Ruling won't stop activist's rights fight

KENT BLECHYNDEN/Dominion Post

FIGHT: Multiple sclerosis sufferer Melanie Trevethick is fighting for a claim seeking equal benefits for people disabled by illness and those whose disability is the result of injury.

Relevant offers

Human rights campaigner Melanie Trevethick, who uses a wheelchair, has lost her bid to revive her claim seeking equal benefits for people disabled by illness - but vows to continue fighting.

Justice Robert Dobson yesterday upheld an earlier ruling by the Human Rights Tribunal.

That ruling acknowledged that while the different treatment for people disabled by illness compared with those entitled to ACC was "unjust", it was legal discrimination.

Ms Trevethick, who has multiple sclerosis, said her lawyers now planned to go to the Court of Appeal.

"It's disappointing that a point of law is preventing us getting justice," she said.

"It's disgraceful that successive governments have allowed this discriminatory treatment to continue."

Ms Trevethick, who is in her early 50s, had to sell assets, including her home, to get the $92,000 modified van she needed.

If she had been disabled as a result of a car crash or any other accident, ACC would have met the full cost of the van.

Like the tribunal, Justice Dobson accepted that Ms Trevethick was being discriminated against - but ruled her claim did not fall under the Human Rights Act.

"Reflecting on the incremental way in which Parliament has added to the prohibited grounds over time, the tribunal was justified in finding that Parliament has been very deliberate in deciding what will, and will not, amount to unlawful discrimination in New Zealand," he wrote.

"This is no more than a question of law."

Extending the categories of prohibited discrimination to include cause of disability would have "enormous consequences", he noted.

The real source of the complaint was "the inadequacies of the accident compensation scheme", which had been acknowledged as "illogical and giving rise to anomalies".

However, Ms Trevethick said it was not enough to use "financial scare tactics" as an excuse for such a glaring injustice.

"They could also save a heap of money by discriminating on the grounds of gender or race."

She said the court loss was "not a huge setback".

"We may lose the battle but we will win the war ...

"Eventually the weight of public opinion will force legislative change," she said.

Her lawyer, John Miller, said the team had 21 days to ask leave to go to the Court of Appeal, but he expected Crown Law would fight it.

"[The case] has been expensive for us ... No other firm would touch it, but I don't feel we have any choice in the face of such illogical discrimination and injustice."

 TIMELINE

2003: Melanie Trevethick complains to the Human Rights Commission that she is being discriminated against on the grounds of the cause of her disability.

December 2006: The Crown Law Office applies to the commission's review tribunal to have the case struck out.

October 2007: The commission dismisses Crown Law's claim that Ms Trevethick should not be allowed to compare herself to a person with similar disabilities, but rules her claim does not fall under the Human Rights Act.

March 17: Ms Trevethick's lawyers John Miller and Wendy Proffitt argue at a High Court hearing it is unlawful to discriminate on the cause of disability. Judge reserves his decision

April 2: Judge upholds tribunal's ruling.

- © Fairfax NZ News