Gay Man to Repay First Home Owners Grant

Kramer 24 July 2007 28

The ABC reported yesterday that the ACT Administrative Appleals Tribunal ruled that a Canberra man will have to repay his $7,000 first home owners grant as he was in a defacto relationship with a man who had already received the grant.

So according to the Commonwealth, they don’t recognise same sex relationships, unless its taking money out of their pockets? I have heard of many hetro couples getting the grant when they should not have – and are yet to be caught. So are gay couples undergoing greater scrutiny, or are people in the community more likely to dob in a homo couple?


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
28 Responses to Gay Man to Repay First Home Owners Grant
Filter
Order
Pandy Pandy 1:49 pm 27 Jul 07

Oh I realllllly love the ad for RealJock.com as I scroll down to the bottom of this page.

yummy

Pandy Pandy 11:06 am 27 Jul 07

Since my posts are being moderated I better say the right thing eh? So……

BigDave you are a cnut.

Danman Danman 9:16 am 27 Jul 07

Thank you Danman. Hook, line & sinker. I rest my case…

Not sure I understand that statement there friend – however – let me re-iterate my position in life

BigDave – Im getting married… to a Female – I assure you I am not gay (not that there is anything wrong with that) but I do despise discrimination – in any form – and in the absence of any homosexual regulars posting to RiotAct I thought I would jump in the ring (no pun intended) to defend the innocents on their absence.

I do not see what there is to be afraid of anyway – research has proven that guys will shag anything unless they know their mates will find out – so go ahead Dave – live a little – you little sweetheart you xxoo

Maelinar Maelinar 8:34 am 27 Jul 07

BigDave = BigAl. The game is up Admins.

hairy nosed wombat hairy nosed wombat 10:59 pm 26 Jul 07

Either the government gives full equal marrage / defacto rights to gay couples or none at all. This current suitation is just so unworkable and unfair.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1986117.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/0721_aust.pdf

BigDave BigDave 9:23 pm 26 Jul 07

Thank you Danman. Hook, line & sinker. I rest my case…

Absent Diane Absent Diane 1:12 pm 26 Jul 07

I know a few fags that like getting stoned..I am sure they would be up for the idea!!

VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt 12:42 pm 26 Jul 07

Public stoning of fags? Now that’s not very nice, is it?

Danman Danman 8:54 am 26 Jul 07

Neck up dave you f**king parrot.

How can you judge the whole homosexual population on one isolated case.

Additionally – when they are not recognised as a couplue except for the duration it takes for the gubmint to take money off them for tax purposes – or in this case – 1st homeowners grant – well I call that quite discriminatory.

If they (the government) acknowledge that they are a couple for tax purposes and acknowledge that they are in a de-facto relationship and do not deserve the 1st home owners grant as one half of the couple has already received then th eleast the government coudl do is give them legal recourse for a civil ceremony marriage.

Also OzChick – This gentlemen is lucky that he didn’t have to go to court and be prosecuted. In that case he would have gotten a criminal record

Guilty until proven innocent I see.

No, no lets not let the courts decide – or set a precedent of not guilty – i mean f*ck it – lets dispence wit the corts anyway – its no doubt he is guilty – I mean in this case they are a couple – but not in any other case – lets just have a public stoning. Narrow….very narrow….

BigDave BigDave 11:56 pm 25 Jul 07

I f**king hate the bleeding heart brigade and soft arses. If the hommes want to be recognised, and perhaps ever be taken seriously, they’ll take this on the chin and quit whining. End of story. But you can bet that they’ll resort to petty name calling like they always do. I can almost hear it now…”bigots”, “narrow-minded”, “discrimination”. Yeah, yeah, yeah…yawn,yawn.

OzChick OzChick 4:54 pm 25 Jul 07

How do you really know that this was a dobb in Tori?

The ACT Revenue would have conducted compliance checks on FHOG applications and may have come across this case in their regular checks.

It was only about a fortnight ago that a lady was prosecuted for getting the FHOG and not living in the property, she lived in another property in Queanbeyan, there was an article about this in the Canberra Times.

If you look at the Domestic Relationships Act it states that; domestic relationship means a personal relationship between 2 adults in which one provides personal or financial commitment
and support of a domestic nature for the material benefit of the other and includes a domestic partnership but does not include a legal
marriage.

I don’t see any discrimination there.

This gentlemen is lucky that he didn’t have to go to court and be prosecuted. In that case he would have gotten a criminal record.

toriness toriness 4:25 pm 25 Jul 07

blo*dy hell, it’s pretty sh*t in a way, as in someone must have dobbed him in. but then again in another way i agree and don’t think he should get it. if we want equal rights then it must be across the board, including not double-dipping on entitlements.

but ffs it is unfair that the GLBTI community is held accountable for our relationships only when it saves the government money though.

Danman Danman 4:06 pm 25 Jul 07

Im sure the boys will be flocking to him with a name like Big Dave.

Been burnt by a gay man Big Fellah ? want a shoulder to cry on – want a backbone with that.

I usually live and let live – but i f**king hate racists rednecks and homophobes – of which I am sure BigDave will fit in to each criteria quite comfortably.

Mr_Shab Mr_Shab 2:08 pm 25 Jul 07

Methinks big dave doth protest too much.

Kramer Kramer 1:33 pm 25 Jul 07

What’s wrong BigDave? Not secure with your own sexuality?

BigDave BigDave 1:04 pm 25 Jul 07

I’ll gladly dob in any homo pervs.

GregW GregW 12:50 pm 25 Jul 07

‘Yes, but according to the law their relationship is not recognised.’

Last I heard that’s not true, defacto relationships do not depend on sexuality. I think there’s some confusion with the marriage debate…

Thus, this story is no different than a heterosexual couple cheating the FHOG, and getting caught..

I think the point of the story was not that his partner was male but that they weren’t in a de facto relationship for one reason or another..

VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt 8:57 am 25 Jul 07

The key word here is ‘defacto’. I think it’s pretty clear, really.

Ruby Wednesday Ruby Wednesday 5:50 pm 24 Jul 07

philbert83, it’s not the first time I’ve heard of that particular situation cropping up. According to my friend who was in this boat, a lovely and intrusive questionnaire followed.

Kramer Kramer 4:31 pm 24 Jul 07

hetero or homosexual – if they are rorting its wrong.

Yes, but according to the law their relationship is not recognised.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site