Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Excellence in Public Sector consulting

Deb Foskey in Public Housing Debate Gets More Exposure

By che 7 June 2005 68

Crikey has this piece about the continuing debate on ACT Greens MLA Deb Foskey remaining in Public Housing.

Green Grinch gets the tabloid TV treatment
Hugo Kelly writes:

Canberra Greens MP Deb Foskey’s determination to bludge on ACT taxpayers and keep her public subsidised house has reached national tabloid TV, with Today Tonight following up Crikey’s story last night.
To her credit, Foskey did her best to explain why an MP on $100,000 should continue to live on public housing while on the other side of town, a single mum and her crippled son must live out of a car boot.
There are 4,000 people on the ACT public housing waiting list, but this doesn’t move Foskey, who’s intent on clinging to her taxpayer-subsidised home in comfy Yarralumla “because I support public housing.”
And it seems the ACT government’s Chifleyite desire to end the private rental market sits well with the selfish Green. Housing ACT gives priority to emergency housing – but exists to provide accomodation to anyone who would like it, including greedy MPs. Check out the unfolding debate here (http://the-riotact.com/?p=372).

Meanwhile, Foskey has been on the radio speculating (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1384597.htm) about how she’s going to spend her windfall pay increase: “Such a pay rise does enable me to support those organisations that I do like to support more generously and yes if this pay rise comes to me I’ll be certainly considering how I can spread it around a bit more equitably.”

Can we make a suggestion: get out of the public housing, take up a mortgage and let some more deserving citizen take your place. In the words of Naomi Robson (http://seven.com.au/todaytonight): “You can tell us what you think about a well-paid pollie occupying public housing on our website.”
Emails to boss@crikey.com.au.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
68 Responses to
Deb Foskey in Public Housing Debate Gets More Exposure
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Maelinar 1:40 pm 21 Jun 05

My comments on right and left were more appropriately indicative of my own personal position and that of areaman..

Nice points though lefties, tell it to the homeless people who don’t have a home because some wanker is holding up a roof in Yarralumla, even though they have the resources to put one over their heads.

That’s always been my argument line, and since all you whingey people have decided I’m wrong for stating it, you can tell it to the homeless. If you can’t find one, try shopping at Kippax Fair, there’s a regular guy there at the door begging.

Tell him that you support Deb Foskey staying in a house, Tell him that you think that security of tenure is more important than a roof over his head.

I bet you put on your warm non-fur non-animal rights offended designer-but-severely-increased-price-because-it-‘costs’-so-much-more-to-make-it-that-way coat to get there too. Perhaps you could leave it for him, he doesn’t have one.

He also thanks you when you give him money.

Get fucked for stamping your leftie bullshit on my conversation. Get into the real world.

johnboy 8:29 pm 20 Jun 05

We used to have a regular who worked in the industry but she a) doesn’t comment here that often any more and b) doesn’t work in that industry anymore.

My own interest is as a tenant.

why? 8:22 pm 20 Jun 05

So who’s the real estate agent behind this story missing out on more tenants?

johnboy 7:14 pm 18 Jun 05

Well it’s a big story for all the renters who would benefit from a larger, and thus more liquid, private rental market.

A bureacratically derived “market rent” with a bonus of secure tenure is quite the orwellian piece of doublespeak.

There might be an attempt to put something approximating a “market” value onto the rent.

But it’s still at least $400,000 in government capital tied up in giving Ms. Foskey a guaranteed roof. This is in turn reducing the liquidity of the private rental market AND maintaining the inflated market to buy a house.

All in all a poor use of resources.

But if you insist on viewing the world though the outdated prism of “left” and “right” then I imagine a great many things will continue to confuse you.

why? 6:48 pm 18 Jun 05

A interesting issue has been raised and in-between the polical point scoring some well thought out points seem to be have been made
Although ima disappointed in crickes handling of this story.
Nobody losses or wins here its really a stalemate. a non story, A interesting issue has been raised and in-between the polical point scoring some well thought out points seem to be have been made
Although ima disappointed in crikeys handling of this story.

funny funny man maelinar but you have one problem You think that everyone thinks like you or should
Comment by Maelinar — June 8, 2005 @ 4:18 pm
for your slander my votes
Upper House- Greens
Lower House- Labour
One thing that confusses me about this issue is that the right wing are against their own government profiting and the left are for it?
ie a market rate is worth more then what the house actualy costs to keep?
Really to me it seem like a case where both sides should be happy.

angryaltruist 11:58 am 14 Jun 05

If people want to contribute to the number of homeless children in Australia, abolish secure tenure. In the latest census 52,700 children connected to families were rendered homeless. Secure tenure means that if a single parent loses their job, due to illness or a run in with the future Fair Pay tribunal, then their rent reduces accordingly.

If the parent cannot pay the market rent in private housing, clearly the private landlord cannot decrease rent to accommodate the loss of income.

There is new kind of homelessness emerging in Australia – families who can’t pay market rent.

Sure, give Foskey the boot. Then you can boot every single sole parent out of ACT Housing who is trying to do the morally responsible thing by working.

It’s a fantastic way to increase the waiting list for public housing. Then we can start working on getting those disabled bludgers out of public housing; they can make way for the needy too.

angryaltruist 11:57 am 14 Jun 05

If people want to contribute to the number of homeless children in Australia, abolish secure tenure. In the latest census 52,700 children connected to families were rendered homeless. Secure tenure means that if a single parent loses their job, due to illness or a run in with the future Fair Pay tribunal, then their rent reduces accordingly.

If the parent cannot pay the market rent in private housing, clearly the private landlord cannot decrease rent to accommodate the loss of income.

There is new kind of homelessness emerging in Australia – families who can’t pay market rent.

Sure, give Foskey the boot. Then you can boot every single sole parent out of ACT Housing who is trying to do the morally responsible thing by working.

It’s a fantastic way to increase the waiting list for public housing. Then we can start working on getting those disabled bludgers out of public housing; they can make way needy too.

johnboy 9:44 pm 09 Jun 05

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.

That I am painfully aware of.

For the privileged MLA however she has the freedom (courtesy of the taxpayer) to change her lifestyle without changing her residence.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site