Parliament bill

Disability Support Services Bill

Royal assent · Introduced by Hon Louise Upston · National Party

Last checked
September 01, 2026 22:00
Source captured
September 01, 2026 22:00
Source
View on Parliament.nz

What this bill does

The bill passed its first reading 67–55; the vote was not unanimous. According to the bill’s explanatory material, disability support services lack a statutory framework for funding decisions, and a Supreme Court ruling created employment and litigation risks involving paid family carers. The bill aims to create a legal framework for publicly funded disability support services and manage risks arising from that ruling. The bill lets the Minister set binding funding directions and support programmes, while generally treating family carers paid under those programmes as not employees and excluding the Crown and contracted providers as employers unless a written agreement says otherwise.

AI-assisted summary based on the bill text and linked Hansard debates.

Latest voting result

May 21, 2026
First reading: Passed Party vote

Ayes 67 · Noes 55

  • National Party Aye · 48 votes
  • ACT Party Aye · 11 votes
  • NZ First Party Aye · 8 votes
  • Labour Party No · 34 votes
  • Green Party No · 15 votes
  • Te Pāti Māori No · 4 votes
  • Ferris, Tākuta No
  • Kapa-Kingi, Mariameno No

View the vote in Hansard

Arguments raised in Parliament

AI-assisted summary of the linked Hansard debates. Each point is grounded in the cited transcript.

Arguments for

Disabled people and their families would gain a statutory DSS framework because the current absence creates legal and fiscal risks, with the predicted consequence of greater certainty about what services do and whom they cover.

Disabled people and taxpayers would be protected from support funding being diverted into escalating historical employment litigation because the bill bars specified pre-introduction paid-family-carer claims, preserving funding for quality disability services.

Highly vulnerable disabled people who lack decision-making capacity would continue receiving essential family care because the bill temporarily validates existing family-carer employment arrangements until replacement arrangements are made.

Disabled people and families would receive more transparent funding rules because ministerial programmes authorising support expenditure would be secondary legislation subject to parliamentary oversight.

Arguments against

Disabled people could be prevented from living independently because requiring families to provide care in the first instance legislates a particular family obligation rather than supporting independent living.

Disabled people would be subject to a weaker rights standard than other New Zealanders because the bill creates separate standards for disability support, with the predicted consequence of eroded disability rights.

Nuance and qualifications

The Government contends that current disabled people, families, and carers retain existing eligibility and access because the bill introduces no new requirements or general means testing.

The Government proposes a carer-support package outside an employment model, which it says would better recognise family carers while avoiding relationship and wellbeing harms attributed to employment arrangements.

Bill text

Disability Support Services Bill

Version published August 13, 2026 00:00.

