Law benefits de facto couple home-owners

Press, 13 November 1981, Page 19

Law benefits de facto couple home-owners

PA Wellington Working couples living in a de facto relationship appear to have a hefty advantage over married couples when it comes to eligibility for the Government’s new first home tax rebate. According to the recently published “Guide to the First Home Mortage Rebate” and the Minister in charge of Inland Revenue (Mr Templeton), if a home is jointly owned (except in a married situation) each ownfer may qualify for a proportion of the rebate of up to $lOOO a year. De facto working couples can apply for the rebate in the same way as any other joint owners, and if one partner has had a house before the other partner (who has not had. a house before) is still. eligible to apply for the rebate. In the case of a married

couple the principle income winner — the breadwinner — is the only person able to claim for the rebate. If the breadwinner has had a house before then both partners miss the rebate. This appears to discriminate against the working, taxpaying, married person earning less than their spouse, who has not had a house before. In most cases this means married working women, as men are still predominantly the principal income earners. In May this year the male average weekly wage was $251.24 while 'the average female wage was $185.91. The “Evening Post” asked Mr Templeton about the rebate as it affected de facto and married couples, and he replied that their reading of the eligibility watf correct. However, he emphasised that each claim for’ the re-

bate had to be considered on its merits. In response to further inquiries. a spokesman from his office revealed that where a de facto relationship appeared permanent, and there was a dependent “wife" or children, the couple involved was likely to be treated the same as a married couple. The Human Rights Commission Act makes it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of colour, race, national or ethnic origin, marital status, and religious or ethical believe, and so the Human Rights Commissioner (Mr P. J. Downey) was approached for comment. Initially, Mr Downey said he would have to look at the issue, but he then realised that the rebate was legislated for rather than just being a matter of Government policy.

First announced in this year’s Budget, the rebate is a statutory change, covered by the Income Tax Amendment Act, 1981. Mr Downey said the Human Rights Commission Act was unable to displace any other act. Any Government policy translated into statutory form was not “unlawful discrimination,” he said. Mr Downey emphasised that an important point often overlooked was that the human rights legislation did not provide for the prohibition of discrimination across the board. It applied to the specific areas of employment, education, accommodation, and the provision of goods and services. "Taxation as such is not an area of activity that the act would apply to under any circumstances.” he said.