Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Politics

Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

More allegations against Foskey

By Ralph - 10 June 2005 36

Following recent coverage on the Deb Foskey rental property fiasco, tabloid current affairs show Today Tonight has revealed new allegations against Ms Foskey.

Apparently Ms Foskey is a part owner of a substantial parcel of land in Victoria’s Gippsland region. It has also been alleged that Ms Foskey is receiving a rental income from this property. In addition to RiotACT, you can also vent your spleen on this issue at the Today Tonight website.

Given this new information I believe that Deb Foskey has two options:

1. Vacate her Yarralumla rental property; or

2. Resign from the ACT Legislative Assembly.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
36 Responses to
More allegations against Foskey
1
Canberra_unsung_hero 8:35 am
10 Jun 05
#

Yer really creating heaps of debate Debs !

Report this comment

2
areaman 10:12 am
10 Jun 05
#

According to the Canberra Times “substantial” is one third of $120,000 property they’ve owned since the 70s apon which she collects a one thrid share of $40 a week. Certainly not comparable to a house anywhere in Canberra, which is, I’m guessing why ACT housing didn’t think it was an issue when they means tested her to get her house.

Report this comment

3
Indi 10:43 am
10 Jun 05
#

The issue here may well be that Deb Foskey had mislead her employer (you) when disclosing her interests – according the Canberra Times, she only amended her declaration of an interest in a property in Victoria recently.

Covering tracks isn’t going to wash – vacating the property will still leave her in the position of discrediting herself by not being fully up front about her financial position (which politicans must do with their employer by disclosing interests).

Report this comment

4
Ralph 11:00 am
10 Jun 05
#

For these reasons, I believe it is prudent that she resign as an MLA.

Report this comment

5
GuruJ 11:15 am
10 Jun 05
#

I think the whole debate highlights the fact that actually buying public housing is not the way to go in this day and age. Deb may not be a drain on the ACT purse, but her presence in an ACT-govt-owned house ties up capital that could be used for other people.

If the ACT government didn’t buy the houses, but simply subsidized the rent of those who needed it, this whole issue would go away. Surely it wouldn’t be hard to find landlords who would be prepared to make properties available at a discount in exchange for a permanent, AAA tenant (ie. the ACT government).

In this scenario, Deb Foskey would clearly no longer qualify for assistance since she earns too much, but she also wouldn’t have to relocate from the house she has lived in for 15 years without chewing up the ACT Public Housing capital funds.

Report this comment

6
michael 11:32 am
10 Jun 05
#

Maybe this needs to be separated from the whole public housing debate.

Deb Foskey didn’t seem to see that her being in public housing was going to create political trouble amongst some sections of the community, nor did she have the sense to properly register her interests.

Some pretty glaring examples of complete obliviousness to her surroundings, and we let her make decisions about the territory?

Report this comment

7
areaman 11:35 am
10 Jun 05
#

Actually Indi she didn’t mislead anyone (according to the Canberra Times). What the story actually said is that she only recently ammended it to include the value of the property and the rent she was getting (which she’d only been getting since January, long after the statement would have been initially lodged). The actual share in the property would, I assume, have always been in the statement.

Report this comment

8
Chris 12:22 pm
10 Jun 05
#

Foskey’s hypocrisy astounds! Here is someone who is well and truly on the ACT gravy train and has the nerve to try and pass herself off as one of the masses! That’s what I hate about the Greens/Greenpeace etc. – they’re such ratbag HYPOCRITES !!!

Report this comment

9
Canberra_unsung_hero 12:30 pm
10 Jun 05
#

Geesh…. I see the “Foskey Debate” is STILL going on .

Report this comment

10
bulldog 1:04 pm
10 Jun 05
#

Is a load of sh*t any way you look at it. There are legitimate folks who are placed on ridiculous waiting lists for Public Housing currently residing in emergency accomodation with the junkies and alchololics. Give them Deb Foskeys place, and if Ms Foskeys need for government subsidised housing is legitimate, she should then turn up at the emergency accomodation centre. I don’t think so!

She should relinquish her subsidised accomodation! The rest of us have to work our asses to the bone in order to pay mortgage/rent and here is an politician (who just received a princley pay-rise if I’m not mistaken) taking advantage of the system AND the good folks of the ACT.

As that jackass Hinch would say; Shame Shame Shame. Does Deb Foskey have a site we can offer constructive criticism on?

And on the Property in Vic. Beautiful country in that are, and did I hear that it is 300 acres? Are you trying to tell me that there is someone on a 300 acre propert in the high country who is paying $120 per week rent? Now THAT sounds like subsidised rent!

Report this comment

11
Jazz 1:48 pm
10 Jun 05
#

Bulldog – at what point did we establish that Ms Foskey is getting her rent subsidised but mr & mrs Taxpayer??

Report this comment

12
areaman 1:49 pm
10 Jun 05
#

bulldog:
1) it’s not subsidised accomodation (as she’s paying market rent)

2) I could be wrong (and probably am this is a third hand account of it) but I think you’ll find they are paying $40 a week in total. There are some complicated details about how the tenants used to live next door and their house burnt down in the bushfires, so now they are paying nominal rent to help fix up the exisitng place that was on the Foskey land.

Report this comment

13
llib 2:05 pm
10 Jun 05
#

this is a complete storm in a teacup. ralph you are out of your mind.

one of the main points of public housing is the security of tenure. before becoming an MLA, deb foskey was entitled to public housing, and she is entitled to stay there until whenever she wants to leave. the idea is that those who were entitled to public housing but are now earning enough to pay market rates is to ensure that if their situation changes for the worse they don’t have to start from scratch. and she is subsidising those in public housing who aren’t doing so well and so aren’t paying market rates.

/lib

Report this comment

14
Ralph 2:13 pm
10 Jun 05
#

I beg to differ.

Report this comment

15
bulldog 2:32 pm
10 Jun 05
#

Who decress ‘market rent’? I would be curious to know what she is paying to live in this property, bear in mind it is Yarralumla. I have friends who are paying ‘market rent’ and it seems that the powers that be have checked the market value of the property three or four years ago.

In any case, as a renter she does not have to pay rates and ULV; the Government does. Therefore her accomodation is subsidised in my eyes (and I think in the eyes of many).

Jazz and areaman, do you think it’s right that after an MLA should be taking advantage of ACT housing when she can clearly afford to move on? If she paying ‘market rent’ as you put it; and it was a true reflection of the market, why is she still in a govy when she could move out to weston, belconnen into far more luxiurious housing?

It’s a crock. These people should be leading by example.

Report this comment

1 2 3

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

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

Search across the site