Disability Support Services Bill The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows: 1 Title This Act is the Disability Support Services Act 2026 . 2 Commencement This Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent. 3 Purposes of Act The purposes of this Act are to— a provide a legislative framework for DSS-funded disability support services, including by enabling the making of secondary legislation for the purpose of providing disability support services; and b in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Fleming v Attorney-General [2025] NZSC 188, [2025] 1 NZLR 973,— i clarify the nature of the relationships between the Crown, contracted providers, and persons who provide DSS-funded disability support services to others; and ii temporarily provide for persons to act on behalf of disabled persons— A who do not have a person acting for them under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988; and B in relation to the making of decisions about disability support services; and iii validate employment agreements between paid family carers and their disabled family members for a limited period; and iv address other employment-related matters connected with the provis…
Read full bill text
Disability Support Services Bill The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows: 1 Title This Act is the Disability Support Services Act 2026 . 2 Commencement This Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent. 3 Purposes of Act The purposes of this Act are to— a provide a legislative framework for DSS-funded disability support services, including by enabling the making of secondary legislation for the purpose of providing disability support services; and b in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Fleming v Attorney-General [2025] NZSC 188, [2025] 1 NZLR 973,— i clarify the nature of the relationships between the Crown, contracted providers, and persons who provide DSS-funded disability support services to others; and ii temporarily provide for persons to act on behalf of disabled persons— A who do not have a person acting for them under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988; and B in relation to the making of decisions about disability support services; and iii validate employment agreements between paid family carers and their disabled family members for a limited period; and iv address other employment-related matters connected with the provision of DSS-funded disability support services; and c mitigate litigation risk, and related fiscal risk, to the Crown. 4 Interpretation In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— contracted provider means a person engaged by the Ministry, under a contract for services, to perform, on behalf of the Crown, a function relating to the administration of the provision of DSS-funded disability support services disability support services includes goods, services, facilities, and financial assistance— a provided to disabled persons for their care or support or to contribute towards enabling them to live their everyday life; or b provided for purposes related or incidental to the care or support of people with disabilities or to contribute towards enabling them to live their everyday life disability support services includes— a goods, services, and facilities— i provided to disabled persons for their care or support or to contribute towards enabling them to live their everyday life; or ii provided for purposes related or incidental to the care or support of people with disabilities or to contribute towards enabling them to live their everyday life; and b financial assistance that is provided to disabled persons for the purpose of purchasing or obtaining such goods, services, and facilities DSS-funded disability support services — a means any disability support services funded (whether wholly or partly and whether directly or indirectly) by money appropriated by Parliament under— i the appropriation known, on the commencement of this Act, as the Disability Support Services multi-category appropriation (M23) (A25); or ii any predecessor, successor, or replacement appropriation with the same, or substantially the same, purpose; but b does not include any disability support services provided under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 b does not include— i any disability support services provided under, or in connection with, the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 (including any such services provided to facilitate the release of a person from compulsory care under that Act): ii any administrative services that facilitate the provision of disability support services or the stewardship of DSS funding legislation or policy (for example, the provision of information about disability support services to the public or the monitoring of the quality of disability support services) DSS funding legislation or policy means any of the following to the extent that it relates to the allocation and use of DSS-funded disability support services: a a direction given under section 10 : b a programme approved and established under section 11 : c any policy or programme established by the Crown before the commencement of this Act, as amended from time to time by the Minister under clause 8 of Schedule 1 eligible person means a person who— a has been assessed by the Ministry or a contracted provider under DSS funding legislation or policy as requiring disability support services; and b is eligible under DSS funding legislation or policy to be considered for DSS-funded disability support services family member , in relation to a person ( A ), means another person who— a is any of the following: i A’s spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner: ii A’s child, tamaiti whāngai, stepchild, or grandchild: iii A’s sibling, half-sibling, or step-sibling: iv a parent or step-parent of A: v a person who acts as a parent of A: vi a grandparent of A: vii an uncle or aunt of A: viii a nephew or niece of A: ix a first cousin of A; or b is— i a member of A’s family, whānau, or other culturally recognised family group; and ii not mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) to (ix) ; and iii in a close relationship with A paid family carer means a person ( C ) who— a provides care to a person ( D ) who is— i a disabled person; and ii C’s family member; and b is paid, in whole or in part, for providing that care with from funding allocated to D in accordance with DSS funding legislation or policy. 5 Transitional, savings, and related provisions The transitional, savings, and related provisions set out in Schedule 1 have effect according to their terms. 6 Act binds the Crown This Act binds the Crown. 7 Purpose of DSS-funded disability support services The purpose of DSS-funded disability support services is to contribute towards enabling eligible persons to live their everyday life by providing disability support services from within public funding available, having regard to their needs and circumstances. 8 Principles that Ministry and contracted providers must take into account when making decisions about provision of DSS-funded disability support services This section applies when the Ministry or a contracted provider is making decisions about the provision of DSS-funded disability support services. The Ministry or contracted provider must take into account the following principles: a families, whānau, and other culturally recognised family groups, where appropriate, have responsibility in the first instance for a responsibility to contribute to the well-being of their members: b before being provided with DSS-funded disability support services, an eligible person should, where appropriate, use their resources and any other support that is available to them, including from— i other publicly funded sources; and ii their family, whānau, or other culturally recognised family group; and iii their community. b decisions about the provision of DSS-funded disability support services to an eligible person should be made taking into account— i the choice or preferences of the eligible person, or another person lawfully acting on the eligible person’s behalf, regarding how DSS-funded disability support services could contribute to the eligible person’s everyday life (including if the eligible person requires support to— A make a choice or form preferences; or B communicate their choice or preferences); and ii the eligible person’s safety and dignity; and iii the eligible person’s immediate, and long-term, needs and circumstances; and iv where appropriate, the eligible person’s resources; and v any support that is available to the eligible person from other publicly funded sources; and vi where appropriate, any other support that is available to the eligible person, including from— A their family, whānau, or other culturally recognised family group; and B their community. 9 Neither Ministry nor contracted provider may allocate DSS-funded disability support services other than in accordance with this Act and DSS funding legislation or policy Neither the Ministry nor a contracted provider may allocate DSS-funded disability support services other than in accordance with this Act and DSS funding legislation or policy. 