- Key Focus Areas
- Enquiries & Complaints
- Human Rights
- The Treaty
- Race Relations
- Disabled People
- International & UN
- Office of Human Rights Proceedings
- Holocaust Remembrance Day
- January, Turangawaewae: Human Rights Commission News
- Stereotyping entire ethnicities as bad pet owners wrong and offensive
- Disability – top of mind
- New Chief Executive for HRC
- MORE NEWS
- Treaty of Waitangi and UNDRIP
- What to look out for in the Employment Relations Act (ERA) changes
- Being a small person matters
- Bosses need to adhere to human rights law around religion
- Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy’s interviewed with Al Jazeera
- Pay Gap Widens In NZ
- EEO Commissioners Insights Into Kristine Bartlett Equal Pay Case
- Changing of the guard
- ANZAC Day: public survey
- Many care residences not monitored for ill-treatment
- UNCROC public consultation – have your say
- Education programme about the Disability Convention is being developed for disability support service staff
- Dr Jackie Blue: Business and Human Rights
- The Tasman Sea got a little smaller this morning – NZ Human Rights Commission & Federation of Islamic Associations of NZ
- Australians show solidarity with Muslims through #illridewithyou
- ALL NEWS
Court of Appeal decision in favour of parents in long running case
The Director of the Office of Human Rights Proceedings Robert Hesketh says he welcomes the Court of Appeal’s decision in favour of the plaintiffs in the long running case Ministry of Health v Peter Atkinson and others.
The nine plaintiffs, who include parents providing special care for disabled adult children, say the Ministry of Health has discriminated against them with a policy that makes family members ineligible for payment to provide disability support care their disabled relatives were otherwise entitled to.
Mr Hesketh said he had enormous respect for the resilience of the plaintiffs who have been through three court hearings over five years. He said the decision rejected outright the arguments by Crown Law representing the Ministry of Health.
Mr Hesketh hoped the comprehensive and unanimous decision by a full bench of the Court of Appeal would result in the Ministry working to resolve the issues with the plaintiffs and others affected by the policy. He said the ministry’s policy had meant the parents were effectively subsidising the cost of the care payments which were the ministry’s responsibility to fund.
Mr Hesketh congratulated the lawyers representing the parents, Frances Joychild, and David Peirse of the Office of Human Rights Proceedings, on their long hours of work and acute analysis to prepare and present a well-argued case.