THE Human Rights Commission (HRC) is to be hauled before the Supreme Court because of its recent decision to means test residents before allowing their concerns to be heard by one of its tribunals.

Political activist Khalid Wasi filed a writ against the organisation this week, believing the new practice was enabled through a misinterpretation of the Human Rights Act of 1981.

A former chairperson of the Commission's education committee, he said he was particularly shocked that the organisation should attempt to revoke a civil liberty it once publicly championed as a move forward in human rights.

"I feel very comfortable about the position," he said. "And I feel confident that the HRC has misinterpreted the Act. Those persons who went before the HRC three years ago, four years ago, whose cases are still pending, they went to the Commission on the assumption of how the Commission behaved then ? a precedent had been set; a practice had been established.

"They understood that to mean they were guaranteed (assistance), if they went before a tribunal.

"This very point was a point that we advocated publicly. Particularly if the complaint was made against an institution, then we guaranteed people up front that if the Human Rights Commission felt it was a bona fide case, then the Human Rights Commission was ready to back it.

"We even had a term for it, carriage. We preached it. This is something that the HRC fought to achieve and was adopted."

Until December of last year, the Human Rights Commission provided free legal assistance to persons it believed had cause for complaint and whose cases merited a tribunal hearing. The organisation has since been asking that complainants submit their bank records for scrutiny to determine if they are eligible to receive aid.

Having sat on the Commission for 13 years, Mr. Wasi explained he was moved to file a writ against this process, "on the grounds that (it is) ultra vires to the intent of the Human Rights Act 1981."

In particular, he said, the practice was contrary to Sections 15 and 18 of the Act.

Section 15 involves the investigation of complaints. It states in part, that the Commission should offer individuals the opportunity to represent themselves and that, where oral representation is made, such persons "may be represented by a barrister and attorney".

Section 18 states that where a matter has been referred to a board of inquiry, assistance may be granted in such instances where the case is complex or, where it would be unreasonable to assume the playing field was even.

As such, Mr. Wasi said he was asking the Chief Justice for a "declaratory interpretation of the use or permitted application, flowing from that Act.

"That's the essence of my writ, to ask the Chief Justice to look at the wording in the Act, to see if, in fact, it can be interpolated to refer to means testing, to looking at people's financial ability in terms of supplying aid for participants requiring a lawyer."

Mr. Wasi first expressed concern that the HRC was means testing its clients, in an article which appeared in this paper last week. At that time, HRC chairman Rod Attride-Stirling said the group had adopted the practice in keeping with what was being done by similar institutions in other jurisdictions.

Yesterday, Mr. Wasi questioned that argument: "I don't know where in the world he means. We took most of our instruction from Nova Scotia, from Canada. I'm not aware that they are means testing in Canada.

"It would be interesting to find out as we adopted our practice off the Canadian model."

Mr. Wasi said he had done his homework, discussing the matter with lawyers and former Commission members to determine whether his argument was valid.

"I've talked to a number of lawyers and they feel I have a case," he said. "I also talked to persons who were formerly involved with the Human Rights Commission. We talked about how we interpreted the Act. And, without calling their names, they agreed. They knew that that was the way we interpreted the Act."

Mr. Attride-Stirling yesterday said he was unable to comment on the writ as it had not yet been served on the Commission.