10 Minister may give Ministry binding directions The Minister may give the Ministry general or special written directions about the Ministry’s performance or exercise of any functions, duties, or powers of the Ministry under this Act. The Ministry must, in performing or exercising a function, duty, or power, comply with all relevant current directions given under this section. A direction given under this section is secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). 11 Approved disability support services programmes The Minister may, by written notice, approve and establish programmes for the purpose of providing disability support services. A programme approved and established by the Minister under subsection (1) — a must be administered by the Ministry; and b may do all or any of the following: i specify criteria for determining who is eligible to receive disability support services under the programme: ii specify criteria to be taken into account by the Ministry in allocating funding under the programme: iia specify ways in which disability support services may or must be provided under the programme: iii provide for the making of payments to persons who provide care to an eligible person who is their family member or who is otherwise in a close social relationship with them: iv provide funding for residential care for disabled persons: v impose conditions on the use of funding provided under the programme: vi set out processes for dealing with exceptional circumstances: vii set out other rules for the administration of the programme. The criteria that may be specified under subsection (2)(b)(i) or (ii) include (but are not limited to)— a the nature of a person’s disability: b the cause of a person’s disability: c the age of a person: d the nature of a person’s living arrangements: e the nature of the care or support that a person needs: f income-based criteria: g asset-based criteria: ga eligibility for an entitlement card issued under— i regulations made under section 437 of the Social Security Act 2018; or ii regulations saved as if they were made under section 437 of the Social Security Act 2018: h the likelihood that providing disability support services to a person in the short term will reduce their need for disability support services over the long term. The ways that may be specified under subsection (2)(b)(iia) include (but are not limited to)— a commissioning persons to provide disability support services to an eligible person or a class of eligible persons: b making payments to persons who provide disability support services to an eligible person who is their family member or who is otherwise in a close social relationship with them: c providing funding for residential care for disabled persons: d providing financial assistance to disabled persons for the purpose of purchasing or obtaining goods, services, and facilities specified in paragraph (a) of the definition of disability support services in section 4 . Before approving and establishing a programme under subsection (1) , the Minister must take into account— a the purpose of DSS-funded disability support services as set out in section 7 ; and b the principles set out in section 8(2) ; and ba the likely outcomes for disabled persons of approving and establishing the programme; and c any other matters that the Minister considers relevant. Before approving and establishing a programme under subsection (1) , the Minister must also consult such representatives of disabled persons as the Minister considers appropriate. However,— a the Minister may amend a programme approved and established under subsection (1) without complying with subsection (4A) , if the Minister is satisfied that— i the amendment is minor in effect or corrects a minor or technical error; or ii no eligible person will be adversely affected by the amendment; and b a failure to comply with subsection (4A) does not affect the validity of any programme approved and established under subsection (1) . A programme approved and established under this section is secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). 12 Recipient of payments under approved disability support services programme not employee of eligible person This section applies to a person ( A ) who receives payments— a under a programme approved and established under section 11 ; and b for providing care disability support services to an eligible person who is— i A’s family member; or ii otherwise in a close social relationship with A; and c made by the Ministry or a contracted provider; and d that are not made on behalf of the eligible person. A is not an employee of the eligible person. This section applies despite anything to the contrary in the Employment Relations Act 2000 or any other legislation or rule of law. 13 The Crown not employer of provider of DSS-funded disability support services without written agreement Determination of whether provider of DSS-funded disability support services is employee of the Crown or contracted provider This section applies to a determines whether a natural person ( A ) who provides DSS-funded disability support services to another an eligible person is an employee of the Crown or a contracted provider . The Crown is not the employer of A unless the Crown and A are parties to a written agreement that specifies that A is an employee of the Crown. If A is a party to, or covered by, a written agreement with the Crown stating that A is an employee, the agreement is conclusive proof that A is an employee of the Crown. If A is not a party to, or covered by, a written agreement with the Crown stating that A is an employee, that is conclusive proof that A is not an employee of the Crown. If A is a party to, or covered by, a written agreement with a contracted provider stating that A is an employee, the agreement is conclusive proof that A is an employee of the contracted provider. If A is not a party to, or covered by, a written agreement with a contracted provider stating that A is an employee, that is conclusive proof that A is not an employee of the contracted provider. This section— a is subject to clause 16 of Schedule 1 ; but b otherwise applies despite anything to the contrary in the Employment Relations Act 2000 or any other legislation or rule of law. To avoid doubt, a natural person who provides DSS-funded disability support services to an eligible person cannot invoke section 6(2) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 to determine whether they are an employee of the Crown or a contracted provider. 14 Contracted provider not employer of provider of DSS-funded disability support services without written agreement This section applies to a person ( A ) who provides DSS-funded disability support services to another person. A contracted provider is not the employer of A unless the contracted provider and A are parties to a written agreement that specifies that A is an employee of the contracted provider. This section— a is subject to clause 16 of Schedule 1 ; but b otherwise applies despite anything to the contrary in the Employment Relations Act 2000 or any other legislation or rule of law. 15 Neither the Crown nor contracted provider is controlling third party in relation to employee who provides DSS-funded disability support services to their employer This section applies to an employee who provides DSS-funded disability support services to their employer. For the purposes of the Employment Relations Act 2000, neither the Crown nor a contracted provider , nor any officer or employee of a contracted provider, is a controlling third party in relation to the employee mentioned in subsection (1) . 16 Neither the Crown nor contracted provider is involved in breach of employment standards relating to certain carers This section applies to a breach of employment standards if the breach relates to a person who— a provides care to a disabled person; and b is paid, in whole or in part, for providing that care with from funding allocated to the disabled person in accordance with this Act and DSS funding legislation or policy. For the purposes of the Employment Relations Act 2000, neither the Crown nor a contracted provider , nor any officer or employee of a contracted provider, is involved in the breach. In this section, employment standards has the meaning given in section 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. 17 Review of operation of Act The Minister must, within 5 years after the commencement of this Act,— a review the operation of this Act; and b consider whether any amendments to this Act are necessary or desirable; and c prepare a report on their findings. The Minister must, as soon as practicable after completing the report, present it to the House of Representatives. 18 Consequential amendments to other legislation Amend the legislation specified in Schedule 2 as set out in that schedule. 