The Hong Kong government was entitled to deny public housing to same-sex couples because there were not enough flats to meet the demands of the city’s low-income residents, a government lawyer told a court on Thursday. Nick Infinger, a permanent Hong Kong resident, filed to the High Court last year to apply for judicial review over the Housing Authority’s decision to bar him and his husband from renting a public housing flat under the category of “ordinary family”. In the substantive hearing at the High Court, Abraham Chan Lok-shung SC, speaking for the Housing Authority, said the government had no intention to prioritise public housing applications made by same-sex couples because its resources were too limited to meet the city’s housing needs. “There are no general views of the authority that same-sex couples are unworthy of being afforded public housing,” he said, adding that same-sex couples would still be free to apply individually. The hearing was the first judicial challenge to affect low-income same-sex couples after the city’s LGBT community won several high-profile court cases against the government in recent years. In a landmark ruling on June 6, the Court of Final Appeal sided with gay civil servant Angus Leung Chun-kwong and ruled that his husband – who he married overseas – was entitled to spousal benefits and a joint tax assessment with Leung, the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples. But Chan said Leung’s case had limited impact on the current application because the government would still be entitled to bar same-sex couples on the grounds of insufficient resources. Chan pointed out that heterosexual marriage was protected under Article 37 of the Basic Law – the city’s mini-constitution – which states that freedom of marriage and the right to raise a family were protected by law. He said this made it necessary to restrict the limited supply of public resources to their homosexual counterparts. He cited a report by the Post that said competition from same-sex couples for public housing units would deter heterosexual couples from getting married. He said this would be contrary to the government’s aim to protect traditional marriage. “The overarching aim [of public housing policies] is to distribute resources to low-income persons in need. It is rational … to allocate resources to some persons, inevitably in the exclusion of some others,” he said. The problem is the government does not have enough to go around. The line we draw is one that justifies all circumstances “The problem is the government does not have enough to go around. The line we draw is one that justifies all circumstances.” Mr Justice Anderson Chow Ka-ming, however, doubted if differential treatment for same-sex couples could be justified by an aim to protect traditional marriage. “Homosexuals, like any other couples, would need housing. They live in similar ways. Would it not be a similar decision [to Leung’s case]?” Chow said. Barrister Tim Parker, for the applicant, argued that the existing framework amounted to “direct and deliberate” exclusion of same-sex couples from housing benefits. Unmarried or living in a micro flat: Hong Kong house price effects Quoting a university study, he said same-sex couples who had to apply for public housing under the “non-elderly single person” category, had to wait for 12 years longer for a flat than heterosexual couples who are eligible to fast-track their applications under the “ordinary family” category. Parker said this would mean a financial penalty of HK$233,539 (US$29,794)) incurred on same-sex couples because they spent the extra 12 years living in more expensive private housing. “This policy excludes all same-sex couples irrespective of their housing needs and personal circumstances, even if Hong Kong were to … legalise civil partnership,” Parker said. The hearing continues on Friday.