24/05/2026
Submissions are now open for the Disability Services Bill.
The Disability Support Services Bill was introduced to Parliament on Monday 18 May 2026. There have been several concerns shared since then by sector leaders, disability advocates, and family carer representatives who have reviewed the Bill and its accompanying documents.
The Bill is now open for submissions. (Link to the submission site in the comments.)
There is a need for a legislative framework for funded disability support services. However, specific provisions of the Bill as drafted create uncertainty, there was no consultation about the Bill, and the values that underpin it are inconsistent with te Tiriti, the UNCRPD, and Enabling Good Lives approach.
This post outlines key concerns that you are welcome to draw on in making a submission on this Bill - submissions close 12 June.
Instead of framing support as a basic human right, the Bill describes it as a ‘contribution’ towards an ‘everyday life’. This language matters. It signals a retreat from the vision of a good life that disabled people and families have fought for.
The Bill was introduced quickly and without proper consultation.
Disabled people, whānau, and family carers were not meaningfully consulted in the development of this Bill. Article 4.3 of the UNCRPD requires governments to “closely consult with and actively involve” disabled people and their representative organisations in developing legislation that affects them. The Government’s own disclosure documents acknowledge this obligation has not been met.
The Select Committee process, as currently scoped, does not remedy this. The process is shortened and inadequate to hear everyone's concerns. Previous consultations on different topics cannot be recycled to meet the obligations of good faith and the UNCRPD requirement of meaningful participation. This is a fundamental breach of trust.
Clause 8 creates ‘care without limits’
The ‘family first’ clause implies that all disabled people must exhaust all family members as a source of support before they are entitled to government-funded care. This is deeply problematic and goes well beyond the stated aim of clarifying that "responsibility for the care of disabled people rests with family and whānau where appropriate".
It ignores the reality that many disabled people are themselves carers. It overlooks issues of abuse and coercive control. It disregards the right of disabled people to choose who provides their care. It creates an implied obligation of unpaid care on whānau that is not clearly defined or limited. Clause 8 must be rewritten to centre the rights of disabled people to choice and control over who provides their care.
Family carers deserve fair employment rights now, not later.
The Bill fails to guarantee fair employment conditions for family carers providing intensive support. Families need certainty: if a family member is providing 40 or more hours of care per week, they should be entitled to proper wages, holiday pay, KiwiSaver contributions, and parental leave. This should be enshrined in the Bill, not deferred to future Ministerial regulation. The Bill also bars carers from pursuing employment claims through the courts (Clauses 12–15), which leaves family carers without recourse and without rights.
Too much is left to Ministerial discretion.
The Bill grants the Minister broad powers to create ‘programmes’ by regulation with minimal parliamentary oversight. This creates significant instability. Disabled people and whānau cannot plan their lives around support that can be changed at the stroke of a Minister’s pen. Rights must be in the legislation itself. These programmes include the ability to introduce asset and income testing of families and disabled persons, without adequate legislative protections. There is no minimum floor, no requirement to uphold human rights, and no requirement to consider the welfare of family carers.
The Bill does not uphold the Treaty of Waitangi
The Crown assessment was that the Bill is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and that no reference to the Treaty was considered necessary. I disagree. The principles of partnership, participation, and protection that underpin the Treaty relationship require more than a finding of non-discrimination. They require active engagement with Māori as partners in the development of policy that significantly affects them – and tāngata whaikaha Māori (Māori disabled) and whānau are disproportionately represented among DSS recipients.
The “families first” principle in clause 8, while expressed in culturally inclusive language (referring to “whānau” and “other culturally recognised family groups”), does not engage with the specific context of Māori carers or acknowledge the additional pressures that whānau face.
What can we do?
👉 Make a submission on the Bill!
👉 Share this and other posts on the topic across a range of social media sites to raise awareness
👉 Tell your friends about what is happening
👉 Follow Emily Writes The D List NZ and Huhana Hickey for submission ideas and templates.
👉 Follow Blake Forbes Gentle and Nick Ruane Disability Advocate for ongoing commentary on this and other relevant topics
👉 Make sure you're enrolled to vote!
Read more:
https://open.substack.com/pub/drbex/p/submission-sunday-disability-services?r=4nija&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
