Everyone’s favourite tax sponge Deb Foskey has fired up the tofu-powered word processor to take issue with an opinion piece about the ACT’s woes by Angela Shanahan in The Australian.
Actually it’s a pity that Ms Tucker resigned. She was a decent alternative.
We need to keep tabs on the government to make sure they do purchase some new dwellings and not simply plough it back into the budget to cover their shortcomings in financial management.
Hear Hear Chris,
Now that the principle has been raised, move it onto the wider problem.
Re: the post-grad life, my comment was more aligned towards the fact she could have obtained employment at any time with the qualifications she had, yet decided not to. It wasn’t intended to be a slight on her choice to persue her Doctorate, merely the choice to continue living off the Government’s teat while doing so.
If I had my way, I’d be a Doctor as well, I’m sure everybody reading this post would have loved the opportunity to stay at school and obtain a doctorate of whatever field they consider they are best at.
The fact is though, most of us eventually find out that we have to take a break, obtain part-time work, or abandon our potentials due to lack of fiscal credit.
Heck, if I had the money do you really think I’d be sitting where I am right now over a beach in somewhere sunny and warm with a few lazy cocktails ?
As Chris quite rightly pointed out though, it’s time to switch focus to all of the other abusers of the system, since I haven’t yet heard of a Government refunding taxpayers due to the common perception that they are not spending their tax dollar wisely enough.
The point that Lex makes is a valid one – the money from the sale of the property will simply go into the overall budget, not specifically to purchase any particular properties. If one were silly enough to track the money through, it could end up anywhere.
I accept that Deb Foskey is her own worst enemy on this, and was either very foolish to continue her tenancy, or was poorly advised (or both).
The point remains that she was simply acting in accordance with the current ACT Housing rules. Vilifying one particular tenant is useful where it highlights a major discrepancy in the rules (and also probably a level of hypocrisy), but I think this debate needs to move on to the much wider problem where there will no doubt be many tenants paying this fictitious “market rent” who should be moved on.
Pressure now needs to be applied to the ACT Government to overhaul the way in which Housing is operated, and let’s get rid of the fiction that those paying full rent are supporting the system – obviously full rent means different things to different people.
I agree with Johnboy’s comment re studying – most of the PHD students I have known have had to tutor at some point to make do on the “luxirious” lifestyle that is post-grad life. Re: Deb’s ex-house, I will wait to see whether the ACT Govt will actually buy a (or 2) new residences (anywhere) with said money or whether they will use it for ACT Housing debt.
I thought Shanahan’s article could be summed up as “government by wankers for wankers”.
The writing’s already on the wall BT, if she doesn’t move out of Canberra to her interstate retreat after the next election she’s either dumb or stupid, take your pick.
Oh, I see.
A doctor in moonbat theory.
When’s the next election? Or rephrased, when’s she going on the waiting list?
Hehehehe.. She’ll be on the four year waiting list….
Noooooooooooooooo, she’s studied at the ANU!
I wonder if Deb’s going to go back into Govt housing once she’s kicked out of the Assembly next election?
Global politics of population according to this page.
As an aside, exactly what is the discipline to which deb’s doctorate applies? I’m assuming she’s not a GP.
Deb only opens her mouth to change feet.
Ohh, deb, why do you keep trying to defend the indefensible.
It was bad enough you harping on when “your” property was on the market and now you go to print again to demonstrate your stupidity and how out of touch you are with the real world.
As well as Ms Shanahan exposing deb’s shameless rorting of the system, her article is a damning indictment of the mayor’s delusions of grandeur that have emptied the till and left the ACT with a totally unnecessary deficit.
It’s sad to see all the good work done by Kerrie Tucker in making the Greens a viable alternative party (I think we need more alternatives on general principle) in the ACT being blown away by Dr. Foskey with her tin ear.
What’s worse is that suggestion, that the furor has been driven by the development lobby, is so deeply offensive to the very great number of people who thought that her occupying the house was (while technically legal) wrong.
And I agree with Angela Shanahan’s piece.
“As it is, my former house was sold for $665,000 and it will be knocked down and replaced by housing for a wealthy household. Public housing has lost another property and a family in difficulty has lost the opportunity to raise their child/children in a supportive
I seem to recall that the government said they can now purchase a number of properties with the money gained from selling the place.
As such the above statement by Foskey is a blatent lie.
Les, Foskey’s weasel words try to counter your point by talking of a “supportive neighbourhood”.
[Translation]: “I prefer to hob-nob with the Yarralumla crowd.”
To be fair it’s more than possible to tutor and study at the same time.
I just love the way in which Dr Foskey has gone out of her way to express woe at the fact the ACT Government housing has lost a property, but makes absolutely no mention of the fact that the sale price will allow the purchase of two further properties in a less affluent area, thereby INCREASING the pool of available housing.
The City's planning is divided between the ACT Government and the National Capital Authority, creating ongoing tensions. Should we abolish the NCA?