Housing ACT charges 25% of income up to the so-called “market rents” (personally I’ve never seen a property in the real world going for anything like them but I’ll concede the theoretical possibility they exist).

Why have that cap?

Just take 25% of income, forever, and people will move out of their own accord at the appropriate time for them.

Thumper, I guess it’s about what you think the public housing system is for. I think it’s to give people of low means a home (and if these means change at a later date, so be it), you seem to be suggesting it’s to give them a roof over their head until they have any other option.

Sure crisis accomidation is very important, but when people aren’t costing the government money, and are actually earning it money, I don’t see the reason to kick people out of where they live.

The problem is that there isn’t enough housing for those who can’t afford to pay market rent, but evicitng people who can won’t solve that (as the pool will also have to shrink), what will is more money from the government to increase the stocks of public housing so there is enough to go around (as they had promised going in to the election).

areaman – I would say there is the trap of welfare dependance. But I doubt this will have any impact on public housing tenants on decent incomes. The only dependence here is on a public housing system that is not providing them with any real incentive to become financially independent (like the remaining 90% of Canberrans who do not, for either financial or personal/ethical reasons, access public housing)

To true wonsworld, my only problem is people who try and claim that Foskey is either taking a place from someone more needy (Today Tonight) or getting a subsidy from the government (crikey). Other than that it’s her call, and ours to judge her on it at the ballot box (as I’ve already said I think it’s politically foolish).

I’m not denying that private rentals can get you kicked just as easily as public currently, I was comparing the public system to a mortgage (as you had done in your comment).

The problem is that we are talking about adding in another clause where on top of all the otherways you can get evicted you can also get evicted if you start earning too much. Not only does this strike me as bad policy it reinforces a dependance on welfare (or poorly paid jobs).

Without wanting to get all Oprah about this. It’s not about money.. it’s not about tenure in a given property or even about the rights of the landlord..

IMHO it is simply a question of ethics. It’s about what would you do in that situation? We can moralise all we want about this issue… but in the long run the only person that answer the question is the current tenant and MLA and she can only answer that to herself.

Vital difference in your circumstances areaman – you are financially independent and maintaining a private tenancy agreement.

Those in public housing are not – the system they have tenure under is provided for by you as a taxpayer…by the way, I’m sure if you didn’t pay your rent, were prosecuted for illegal activities or damaged your property, your landlord would also reconsider your tenure.

If I had a mortgage I would in a sense have tenure, in that I couldn’t be kicked out if I continued to pay it back, which is way more lenient that the public housing system (who can kick you out if you wreck the place, perform illegal activities or don’t pay them). When does the bank review your tenure if you’re paying them back, also never..

Now I don’t have a mortgage and I don’t have tenure, but my landlord isn’t about to evict me if I start earning more either, which is what people are suggesting ACT housing do.

Evictor – I think you’ll find a lot of families in Canberra exist on around $40K and don’t live in public housing and would not be deemed as ‘on the bread line’.

I believe as it currently stands, if you go to apply for housing and earn more than around $40 to $45K you won’t be eligible for assistance.

Without the intention of entering into an ethical battle – does your landlord or bank offer you long term secure tenure? I doubt it.

For those on very decent incomes in public housing, how often does their landlord (in effect you) ask them to review their tenure? never.

Consider what is fair and equitable for those in public housing (exempting lower income earners/pensioners/centrelink recipients) and what you consider is reasonable from your landlord?

Maelinar, means testing still means turfing people out if they start earning more, hence are a major disincentive to work.

But Thumper if all the poeople paying rent move out you’ll reduce housing ACTs budget and they’ll have to reduce the amount of houses they’ll have, so you won’t really solve the problem will you? That being said I think it was stupid to stay in public housing afer she was elected, not wrong in any sense, but not very clever politically. Given the tight rental market currently maybe she just couldn’t find anywere (or didn’t have time to go house hunting).

Means Testing…

The bit about your family getting the house isn’t quite right. It doesn’t automatically happen however as a lease is constituted as ‘real property’ under the common law, it can be passed down in a Will. That is the position of the law – not an ACT Housing policy – they fought vigorously against it but lost in Supreme Court.

