Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Thinking about your business
Is a big part of ours

No affordable housing in Canberra – Official

By johnboy 24 October 2005 17

The Canberra Times is reporting on the inevitable consequence of the last round of tenancy “reforms”. That is bugger all supply leading to sky high prices. The highest in Australia according to the first “national affordability bulletin”, issued by the Tenants Union of Victoria.

for the single person on minimum wage, sole parent and family categories, there were affordable rental housing options in all Australian states, although not the ACT.

However my rent did not go up last year, which was a novel experience, and I think once some of the current huge developments settle into the market a correction is inevitable. Bad luck to landlords who bought at the top of the market who’ve hypothecated their rental income to cover their mortgages.

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
17 Responses to
No affordable housing in Canberra – Official
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Indi 9:22 am 26 Oct 05

Mael you should run for local parliament!

Maelinar 9:06 am 26 Oct 05

G, I looked at it that way, and while that would work for a tennancy corporation, or even the Defence Housing Authority, ACT Housing was never set up or intended to become a rent subsidy/income generating business.

It WAS set up however to provide homes to people who can’t put a roof over their heads.

I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this same statement, it’s ok being a lefty, and it’s ok to consider fellow man, but Deb Foskey doesn’t need an ACT Housing subsidised house.

Since the need has been removed, by virtue of her earning in one year what it takes me four to earn, regardless of the fact that she is paying full market rent (oblivious of the fact that I consider the pittance she’s paying NOT full market rent), she is tying up a HOUSE that is provided for HOMELESS/DESTITUTE people.

The theme of this thread is that there is no affordable housing in Canberra. The reason there is no affordable housing in Canberra is because rich people who have no need to be living in subsidised housing (before you start, read my comment above about full market rent), and that can afford to purchase more expensive housing, are malingering in the cheap seats.

To put it more simply, that house if vacated would provide a home for one homeless family. Deb Foskey has the resources to purchase an alternative home, and so therefore won’t be harmed other than she’ll be back out in the real world with all us other suckers.

That’s one more homeless family off the streets. Think about that for a moment all you lefties. This is coming from one of the hardest right wingers on this site.

Indi 9:04 am 26 Oct 05

Special G – Housing only earns around $12mill a year out of full market renters. As the system currently operates, Housing ACT apparently has to rely on this income to subsidise the rest of the tenants.

Economically, there is no sound argument for running a dept that also makes around $20mill loss each year…it needs a clean-up and it is moderately surprising that Canberrans aren’t annoyed that there are some very ‘comfortable’ tenants in public housing when you would expect govt to be working harder to house those ‘who are in need’. Hypocrysy comes to mind.

Vic Bitterman 9:38 pm 25 Oct 05

fosky is an old slapper living off our taxes. Kick her out, fast.

Special G 5:15 pm 25 Oct 05

What if you looked at it this way.

ACT Housing is Canberra’s biggest landlord. Deb Fosky is paying market rent on a house which is generating income for ACT Housing which is used to subsidise the rent of two other tenants. In that situation it would be well worth while for ACT Housing to rent places to full rent paying people so that they could generate income.

Being a landlord in Canberra is good, especially if you bought years ago (I am pretty sure ACT Housing did this.) They would be making a buckload from full rent paying tenants.

There are plenty of units at Kanangra Court at the moment that are being refurbed – maybe Deb could move in there.


ssanta 1:31 pm 25 Oct 05

Bulldog. Cash crops. Worked for a heap of us in belco!

Maelinar 1:28 pm 25 Oct 05

Wait for the bubble bulldog, wait for the bubble..

bulldog 12:38 pm 25 Oct 05

Simple: She shouldn’t be there.

As far as “market rent” goes, I believe that it wold be well short of the median rental price for the area; although I am truly curious to know what she is paying.

If and when “market rent” is ever established, the prinible remains that she is tying up a resource that could be better utilised for someone NEEDY. On an MLA’s wage I don’t think you qualify as needy.