1 Transitional, savings, and related provisions In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,— 3-year 5-year transition period means the period that— a starts on the commencement date; and b ends immediately before the date that is the third fifth anniversary of the commencement date Authority means the Employment Relations Authority established by section 156 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 commencement date means the date on which this Part comes into force employee has the meaning given in section 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 employment agreement has the meaning given in section 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 Employment Court means the Employment Court constituted under the Employment Relations Act 2000 Health and Disability Commissioner means the Health and Disability Commissioner appointed in accordance with section 8 of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 and section 28(1)(b) of the Crown Entities Act 2004 Human Rights Commission means the Human Rights Commission continued by section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1993 introduction date means the date on which the Disability Support Services Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives specified allegation means any assertion to the effect that a person’s right under section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to freedom from discrimination on 1 or more of the grounds stated in section 21(1)(b), (h), (i), and (l) of the Human Rights Act 1993 , being the right affirmed by section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, has been breached before the introduction commencement date by— a any policy or programme established by the Crown that relates to— i the allocation and use of DSS-funded disability support services; and ii paid family carers; or b anything done or omitted to be done in compliance, or intended compliance, with any policy or programme described in paragraph (a) welfare guardian has the meaning given in section 2 of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. This clause applies to an employment agreement entered into before the commencement date between a paid family carer and a disabled an eligible person who is their family member. The employment agreement is not invalid merely because the disabled eligible person did not have the capacity to enter into the agreement. This clause applies to an employment agreement that would, but for clause 2 , be invalid. This clause applies to— a an employment agreement that would, but for clause 2 , be invalid: b any variation of such an employment agreement that was agreed to personally by a person to whom section 68(2)(a) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 applied at the time the employment agreement was entered into and to whom it continued to apply at the time the person agreed to the variation (regardless of whether the variation was made before, on, or after the commencement date). For the purposes of the Employment Relations Act 2000, bargaining for the employment agreement or variation is not unfair. This clause applies to an employment agreement that— a would, but for clause 2 , be invalid; and b has not expired or been terminated by the end of the 3-year 5-year transition period. The employment agreement expires at the end of the 3-year 5-year transition period. This clause applies if, during the 3-year transition period, a paid family carer who is an employee of an eligible person provides, or is available to provide, any hours of care to their employer the eligible person in excess of the number of hours of care for which funding is provided to that employer eligible person under DSS funding legislation or policy. For the purposes of the Minimum Wage Act 1983, the paid family carer is treated as not performing work during the excess hours. In this clause,— 3-year transition period means the period that— a starts on the commencement date; and b ends immediately before the date that is the third anniversary of the commencement date employer has the meaning given in section 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 hours includes part-hours. This clause applies if,— a before the commencement date, the Ministry or a contracted provider regarded , or could reasonably have regarded, a person ( A ) as acting on behalf of a disabled person ( B ) in relation to the making of decisions about disability support services for B; and b at the time that the Ministry or the contracted provider first regarded A as acting on behalf of B in relation to the making of decisions about disability support services for B, B did not have the capacity to make decisions about disability support services for B; and c immediately before the commencement date, B did not have any of the following persons acting for them: i an attorney: ii a welfare guardian: iii a manager. The requirement in subclause (1)(b) is treated as having been met if the Ministry or the contracted provider can show that, before the commencement date, they had information from which it was reasonable to conclude that B did not have the capacity to make decisions about disability support services for B. During the 3-year 5-year transition period, A may act on behalf of B in relation to the making of decisions about disability support services for B as if— a A is acting in the best interests of B; and b A has sought B’s views on the decisions to be made; and c B has the capacity to— i make decisions about disability support services for B; and ii appoint a person to act on their behalf; and iii provide instructions to a person that B has appointed to act on their behalf. However, A ceases to be able to act on behalf of B in relation to the making of decisions about disability support services for B if, during the 3-year 5-year transition period, — B begins to have a person listed in subclause (1)(c) acting for them. a B begins to have a person listed in subclause (1)(c) acting for them; or b B regains or develops the capacity to make decisions about disability support services for B; or c the Ministry or the contracted provider determines that A is no longer willing, able, or suitable to act on behalf of B. If subclause (3)(c) applies, the Ministry or the contracted provider— a may treat another person as acting on behalf of B in relation to the making of decisions about disability support services for B (and, for the purposes of this section, that other person is to be treated as if they were A); and b must have regard to the following when making a decision under paragraph (a) about whom to treat as acting on behalf of B: i whether the person is willing, able, and suitable to act on behalf of B: ii the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights prescribed by regulations made under section 74(1) of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994: iii any relevant internal policies of the Ministry. Nothing in this clause limits or affects— a the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988; or b the law of agency. In this clause, attorney and manager have the meanings given in section 2 of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. Nothing in this Act invalidates any act done, or any decision made, by the Ministry or a contracted provider before the commencement date. During the 3-year 5-year transition period, the Minister may amend or revoke any policy or programme— a established by the Crown before the commencement of this Act; and b relating to the provision of DSS-funded disability support services. This clause applies to a policy or programme described in clause 8 that has not been revoked under that clause by the end of the 3-year 5-year transition period. The policy or programme ceases to have effect from the end of the 3-year 5-year transition period. This clause applies to the following proceedings lodged or filed with the Authority or the Employment Court, but not determined or resolved, before the commencement date: a proceedings seeking 1 or more of the following: i a declaration or determination that a specified person is or was an employee of the Crown or a contracted provider while they are or were providing or receiving DSS-funded disability support services: ii any remedies that would or may be available to a specified person as a consequence of a declaration or determination referred to in subparagraph (i) : iii a declaration of breach under section 142B of the Employment Relations Act 2000 against the Crown or a contracted provider (or any officer or employee of a contracted provider) that relates to a specified person and the provision or receipt of DSS-funded disability support services: iv a compensation order under section 142J of the Employment Relations Act 2000 against the Crown or a contracted provider (or any officer or employee of a contracted provider) that relates to a specified person and the provision or receipt of DSS-funded disability support services: v the recovery, under section 142Y of the Employment Relations Act 2000, from the Crown or a contracted provider (or any officer or employee of a contracted provider) , of wages or other money payable to a specified person in connection with the provision or receipt of DSS-funded disability support services: b proceedings— i to resolve a personal grievance raised by a specified person that relates to the provision or receipt of DSS-funded disability support services; and ii to which the Crown or a contracted provider (or any officer or employee of a contracted provider) has, under section 103B of the Employment Relations Act 2000, been joined as a controlling third party: c an application, under section 103B of the Employment Relations Act 2000, to join the Crown or a contracted provider (or any officer or