More allegations against Foskey

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, or connect with
36 Responses to More allegations against Foskey
Canberra_unsung_hero Canberra_unsung_hero 9:27 am 15 Jun 05

Don’t get angry angryaltruist — get even !

Ari Ari 8:51 am 15 Jun 05

“If she moves out because her position as a working single mum is indefensible” … yeah, right.

Nobody’s attacking her because she’s a working single mum, but because she’s a highly paid politician rorting a stupid system.

This whole affair fails the sniff test, and any tortured form of logic to justify her actions simply looks ridiculous.

The wider community doesn’t seem too keen on forking out their own money to prop up such outrageous middle-class welfare.

The rules will eventually be changed – hopefully whatever new system comes out will maintain fairness for the genuinely needy.

If it doesn’t, those affected can thank Deb Foskey for hardening community attitudes.

johnboy johnboy 11:34 pm 14 Jun 05

Well the local media is more fiery than it used to be. (nothing to do with me guv, never saw it before in me life)

It was wrong then, it’s wrong now.

security of tenure is one thing but the price of that security shoud be uncapped rents.

in the good years (like when they get elected to parliament) they can pay above the market price to keep the palce in the bad years.

I would say 30% of income is a good payment for housing, charge that out without capping and we’ll have a good system that meets everyone’s desire for public housing IMHO.

angryaltruist angryaltruist 10:42 pm 14 Jun 05

She can’t defend their interests from private housing, Ari, because she is in exactly the same position as those she is defending.
If she moves out because her position as a working single mum is indefensible, then logic dictates that all other working single mums in public housing are also in an indefensible position.

Get some Aristotelian sylogisms up yah.

One does have to wonder, however, why this wasn’t anticipated by the Greens? Surely they would have realised that this would be unearthed and create a quagmire of debate.

Secure tenure will not be safe while a politician possesses it: pollies shouldn’t get payrises (lets forget why we started paying them in the first place – corruption) and they certainly shouldn’t be single mum’s who are not absolutely self-sufficient with a fish and chip or a nice, rich husband.

Why is this?

Anyway, this happened ten years ago. Anyone remember Rosemary Follett? She did the same thing. Our memory for history is short, but politics, even shorter.

Indi Indi 4:31 pm 14 Jun 05

Govt of the day will a sure as the sun sets have to come to terms with a shift in public opinion on what constitutes security of tenure and how long a tenant should be able to maintain a public housing tenancy (and therefore a shift in mentality by govt official is required to change the financing/resourcing of the public housing system).

It would appear that there is no intention by either side of politics to ‘turn out’ the tenants who truly require housing assistance. The wedge politics seem to surface when comments are directed at specific case management of tenancies, that would inevitably lead to the questioning of who needs/no longer needs the service.

By not carefully considering her own tenure when entering public office, Deb Foskey inevitably faced the risk of her own circumstances being brought into the public spotlight and quite rightly deserves the scrutiny. Whether she stays put or moves out, well that debate doesn’t matter when you have the luxury of fencesitting.

Ari Ari 3:15 pm 14 Jun 05

Why can’t she defend their interests while living in private housing?

angryaltruist angryaltruist 2:31 pm 14 Jun 05

If Deb does move out, that could create a political space open to abolish secure tenure, a concept that seems to antagonise many people.
I have a friend, single parent, contract worker, who lives in community housing. On several occaisions, there have been issues that have forced her to cease work – ie sick child, or she becomes ill. When this happens, she doesn’t have to move into a crisis shelter with her children, but can stay in her community house.
Why should people be forced back onto crisis lists because they have to move to private rent? This is such specious reasoning.
The Deb debate is a huge red herring.
Many people who work and possess secure tenure do so because they are disabled, have complex needs, or are single parents.
Deb’s tangle with the media has made an easy target out of a lot of people who cannot defend themselves should secure tenure end.
She is in a lose-lose situation, and I pity her position: if she stays, then she’s bloodsucking single parent scum. If she goes, then she lets down a lot of families who require that she defend secure tenure adequately.

Maelinar Maelinar 11:57 am 14 Jun 05

areaman, stand in the way of the pitchfork…

The one with ‘Tell that to Mr. Pitchfork’ written on it.

You’re restating the same tired excuses that were covered in the last rant about this topic.

Again, you should look into Communism, I think you will find a home there.

johnboy johnboy 1:28 pm 11 Jun 05

well she hasn’t said she’s going to move out.

but as she’s been true to the principals she was elected on i don’t see resignation as being the way forward.