As far as Canberra housing costs; it’s tough. I bought last year and it has been a bit of a sruggle keeping my head above the water. But what can we do about it? Seriously, not trying to be facetious, just looking for any constructive information that might lead to a solution to the ACT’s cost of living ‘crisis’. Any help from players with a better grasp of the economy than I?

Maelinar 12:19 pm 25 Oct 05

I think I would give away the rights to my unborn child for a house in Yarralumla paying “full market rent”.

I think you’ll find that the “full market rent” falls substantially short of what anybody else in Yarralumla on the public market is paying, again something that has already been covered previously.

Good point about the simple allegation and complex explanation, the problem being is the explanation was never quite sufficient enough.

simto 12:06 pm 25 Oct 05

I’m remarkably well aware of the conversations (I’ve been on the site at least as long as you have, if not longer) but if you’ll recall the “full market rent” excuse was used all over the place back then, and, as long as it genuinely is a full market rent, it’s a decent rebuttall to the “Deb’s housing is costing us money” argument you were running.

Having said that, it’s not good public relations, since the allegation is simple and the explanation is complicated, it’s a conflict of interest, and it tends to expose ACT public housing as not being primarily run in the interest of housing people in need.

Maelinar 11:34 am 25 Oct 05

Simto, read a bit of history from this very site and you’ll be well informed of a number of discussions about public housing being rorted by wanker MLA’s in Yarralumla.

We’ve even been quoted as a good source on Crikey, JB has put up the quote ‘check out the unfolding debate on the RiotACT’ – on the banner, that is also in relation to some of our comments in regards to Deb Foskey.

I also suspect it had something to do with why they didn’t want me as an advisor to Deb, given that my first bit of advice would have been ‘you should move out of your house’.

There have been counter arguments that have said that she’s not actually doing anything by occupying the house, but if everybody did it where would the homeless people live ?

The simple matter of fact is that she’s holding up a public house that could be used for putting a homeless person into, and I find that quite ripe coming from a representative of the Greens party.

simto 10:59 am 25 Oct 05

My understanding is that the Deb Fosky case is not an expenditure of public money – since she’s paying an equivalent market rent, it’s revenue neutral. So whatever else you can say she’s doing, she’s not actually costing ACT housing overall any actual money.

Yes, she’s taking away from the total pool of ACT housing available, and this may very well distort the way ACT housing’s budget works. And if the “market rent” she pays is unrealistically low, then something very dodgy is going on. But I’ve never heard anybody say that this is the case.

Maelinar 10:52 am 25 Oct 05

Jazz, what else do you think the ACT Government spends their GST windfall on ?

As somebody who works within a funding branch of government I’m continually amazed at the left hand of government funding the right hand of government to do things. Geez talk about a false economy…

Taxes and revenue paid to the ACT Government, or to the ACT Government via the Federal Government is still taxpayer money, and they have a responsibility to spend it appropriately, no matter which hand of Government they are.

In my opinion, keeping a MLA in a public house is not a responsible way of spending our money.

By the way, has anybody seen the guy from Kippax mall recently ? He’s gone missing.

Mr Evil 10:06 am 25 Oct 05

Fosky’s house may not be taxpayer subsidised, but she is hogging a place that could be given to someone more needy than an MLA earning however much those overpaid dead-weights earn.

Jazz 9:53 am 25 Oct 05

Chris, If you are going to have a bitch, get it right.

Deb Foskey’s public housing property is NOT TAXPAYER SUBSIDISED.

bonfire 9:45 am 25 Oct 05

i thought the best line was from hargreaves asking private landlords to drop their rents. yeah, just like the govt lowers its rates.

i agree with above comment, i can see a lot of empty housing real soon. just wait for a mild recession when a lot of people who right now can afford a house on their own decide to share.

ABS stats would indicate that would alleviate the canberra housing shortage.

Chris 9:14 am 25 Oct 05

But did anyone else think it slightly ironic that Dr Foskey (somewhat dishevelled and looking as if she’d dressed in the dark, as per usual,) was on camera talking about the lack of public housing in Canberra – if she vacated HER tax-payer subsidised dwelling, there might be one more house for a needy family…..

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site