employee of a contracted provider) as a controlling third party to proceedings to resolve a personal grievance— i raised by a specified person; and ii that relates to the provision or receipt of DSS-funded disability support services. The proceedings— a cannot be pursued; and b must be treated as if they had been withdrawn or discontinued. In this clause, specified person means a person who is or was 1 or more of the following: a a paid family carer: b a disabled person: c a person appointed under section 31 of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 as manager of any property of a disabled person: d a welfare guardian for a disabled person: e the holder of a power of attorney granted by a disabled person (whether or not the grantor was disabled when the power was granted): f a person supporting the decision-making of a disabled person: g a parent or guardian of a disabled person aged under 18 years: h an agent of a person described in paragraphs (a) to (g) . This clause applies to any potential proceedings described in clause 10(1)(a) or (c) — a in the Authority or the Employment Court; and b relating to circumstances, events, or decisions that occurred before the introduction commencement date. The potential proceedings— a cannot be pursued; and b must be treated as if they are incapable of being lodged or filed. On and after the commencement date, no person may make a complaint to the Human Rights Commission or the Health and Disability Commissioner, to the extent that the complaint is based on a specified allegation. — a to the Human Rights Commission or the Health and Disability Commissioner; and b that is, in whole or in part, based on a specified allegation. On and after the commencement date, neither the Human Rights Commission nor the Health and Disability Commissioner may take any action, or any further action, in relation to a complaint that was made before the commencement date, to the extent that the complaint is based on a specified allegation. — a was made before the commencement date; and b is, in whole or in part, based on a specified allegation. This clause applies to any proceedings— a against the Crown or a contracted provider (or any officer or employee of a contracted provider) ; and b based, in whole or in part, on a specified allegation; and c lodged or filed with any court or tribunal, but not determined or resolved, before the commencement date. The proceedings , to the extent that they are based on the specified allegation, — a cannot be pursued; and b must be treated as if they had been withdrawn or discontinued. This clause applies to any potential proceedings— a in any court or tribunal; and b against the Crown or a contracted provider (or any officer or employee of a contracted provider) ; and c based, in whole or in part, on a specified allegation. The potential proceedings , to the extent that they are based on the specified allegation, — a cannot be pursued; and b must be treated as if they are incapable of being lodged or filed. Nothing in this Act affects— a the Supreme Court decision as it relates to an appellant; or b the position of any particular party under— i any final and binding settlement agreed to before the commencement date; or ii any decision in proceedings that have been determined before the commencement date. Nothing in this Act prevents the lodging or filing of specified proceedings with the Authority or the Employment Court on or after the commencement date. Specified proceedings that were lodged or filed with the Authority or the Employment Court before the commencement date, but that have not been determined, resolved, withdrawn, or discontinued, continue as if the provisions of this Act (other than this clause) had not been enacted. In this clause,— appellant means an appellant in Fleming v Attorney-General (SC 42/2024) or Humphreys v Attorney-General (SC 44/2024), being which are the proceedings to which the Supreme Court decision relates specified person means an appellant or their spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner specified proceedings means proceedings seeking— a remedies for a specified person that are or may be available to the specified person as a consequence of the Supreme Court decision; or b remedies for any other person that are or may be available to that person as a consequence of— i an order made under section 6(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 in relation to that person before the commencement date; or ii any other determination made by the Authority or the Employment Court before the commencement date about whether that person is an employee Supreme Court decision means the decision of the Supreme Court in Fleming v Attorney-General [2025] NZSC 188, [2025] 1 NZLR 973. 2 Consequential amendments to other legislation Replace the heading above section CW 52B(1) with: Exempt income: amounts paid by Health New Zealand, Ministry of Disabled People, or Ministry of Health Replace the heading above section CW 52B(2) with: Meaning of disability support services in subsection (1) In section CW 52B(2), replace this section with subsection (1) . After section CW 52B(2), insert: Exempt income: amounts paid by Ministry of Social Development 3 An amount of income derived by or on behalf of a person or their carer is exempt income of the relevant person if the amount is paid by the Ministry of Social Development for the purpose of the purchase of disability support services in relation to the person. Meaning of disability support services in subsection (3) 4 In subsection (3) , disability support services has the meaning given in section 4 of the Disability Support Services Act 2026 . Replace section 67(d)(i) and (ii) with: i P’s accommodation costs are wholly or partly funded— A under the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Act 2022; or B from funding allocated in accordance with the Disability Support Services Act 2026 and DSS funding legislation or policy; or ii P’s care (other than care in P’s own home) is wholly or partly funded— A under the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Act 2022; or B from funding allocated in accordance with the Disability Support Services Act 2026 and DSS funding legislation or policy; or Replace section 72(2)(d)(i) with: i receiving, in relation to the person’s disability or long-term chronic health condition, residential care services that are partly funded— A under the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Act 2022; or B from funding allocated in accordance with the Disability Support Services Act 2026 and DSS funding legislation or policy; and Replace section 86(1)(b)(ii) with: ii the person’s accommodation costs or care (other than care in the person’s own home) is wholly or partly funded— A under the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Act 2022; or B from funding allocated in accordance with the Disability Support Services Act 2026 and DSS funding legislation or policy. Replace section 96(2)(a) and (b) with: a the person’s accommodation costs are wholly or partly funded— i under the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Act 2022; or ii from funding allocated in accordance with the Disability Support Services Act 2026 and DSS funding legislation or policy; or b the person’s care (other than care in the person’s own home) is wholly or partly funded— i under the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Act 2022; or ii from funding allocated in accordance with the Disability Support Services Act 2026 and DSS funding legislation or policy. In Schedule 2, insert in its appropriate alphabetical order: DSS funding legislation or policy has the same meaning as in section 4 of the Disability Support Services Act 2026 In regulation 3(1), replace the definition of disability support services with: disability support services means disability support services within the meaning of either section 4 of the Disability Support Services Act 2026 or section 4 of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Act 2022 In Schedule 3, clause 2, replace the definition of disability support services with: disability support services means disability support services within the meaning of either section 4 of the Disability Support Services Act 2026 or section 4 of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Act 2022 Replace regulation 162(c)(iii) with: iii that is wholly or partly funded— i under the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Act 2022; or ii from funding allocated to the beneficiary in accordance with the Disability Support Services Act 2026 and DSS funding legislation or policy. In Schedule 8, clause 5, replace the definition of disability support services with: disability support services means disability support services within the meaning of either section 4 of the Disability Support Services Act 2026 or section 4 of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Act 2022 In regulation 2(1), revoke the definitions of DHB and disability support services . In regulation 2(1), insert in its appropriate alphabetical order: disability support services means disability support services within the meaning of either section 4 of the Disability Support Services Act 2026 or section 4 of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Act 2022