Canberra_unsung_hero Canberra_unsung_hero 12:38 pm 11 Jun 05

Yeah, I saw it on TV….sure didn’t look like much.

redneck_ninja redneck_ninja 11:41 am 11 Jun 05

Has anyone actually seen the house? I know everyone’s caught up in the principal of the matter, but even though its in Yarralumla, its a dodgy 60’s weatherboard house. It’s a renovators dream, and as soon as it’s sold, it will become another giant concrete lego construction. Big deal. Much, much worse things have happened in politics, even in Canberra. She’s going to be moving out, she doesn’t need to bloody resign, so stop bitching about something that really is pointless.
Settle Gretel.

Ralph Ralph 8:10 pm 10 Jun 05

Here here.

Vic Bitterman Vic Bitterman 8:03 pm 10 Jun 05

Foskey needs to resign, quick smart, to save any further embarrasment. Both to herself, the pathetic party she ‘represents’ and to the entire Canberra community who props up social housing via taxes.

johnboy johnboy 7:26 pm 10 Jun 05

BTW I think it’ll be great if Ms Foskey and the Government maintain the status quo until the next election.

Great for every other party hoping to run that is.

johnboy johnboy 7:25 pm 10 Jun 05

Housing shouldn’t be being run as a business when it’s a service.

But security of tenure is something we just can’t afford, nor should we.

Mortgage holders have security of tenure only as long as they maintain a career which lets them make the payments.

Lose you job? Have a health emergency?

No security of tenure.

Renters have even less rights.

But win the lottery and come up top of the housing list and your house is guaranteed for life? Sure you pay more if you earn a lot of (declared) income. But want to drop out? go right ahead and you’re back to not paying anything for the roof over your head.

Like I said on an earlier post, until the government can provide similar security to everyone earning less than $80,000, who doesn’t have a guaranteed four year term in the job, then it is both unjust and unequitable.

Until then it’s a $400,000 piece of Government capital tied up servicing the needs of the well to do while people in real need sleep in their cars.

How can anyone justify that?

Secutiry of tenure has worked historically because the housing hasn’t been very nice. But a hell of a lot of the housing stock is either very nice, or in very nice locations. I actually think that’s great. But not compatible in the long term with security of tenure.

areaman areaman 3:53 pm 10 Jun 05

Moveing people paying market rent out seems to work in the short term but solves no problems in the longer term. If you do force them out then ACT Housing has less money ($11,000,000 less) and so has to sell some of it’s existing property and you end up with the same probelem you have now, just with less public housing in total.

seepi seepi 3:31 pm 10 Jun 05

But unless ther is an unlimited supply of public housing then she IS taking a place away from someone else. Such as the 4000 people who are apparently on the waiting list. Some of whom are genuinely desperate and destitute. IN a perfect world people would not have to leave their neighbourhoods, but in teh real world everybody has to, unless they pay for their own house.

areaman areaman 3:20 pm 10 Jun 05

Housing ACT determines “market rent” and it’s assessed up to once a year. She’s never expressed any issue with paying the market rent, no matter what it’s set at, but that’s ACT housings call, not hers.

My understanding is that people paying market rent have to pay exactly the same bills as people in private rentals, so they’re not subsidised any more than people in the private system are.

She’s not “taking advantage” of ACT housing, it’s exactly the same as if she was in the private system, except that the government is her landlord. Maybe she doesn’t want to move on because she likes where she is, may her kids go to area schools, maybe she want to live in her electorate. There are a heap of reason why she wouldn’t move as soon as she was financially able to.

The greater point is should someone be forced out of public housing just because they can afford to be in the private system. I don’t see why they should, they’re not taking places from anyone else andnot leaching of the government. What’s wrong with the profits going back to government rather than a landlord.

Jazz Jazz 3:05 pm 10 Jun 05


I think the fact that she is an MLA has nothing to do with it. There are appox 2000 households in public housing paying market rent. Some of whom earn substantial amounts and could comfortably afford to rent privately.

The fact that she wants to stay in Govt housing probably has nothing to do with who the landlord is. Have you considered that she may have been living there for some time and considers it her ‘home’???

The market rents are set by independant market valuation.

seepi seepi 3:02 pm 10 Jun 05

Deb owning one third of a 120,000 property in Gippland (probably in teh middle of nowhere) doesn’t offend me nearly as much as the fact of her high salary. He could save for just one year and get another one third share in a property on her wage. OR she could pay a substantial deposit and get a mortgage like everyone else has to. (excpet for those lucky enought to get a govvie house decade ago, and unethical enough to hang onto it.)

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site