The legal challenge claiming discrimination on the part of the Ministry of Health continues. The High Court judge, Robert Dobson, dismissed our application applying for leave to go to the Court of appeal so we are now filing an application directly with the Court of Appeal.

It is not just those with illnesses who stand to benefit from a change in legislation; the professionals working with us have a lot at stake in the drive for social fairness. Providing the best possible service by maximizing time spent with clients is much more achievable alongside equity for illness goals. ACC and the Ministry of Health each provide their own disparate set of regulations, entitlements, and eligibility criteria, requiring time-consuming and onerous paper trails between the professionals working with a client to the relevant authority. A needs-based, non-discriminatory health system would reduce this dramatically, enabling a faster, more efficient service for everyone involved.

The New Zealand Government has recently been awarded the International Franklin Delano Roosevelt Award for its advocacy for people with disabilities. While New Zealand legislation continues to uphold the discriminatory practice by the Ministry of Health by comparison with ACC’s generous entitlements, Equity-for-illness supporters believe this award gives little reason to celebrate.

The fact such legislation became law in 1974 is extraordinary enough without realizing that thirty-four years later, despite recognition of the inequities from the onset, it remains unchanged. If a similar bill had been passed discriminating on any other of the protected grounds under the Human Rights Act, (eg. racial, gender, age, or religious belief,) the outcry would have been heard around the world. New Zealand would certainly not be winning the International Awards for its contribution towards promoting equality and understanding nor basking in the glow of self-satisfaction.

In his High Court decision delivered in April, Judge Dobson made the statement, ‘the current system is unjust but that it is legal discrimination.’ This is an extraordinary indictment on any 21st Century western democracy. It is deplorable that the New Zealand Government be content to justify and defend such legislative-condoned breach of a person's rights. The expression 'the law is an ass’ could not more apt.

It is said that Rome wasn't built in a day. Sadly, challenging a system that fails to provide for its citizens takes much longer. It is no reason not to try however. Let's all be a part of it. Melanie Trevethick

Melanie Trevethick

Spokeperson/Trustee

The High Court decision has been released. Judge Dobson delivered a repeat of last year's Human Rights Review Tribunal decision dismissing Crown Law's application to have my case struck out on the comparator issue, (can I as a person with an illness, compare myself to someone who's had an accident,) but agreeing with Crown Law application that the word 'cause' cannot be read into the Human Rights Act; (the cause of a person's needs.) While it is disappointing that a point of law is currently protecting the Ministry of Health from having to provide funding and services on a parity with ACC's entitlements, we lay responsibility firmly at the feet of government who created such disparate legislation. We will be appealing the latest decision to the Court of Appeal.

I believe that Government should delivers tax-paid dollars in a fair and equitable manner. Thankfully I am not alone. A large number of organisations representing medical conditions including Cancer, Cerebral Palsy, Cystic Fibrosis, and Muscular Dystrophy have now publically spoken out in support of my claim. All are frustrated that their members are undervalued and kept in a dependency model of care while ACC encourages rehabilitation which delivers far better outcomes for both their clients and the country as a whole.

I see the future of this campaign as both exciting and growing as every day passes. Although we lost on the 'cause' reading in the High Court we are still gaining considerable ground in terms of media exposure and public support.

I need to stress that my legal challenge is not the beginning nor end of this drive for fairness. It may be the vehicle by which media interest and exposure can focus but it is only part of the equation. We encourage everyone to register their support for equity-for-illness by signing our petition, sending our email postcards to Government Ministers, and writing to the Letters to the Editor in their local papers; doing so will ultimately keep us alive in the public's mind.

We must also not miss the opportunity an election year affords us. By writing to our local MPs, we can ask that each declares their position on this issue; it is the least of what we expect of our elected representatives. Please do what you can, both as organisations and individually. There are many unable to advocate for themselves; let's do it for them. Melanie Trevethick Spokeperson/Trustee

Melanie Trevethick

Spokeperson/Trustee

By Melanie Trevethick

My case against the Ministry of Health based on the difference between ACC and the MoH funding was heard at the Wellington High Court on March 17th. While we still await the judge’s decision it is encouraging to be able to report that the Human Rights Commission again presented submissions in support of my claim. The counsel for the HRC stated that as the High Court was only able to deal with the case from a legalistic perspective; its parameters being too narrow to neither provide any sense of social justice for the claimant nor fully deal with the issue of disparity. The HRC lawyer went on to state that my case should not be struck out as was Crown Law’s contention and instead recommended that it should proceed to a full and substantive HRC hearing.

This is the second time the HRC have come to my defence.  For such a well-respected body to take such a position is wonderful for all equity-for-illness supporters. Now left to deliberate a considerable stack of submissions, our hope is that the judge will place great weight on the HRC’s statements and find in my favour.

If we should not win in the High Court we are prepared to go to the Court of Appeal. My aim from the beginning has been to have the case go to a full HRC hearing so the vastly different levels of funding between the two providers can be openly debated. As we await the High Court decision, I trust that justice as applied through our court system will focus strongly on what I believe is a New Zealander’s expectation of fairness and give this disparity a full Human Rights Inquiry. Until then we regrettably continue to ask for donations so we are ready.

Thank you for believing in us.