Hansard

May 21, 2026

Disability Support Services Bill — First Reading · Full day report

First Reading Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (15:02): I move, That the Disability Support Services Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 13 August 2026 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except oral questions) during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196. Disability Support Services (DSS) funds essential supports for some of our most vulnerable disabled New Zealanders. A 2024 independent review confirmed longstanding issues with DSS, and the Government took action to stabilise it. In the last two Budgets, we have invested a record $2.1 billion over five years into Disability Support Services to address demand and cost pressures. Over the last 18 months, we have undertaken engagement with disabled people and their families to learn how disability support services should best be provided an…
Read full Hansard debate
First Reading Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (15:02): I move, That the Disability Support Services Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 13 August 2026 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except oral questions) during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196. Disability Support Services (DSS) funds essential supports for some of our most vulnerable disabled New Zealanders. A 2024 independent review confirmed longstanding issues with DSS, and the Government took action to stabilise it. In the last two Budgets, we have invested a record $2.1 billion over five years into Disability Support Services to address demand and cost pressures. Over the last 18 months, we have undertaken engagement with disabled people and their families to learn how disability support services should best be provided and improved. Disabled people and families have said that they want certainty in what they can access and for it to be consistently available. DSS has implemented a new needs assessment process to ensure a consistent level of support, and it specifically considers, for the very first time ever, the needs of carers. More choice and control has also been given for how people can use their flexible funding. However, there is more needed to strengthen DSS for the future and to ensure that we continue to make progress on the principles of enabling good lives. DSS operates without a legislative framework that sets its purpose and authorises the use of appropriated funding. This absence has created legal and fiscal risks. A recent Supreme Court judgment has highlighted these risks. Work on DSS legislation had been under way on a slower track, but because of the added uncertainty disabled people and their families face with the financial risks, I have brought this work forward. The bill establishes a needed foundational framework for strengthening Disability Support Services. It gives certainty to disabled people on what DSS does and for who. This is something the disability community and their organisations have been asking for for years. The bill clarifies that DSS funding is a contribution towards disabled people being able to live an everyday life. It makes clear that families and whānau have responsibility for the wellbeing of their families in the first instance and where appropriate, and that is exactly what has been happening already. It reflects the way DSS already works. It doesn’t mean that DSS won’t help where disabled people’s families support them. As I say, there is no change. The disability community have asked for increased transparency, and that will be achieved by enabling the responsible Minister to make ministerial programmes as secondary legislation. These authorise the use of funding for disability support and are subject to parliamentary oversight. While I am the Minister for Disability Issues, I intend to undertake appropriate and targeted consultation on all ministerial programmes. Following its introduction this week, I have heard concerns, including whether this bill introduces means testing. To be clear, this bill does not change current eligibility and access to support, nor does it introduce any new requirements for disabled people, families, and carers. Asset and income testing have long been used for a very small number of DSS supports, such as home modifications and equipment. It is not used in relation to personal care or carer support, and this bill does not change it. I’d really encourage people with concerns to engage in the select committee process but also to be clear about what this bill does and doesn’t do. The absence of a legislative framework to set DSS policy has created an opening for litigation. In December 2025, the Supreme Court found that two family members paid by disabled people to care for them are employees of the Crown. It was never intended that carers in this situation would be Crown employees. The judgment highlights legal and fiscal risk to the Crown by widening the definition of what constitutes employment. This has created a risk of unmanageable costs, which may impact the provision of disability support. This bill reaffirms that it is the Government and Parliament that sets policy and funding, not individual court decisions. The Crown faces further litigation based on the precedent of the Supreme Court judgment. My intention is that appropriated funding for DSS goes to quality disability support services and not to further costs from litigation. This is why the bill includes a litigation bar for historical employment claims of paid family carers. This bar will be limited to claims relating to decisions or events prior to the bill’s introduction. It is also why the bill extinguishes claims filed, but not resolved or determined, before the date the bill commences. These provisions are not made lightly. I consider them necessary to provide the certainty and consistency that disabled people continue to ask for. The bill does not affect the two successful claims or any subsequent remedies. This bill sets the foundation for strengthening DSS, and I intend that it will be built upon to ensure its sustainability into the future. Appropriate arrangements will be put in place by DSS for people who may not be able to make decisions for themselves. These must be safe, enable the right support, and be on the right legal basis. As a transition measure, the bill includes novel provisions, such as temporarily validating existing employment arrangements between disabled people who lack decision-making capacity and their family carers. This is necessary to ensure that highly vulnerable disabled people continue to receive essential care and support services until new arrangements are put in place. Family and whānau play a significant role in caring for disabled people, but an employment model is not always appropriate or practical. It can impact the health and wellbeing of both the disabled person and their family member, and it is not a natural basis for their relationship. For this reason, I’ve directed officials to work with the sector on a new carer-support package that better recognises and supports carers outside of an employment model, and this bill enables such support to be funded. The support package will be informed through consultation with the community and carer groups. I ask Parliament to support this bill as a significant further step towards stronger disability support services, to better serve disabled New Zealanders and to provide clarity and certainty and a strong foundation for the future. Disabled people and their families have been asking for this. They have been asking for a strong legislative framework with clear, consistent, and certain disability support services, and I want to ensure that they have that certainty, clarity, and transparency that they have been asking for for a very long time. I commend this bill to the House. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (15:11): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We’re here today because, according to the Government, this bill does largely two things, and we’ve heard from the Minister responsible, who has said that it establishes a legislative framework for disability support services (DSS) funding, including by enabling the making of secondary legislation. Now, I want to be absolutely clear: on this side of the House, the Labour Party supports the legislative framework aspect of this bill. I agree with the Minister that there is a need for that. In fact, it’s the lack of a legislative framework for DSS that has seen the chopping and changing of flexibility when it comes to DSS support and so many other changes, including access to residential care, that this Government has inflicted on disability communities over the last two years. I want to be clear that we support that aspect of it, but we cannot support the bill as it is currently drafted, and I will quickly lay out some of the reasons for it. But, firstly, I want to acknowledge that we are here today because of a case that was brought about by Christine Fleming and Peter Humphreys, who each care for adult disabled family members in their family homes. Peter is in the gallery today and I want to acknowledge him, and Christine, and to thank them for their courage and persistence for fighting this case, for about eight years, from memory—and here we are today. I think Peter said it best in an email to me, and I want to acknowledge the large number of emails that I have received on this. People are fearful of this bill, and I will lay out why. But he said it best when he said that we need to stand up against this at a time when people are “feeling frightened, unheard, and deeply concerned about this bill”—unheard because there has been a lack of meaningful consultation on this aspect of the legislative framework, and that’s what I’m hearing loud and clear from the sector. “Nothing about us without us” is not only the rallying cry of the disability community but the philosophical bedrock of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and this is concerning—the lack of consultation on this aspect is concerning. The fact that this bill has come out of the blue; that there’s been radio silence from the Government since the Supreme Court ruling at the end of last year, where we could have had a transparent conversation around alternative options. The fiscal cost to the Crown, both of upholding the ruling but, also, if care is stepped back from the duty of care that they provide to disabled people—but none of that has been out in the public domain, and here we are today. The heavy reliance on secondary legislation: that creates uncertainty and anxiety for disability communities who have been struggling with uncertainty and anxiety over the last two years. This exacerbates it. And now, Parliament is being asked to support a rather vague framework that signals some deeply problematic things without any of us seeing the detail. Much of the impact of those decisions will be how they operate in practice, and that’s why people are so fearful of this bill. I want to touch on what the Minister has said: that it doesn’t signal any change for disabled people or carers in terms of their support currently. She has said that this is not a sneaky way of the Government to move towards means testing disability support funding, but that is not what is out there in the community. If that’s what the Minister holds on to, it is her responsibility to clarify that in the primary legislation, not the secondary legislation. Huge references to natural supports; families are breaking down because of the stress of disability. The Minister keeps saying no change from there, but it signals a move away from a rights-based framework to one that is closer to a benefit system. If it’s not that, then clarify the legislation, Minister, because that is the worry. It is also the worry because of the trajectory of this Government, and it’s at