Feel a bit sorry for Foskey though. She’s earning a good packet now but what about in three years when she’s out on her ear. No cushy ‘jobs for the boys’ for her. She’ll be back to earning $40K in some community organisation and being on the bread line again. If she leaves her house she’ll be back on the waiting list as well and she could well be the one living out of her car boot.
I want to know when the ‘6 millionaires’ will be named and shamed.

So you think we should be kicking people out of their homes when they start earning more?

yeah areaman, but this govt would have you believe you could have one. the security of tenure policy sounds like a shameless vote grabbing exercise…

Because Today Tonight is a bastion of Journalistic integrity. My understanding is that tenure doesn’t necessarily transfer to the family. If they are also living there it might, but you don’t get a government house just because your mum had one.

Any given govt of the day (quite soon) will be faced with less market renters who subsidise the current system.

Without the big stick approach, surely there are ways to support people (over time) to move out of public housing that assisted them to allow for others to have the right (given that shelter falls under the basic human right) to access the service at the time when they need it the most.

No doubt now this will spark ‘what constitutes the real time of need’ debate! For some market renter tenants this means all their lives – who do you know living in private rental market or someone with a mortgage who has the luxury of tenure for life?

The Today Tonight story revealed that the ACT has a policy of allowing tenants to keep a public housing property for life – regardless of how their circumstances change. Additionally, when the occupant kicks the bucket, they can pass the public housing property over to family.

Apparently there are 6 millionaires living in ACT public housing properties.

I doubt anyone who’s in public housing was “rich” when they got there, but the question is should people be kicked out if they do start earning a good wage? If they can be given the boot then you’re just making more poverty traps as people wouldn’t find work if it meant they’d loose the roof over their heads.

As to the waiting list, kicking out people paying market rent would mean that ACT housing would have less money and have to sell properties to maintain the rest and you’d have the same problem with no enough housing, just with a smaller pool of both houses and tenants (arguably worse than it is currently as the people paying market rent actually subsidise the rest).

areaman – as opposed to someone waiting endlessly on the waiting list (who has next to no assets or a substantial income). Govt needs to find a more sustainable source of revenue than market renters who have the desirable position of maintaining a spot on the gravy train!

The govt must be loving this, a green who naturally would support the govt current policy that secures you a house for life.

Yet in a town full of bleeding hearts, both the greens/labour should be getting a roasting for not protecting the people in the poverty trap and sustain the perfect lifestyle for middle to higher income earners who have no conscience and believe social housing is their ‘right’.

yeah, but that doesn’t make nearly as sensational a headline areaman

Wouldn’t a policy of kicking people out of the house they have lived in for years if they earn more money a disincentive to work? If they’re paying market rent and subsidising the system for other people who actually can’t afford to pay then what’s the problem.

She responded to Crikey in their “Corrections, clarifications, comments & c*ck-ups” section on Monday.

I cannot find it on the Crikey site so here you go (please remove if this breaches some kind of copyright/RiotAct policy).

Canberra Greens MP Deb Foskey writes:
I read with interest Hugo Kelly’s comments about my housing situation. I do not remember Mr Kelly ever approaching me about this or any other matter. Linking it to the pay rise is a long shot – I first learned of this decision when I read my Canberra Times this morning. The Remuneration Tribunal makes a recommendation which is then adopted by the government without the Assembly playing any role. This is inappropriate. As for my housing, it is ACT government policy that tenants have security of tenure. Indeed, me leaving my house will do less for the needy people Mr Kelly probably has in mind than staying in it. Paradoxical I know, but the 13% of tenants who pay market rent contribute $19 million towards housing. Attacking me for paying market rent on my home a few months after election, and then linking it to a pay rise I do not support, is really an attack on the government’s policy of secure housing for all public housing tenants. At the moment my rent goes into building, purchasing and maintaining more homes for people who need them. Under the Liberals’ policy, it would go to a private landlord and do nothing for affordable housing. We need more public and other affordable housing – there is no other way we can tackle the problem.

Hmmmmm …. looks like Foskey’s back on the ‘burner’ again, ha,ha.