Next Stage

The next stage of Melanie Trevethick’s case against the Ministry of Health will be heard in a few weeks in the Wellington High Court. It’s in the interest of all New Zealanders that this case succeed as the disparity between accident versus illness related funding continues to seriously disadvantage those with illnesses. Equity-for-illness pledges to challenge this double-standard. We aim to raise public awareness of the inequity as many healthy New Zealanders are unaware of this two-class system unless they find out through personal experience.  We follow Melanie’s legal battle with interest.

Support

A number of prominent organizations supporting New Zealanders with illnesses are speaking out in a press release this week.  We welcome their commitment to our cause. This campaign is about all of us with illness-related challenges, with or without ongoing disability and it is vital that we present as a united front.  In December 2007 our government won the International Franklin Delano Roosevelt award for it work towards promoting the disabled, both within NZ with its NZ Disability Strategy and at the at the United Nations after its involvement with the Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities. However NZ has yet to ratify it. Before this can take place they have to ensure our legislation is consistent with the UN Convention’s directives; an act unlikely to happen while our Government’s own backyard remains littered with this primary distinction.

We welcome all support including donations to help fund the legal fees associated with this challenge and to help raise public awareness of the issues. 

Thank you for your continuing support, and please keep telling your friends to sign the petition.

Watch this space!

The team at equity-for-illness

Earlier this year the Human Right's Review Tribunal dismissed Crown Law's application on the first legal point to have Melanie Trevethick's case thrown out claiming discrimination against the Ministry of Health. Yesterday the Review Tribunal upheld Crown Law’s application on the second point.

While yesterday’s ruling is disappointing it is most definitely not the end of the legal challenge.Melanie Trevethick’s barrister John Miller will be lodging an appeal with the High court to challenge this latest decision. What is significant is that the Review Tribunal also came out in support of Melanie's goal, making the following statements...

‘We begin our decision in this way because we wish to make it clear that we have considerable sympathy for the plaintiff’s (Melanie Trevethick) argument that there is a substantial social inequity arising out of the fact similarly circumstanced people are treated differently depending on the cause of their disability. It is far from clear to us how that state of affairs might be justified. Certainly we think that the plaintiff has a legitimate political point to make.

However the question for us is one of statutory interpretation: does the plaintiff’s proposed claim fall under the Human Right’s Act? We have come to the conclusion it does not. But we make it clear at the outset that our conclusion is not to be taken as having somehow endorsed the present regime as being fair or equitable. It does not.

Submissions filed by the Human Right’s Commission make it clear they are no longer neutral; instead the Commission now joins with the plaintiff in arguing that we ought to read the definition of disability as being at least capable of including the cause or cause of disability, (and on that basis to conclude that the plaintiff’s claim not to be struck out.)'

Thank you for your support of the equity-for-illness campaign. We encourage you to spread the word and if possible to donate to cover our legal costs. We really value your committment to our ideals of having a needs-based health delivery for all NZ'ers. The journey continues.

Melanie Trevethick and the team at equity-for-illness

Decision from the Human Right's Commission Review Tribunal

Melanie Trevethick's claim lodged in April, 2003 with the Human Rights Commission claiming Discrimination on the part of the Ministry of Health, is based on the disparities between ACC and Ministry of Health funding. On December the 8th, 2006, Crown Law applied to have the case struck out based on two points of law:

1. that her assertion that she compare herself to a person
   with similar disabilities covered by ACC
   was not a valid comparator group and therefore untenable, and
2. that the Human Right's Act does not allow comparison within the definition of any prohibited grounds. (an issue of intraground comparison)

The Human Right's Commission Review Tribunal announced their decision on April the 4th, 2007, dismissing Crown Law's application on the first point and reserving their decision pending further argument on the second.

A meeting on the 30th of April will determine a date for when the further submissions must be presented to the HRC Review Tribunal.

We are delighted with the result to date. The HRC Review Tribunal's ruling is a significant step forward for those supporting the equity-for-illness campaign. We look forward to the time when all parties can challenge and attempt to defend this legislation in a Court of Law.

Richmond cancer survivor Grant Harrison is fighting for people disabled by illness to receive the same level of government support as accident victims.

The 49-year-old has joined with Cambridge multiple sclerosis sufferer Melanie Trevethick to form the charitable trust Equity for Illness and campaign for change.

"We'd like to see people cared for in the same way, whether their condition was the cause of an accident or an illness."

Melanie Trevethick is one woman challenging New Zealand’s health system. She is bringing a case against the Ministry of Health on the grounds of discrimination. It is the first time anyone has challenged our dual funding system. Individuals with a disability are funded under either MOH or the Accident Compensation Corporation, depending on whether their disability was the result of an accident or medical condition. The inequity of this system has long been questioned but until now it has not been challenged.

A wheelchair-bound Cambridge woman is making a legal challenge to the way the Ministry of Health helps the disabled.
Melanie Trevethick suffers from the degenerative disease multiple sclerosis and she wants the same benefits as those who get accident compensation.
"It's definitely time it was tested in court and I'm just the stroppy cripple to do it," she says.

• To listen to the radio interview follow these steps . . .
• click this link http://www.catchword.co.nz/radio.html
• on the catchword web site click on "listen to interviews again"
• select the interview