a time when so much is being reduced. There’s “a broader political pattern of welfare tightening, transport reductions, housing accessibility failures, pressure on carers, health systems strain, and stricter funding controls.” I quote from Huhana Hickey’s fabulous work on Substack. That is what is underpinning the anxiety and the fear for disability communities and the lack of trust with this Government. The onus is on the Minister to make this legislation as clear as possible that we’re not moving towards means testing, that it’s not a sneaky way to reduce support further for disability communities, disabled people, and carers, who have been traumatised by this Government. KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) (15:16): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Green Party strongly opposes the Disability Support Services Bill. Disabled people deserve access to their community, disabled people deserve access to the care they need, and care workers who care for disabled people deserve to be paid for their work. This bill was introduced under the guise of—and I’m reading from the explanatory note here—“improving the consistency, fairness, transparency, and sustainability of the disability support service system.” What this bill is really doing is singling out disabled people by creating a different set of standards for them compared to other New Zealanders. It allows for the erosion of rights of disabled people. The Disability Support Services Bill is being framed as a technical update, but what is in the fine print is that it enshrines in law the ideology that Luxon’s Government has perpetuated of how disability support is understood and how services should be delivered. This is an enabling law; so, initially, the impact might not be felt much, but the major red flags are the fine print. What this law does is enable a secondary legislation to enshrine in law what Luxon’s Government has been shifting to— SPEAKER: No, I’m sorry. I’ll stop you there. You will terminate the speech. You know that you must address members of the House by their full name. KAHURANGI CARTER: Oh, apologies. Am I able to continue? SPEAKER: Yes. KAHURANGI CARTER: Thank you. Disability support services are moving away from a human rights-based model to one that is discretionary and more like a charity model. In the explanatory note, it talks about transparency. “Nothing about us without us.” has been repeated over and over by disabled people, something the Minister has professed to have listened to. Disabled people have had no say and no warning on this bill. It was introduced on Monday night with no consultation with disabled people, and about 30 minutes before it was announced, there was a briefing for some disability groups. Now, just three days later, we are at the first reading, which is likely to pass due to coalition support, and I want to impart a reasonable request that disabled people have asked me to impart to the Minister—to have a longer submission period. The Minister in their opening statement talked about 13 August, which is not enough time. Disabled people have asked to have adequate time to have accessibility for disabled people, for captions to be added to the live select committee hearings to allow for disabled people to participate in the democratic process, which is their right and the right of all New Zealanders, something the Government should be taking very seriously. In the explanatory note, it also talked about fairness. There is a pattern that has emerged from the current Government: when working New Zealanders win workers’ rights cases through the courts, like pay equity, like Uber drivers, and like this case where parents who became full-time carers for their disabled children have been awarded by the court that they are employees of the Government, the Government’s response, rather than upholding the court’s decisions around human rights and workers’ rights, is to change the law. That is a political choice. It is a political choice who the Government listens to and who they don’t. It is a political choice who the Government funds and who they do not. This Minister has been consistent in targeting disabled people and the systemic erosion of disabled people’s rights. This bill sets the future foundation for disability support in Aotearoa, and we must have disabled people’s voices. The Green Party will always fight for “nothing about us without us”. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (15:21): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak on the Disability Support Services Bill. Firstly, I want to acknowledge all of those in the disabled community—people living with a disability, their carers, family, and all the actual service providers that look after this important community. I think we actually have a responsibility in this House to debate and discuss these issues with respect, with facts, and actually not with rhetoric and create scaremongering or other things that could cause distress. As the Minister clearly outlined— Shanan Halbert: Just like you did last night on Jenny Marcroft’s bill? Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Scaremongering, have you read the bill? TODD STEPHENSON: —I think a lot of New Zealanders would be surprised—and I don’t need that yelling across the House, because we’re actually going to debate this in good faith—that there actually is no legislative framework today for Disability Support Services. I think New Zealanders would be surprised about that. The Minister, I think, is doing the right thing here in trying to actually provide clarity and transparency and certainty to the disability community. I think we should actually engage in that spirit. The other point I would make—and it was very disappointing to hear some of the other remarks—this Government actually inherited, I think, an unsustainable situation in the disability sector. It inherited a ministry out of control and not able to control its own spending. This Government has done a number of things to make sure that disabled people and their families get the support they need because it has to be sustainable. I want to thank the Minister, actually for making a number of changes, actually getting the trust of the disability community to be able to have these discussions, and now she’s bringing forward a piece of legislation to actually strengthen the transparency and their rights. This isn’t a rights discussion; it’s actually about making sure that people are looked after, they do get the care and support they need, and, as the Minister clearly outlined—and let me just say it again: clearly outlined—there is no move towards means testing. She said that very clearly, so let’s not have that repeated again during this debate. The purpose is, as I said, simple: let’s actually get in place a system and a legislative framework for disability support that we can then build on. The Minister has already said there is more work that needs to be done once this framework is in place, and she has been out and will continue to be out, as other members across the Government are, actually talking to people in the disability community, understanding their needs, and making sure we put the appropriate support in place. The select committee process will allow people to have their say. There have obviously been some developments, and the Fleming v Attorney-General Supreme Court case has been referenced today, but that’s only one aspect of this legislation. What is actually being done here is something that can be sustainable for the future. When we don’t take a considered and thoughtful approach to these things, sustainability of systems can get into question. We’ve seen that with ACC. If I look across at the Tasman, at the national disability support service there, a wonderfully set-up scheme to actually try and help people has got out of control and is becoming unsustainable. So let’s actually just engage in this debate in good faith, actually recognise that the Government is actually trying to do something to actually provide certainty to the disability sector and community. That’s why we will be supporting this bill in the first reading. I commend it to the House. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (15:25): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Disability Support Services Bill. I’d just like to acknowledge the disability community. In the 2023 census, 17 percent of people living in New Zealand households were disabled, according to that census. That sort of equates to a really large number of adults: 750,000 adults; 98,000 children. So we’re talking about a very large number of New Zealanders in the disability community. One thing we need to think about is, as the people age—as we all age—there is an increase in disability prevalence, so we need to expect that number of people will grow, as our population ages, and those requiring support services will increase as a result. The Disability Support Services Bill is absolutely necessary, because, as the Minister outlined, there is no clear, strong legislative framework for the Disability Support Services. It’s absolutely crazy that there wasn’t a system in place, and this piece of legislation is fixing that. It’s really important. This is something that the families have asked for to have certainty around, also some consistency. One of the points I think is necessary to reiterate because there is some concern out in the community: this legislation will not change current eligibility, and it does not move towards means testing. So that needs to be stated very clearly. Of course, part of this bill is responding to a Supreme Court case which has created significant fiscal and litigation risks to the New Zealand taxpayer. We will affirm the Minister’s view that policy setting for public funding belongs in Parliament, not in courtrooms. This bill, as has been mentioned already, will provide certainty for families and for disabled people, as the purpose of the Disability Support Services Bill will include making it clear that the Crown is not the employer of family carers. It also defines the purpose of the Disability Support Service as a contribution towards care. This bill also aims to strengthen the system by improving the consistency, the fairness, and the transparency of decision making. A short contribution from me. I now commend it to the House. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) (15:28): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mā Te Pāti Māori i tēnei rangi. [Thank you, Mr Speaker; indeed greetings to us all in the House. I stand to give voice to statements on behalf of the Māori Party today.] Caring for whānau living with disability is incredibly valuable mahi. Despite multiple inquiries and select committee recommendations, meaningful reform has not occurred. Māori perspectives are often ignored altogether, and disability systems continue to separate individuals from whānau, culture, and identity. Mana hauā affirms the inherent mana, dignity, and rights of disabled people. Māori experience disability at higher rates than non-Māori, and face compounded barriers across education, health, employment, housing, and incomes. These barriers are a result of systems designed without Māori authority, knowledge, or control. For too long, disability policy has treated Māori as an afterthought—ignoring whakapapa, whanaungatanga, and collective responsibility. This policy will make it more difficult for whānau to care for disabled people. Disability advocate Jane has said—I quote—“It’s cruel … It has to be the worst piece of legislation I’ve ever seen.” Family carers had been failed by the system. Family carers are completely isolated. This is not a system that cares about them; this is a system that suddenly worries it might have to pay for disability support services they are providing. There are 40 people with family care - related cases filed with the Employment Relations Authority. This bill will ensure that they do not receive employment benefits for their mahi. They should be allowed to have their cases heard, but this bill would pull the rug on their only chance at legal remedy. This sets a bad precedent for our mokopuna, that work can only be recognised if you’re party to an employment contract. This follows the same pattern as the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, where the Government ensured that Uber drivers and other contractors can be recognised as employees. This was the result of direct lobbying from Uber. Te Pāti Māori sees all work as valuable. If a person is taking on the responsibility of the Government, they should receive the same benefit as a Government employee. If we were in power ,we would empower mana hauā. mana hauā is a about collective disability that is shaped by social, cultural, and systemic environments, where systems are inaccessible, discriminatory, or culturally unsafe. Disability must be amplified. We will establish mana hauā authority where we will ensure that all new Governments build designs to accommodate all whānau. Housing should not be discriminatory; we will ensure that the work of all carers is valued. In closing, Te Pāti Māori opposes this bill. Te Pāti Māori sees the value of our workers looking after our mana hauā as essential and most important. Te Pāti Māori opposes this bill. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) (15:32): I rise to take this call on the Disability Support Services Bill. The bill establishes foundations and sets a clear framework for how disability support services will operate. It sets out what the system does, its purpose, and how public funding can be used. I think it’s important, firstly, to acknowledge all of those in the disability sector, those who work in it, who administer it, and who face the challenges every day in that sector. We are clear that this bill will provide a framework that will make it easier to make the decisions in that prospect. I think the clarity will be good. The bill does not change existing services, funding allocations, or who can receive disability support services, and I think that’s a very important point. It does not change any of that. It also means that eligible disabled people, their whānau and carers will continue to receive the support they rely on. That doesn’t change either. The bill makes it clearer what disability support services provides and how it fits with other supports. It confirms that family and whānau remain an important source of support alongside the publicly funded services. We know how much disabled people rely on support from disability support services and how important it is that they and their families have certainty that support will continue to be available on a sustainable basis. That’s why this work is important and I look forward to the conversation in the select committee where people will be able to come and have their views heard by the committee, and we will work on it from there. I commend the bill to the House. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (15:33): I wish first to acknowledge Peter Humphreys. Thank you for coming today, Peter, and also Christine Fleming, who have worked so hard to get the judgment that the work they did was real work that deserved remuneration. I want to try to help members opposite to understand why people within the disability communities are so worried by this bill. Let’s start with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, a UN convention that we’ve signed up to, a UN convention that says that one of the important rights for people with disabilities is to be able to live independently. That’s a very important right for people with disabilities, and yet so often we do not enable that to happen. I want to remind members opposite of the very firm saying, which is really important within disability communities, and within other communities—that “nothing should be done about us, without us doing it ourselves: “Nothing about us without us.” People with disabilities are not children to be looked after. They are not objects to be done to. People with disabilities are people. They are adults. They are people who want to make decisions about their own lives, and they want to live as independently as possible. The reason so often that people with disabilities can’t do this is because of the social structures we set up around them. This bill totally reinforces one of those structures where it says, in effect, that the in the first instance, a family must care for a person with a disability. Now let’s be clear: families do care for their members. But this imposes a particular obligation on family members. It legislates that that obligation on family members. In effect, it legislates that a person with disabilities may not live independently. That is why people in the disabilities community are very, very worried about this bill. Another reason that people with disabilities are very worried about this bill is because of the history of this Government, and to not recognise it is ridiculous. Let’s remember that one of the first actions of this Government was to submit a set of really strong restraints, very strong purchasing guidelines, for individualised funding for people with disabilities. And for two years that remained in place. This Government did it without consultation. It imposed it overnight, and then they have turned around and wondered why people in the disability community are scared and frightened. It is because the pattern of behaviour from that Government does not give people and the disabilities community any reason to trust them. Finally, I want to point to some of the things actually in this bill that are deeply worrying, because it turns out that in clauses 10 and 11 of this bill, the Minister may give binding directions as to how funding should be allocated for people with disabilities. What that means is that’s not sitting here in legislation—the rights that people with disabilities might have; the supports that they might be entitled to. It is at the Minister’s direction. It rests with one person. I want to say again that the disabilities community has no reason to trust this Government. So when people from that community come and say “Nothing about us without us”, they mean it, and this Government needs to include them. NANCY LU (National) (15:38): I’ve really had enough of the last speaker, Deborah Russell, on this bill. Please just stop the scaremongering. Please just stop using the disabled community as a way to attack this Government. This bill provides consistency, provides clarity, and provides support for the people who really need the help. So start reading properly, and understand, and stop scaremongering. I commend the bill to the House. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (15:39): First of all, I want toacknowledge that the people in the gallery will include people impacted by this piece of law, but also a lot of people who are here are waiting for the next piece of legislation that is about move-on orders. I’d just like to draw the inevitable concern that actually we have a Government that is attacking people in a way that is all about not actually backing people who care for others in the community. Hon Louise Upston: Point of order! I’m not sure the member is talking about the bill that is before us at the moment. DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you have diverted a wee bit, Helen White, so we’ll come back to the bill. You’ll have an opportunity to speak on the next bill when it happens. HELEN WHITE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to talk about this bill and its impact on the people that are really of concern today, most heartily. One thing we know is that two people took cases to the court, and they actually had an eight-year process. Those people weren’t alone in the way that they were being treated. They went through that process right to the Supreme Court. Many others, when they saw the success at the Employment Court and then they saw further success at the Supreme Court took similar cases because they were impacted in the same way. They were told, “Hold off. We are waiting for this decision to come out before your case is progressed.”, so they didn’t get the opportunity to take their cases. My understanding of this piece of law is that it will extinguish their rights. It does affect a lot of people. I want to talk about how fundamental the issue that Dr Deborah Russell just raised was. We have a piece of our law already. We have already signed up to a convention that says that people will be treated as independent and that if they’re disabled, they have no less right to live independently. The work that is being done by people to make that possible is something that the State will have to pay for one way or the other. This is a really interesting piece of law in terms of its suggestion that what the Government will be doing is making a contribution rather than actually acknowledging the cost that otherwise would be paid if family members weren’t doing that work. It’s a very interesting and difficult piece of law, and there will be a discussion in a minute over the motion to truncate that period for discussion. I want to make sure that people who are most impacted by this get a chance to have a good look at it and get a chance to weigh up the piece of law to actually talk to whether they think it is what the Minister says. In fact, the Minister—I wrote this down—said that disabled people and their families have been asking for this law. That’s what she said. I’m not sure that that is how a lot of disabled people and their families feel about this law. I think it’s very important that, actually, people impacted get a chance in this House and in this place to have their say. My concern—and I’ve heard it raised by many colleagues—is that there hasn’t been a consultation on this prior. It is going to be extremely important that people weigh in on this important conversation in New Zealand because it’s quite fundamental. It’s fundamental to the role of the State and to the role that the State plays in supporting others and acknowledging the support that people give others, and I think that’s a really important debate, so I am concerned about this particular law coming through, and I am also concerned that it’s coming through in this way. I am concerned about all the cases in the Employment Court, and I was an employment lawyer for 25 years. I can see why the Employment Court found the way it did. It makes sense in terms of the definitions that I’ve worked with. I am concerned when we cut off the court process in that way, because those processes are considered and they’re consistent. They’re often very rationally consistent, and they bring us to places that might be uncomfortable but that we need to actually look at. Thank you. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (15:44): To summarise this debate here today, this bill sets the framework for the Disability Support Services function that has been without a framework, and the sector has been calling for one today. The important thing is that nothing changes in the way of support to those that are in the disability sector. Most importantly, this bill provides clarity, and that is what the sector has been calling for—clarity for the function. It’s about consistency, fairness, and transparency, and what is important is financial sustainability, because if you want to look at what unsustainable disability support services look like, go and look at Australia, at the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It’s an absolute mess at the moment. We don’t want that to happen here. This bill goes a long way to helping set the framework. I commend it to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Disability Support Services Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time.

Documents and supporting material