The Social Services and Community Committee has examined the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill and recommends by majority that it be passed. We recommend all amendments by majority.

This bill’s purpose is to accelerate progress towards a fully accessible New Zealand where disabled people, their families, and others with accessibility needs have an equal opportunity to achieve their goals and aspirations. To this end, it would establish the Accessibility Committee to advise the Minister for Disability Issues on how to address accessibility barriers and grow accessibility practices across New Zealand. The Committee would be led by disabled people, tāngata whaikaha Māori, and their families or whānau.

The bill also aims to strengthen accountability for improving accessibility by creating responsibilities for the Minister for Disability Issues and the chief executive of Whaikaha–Ministry of Disabled People.

As part of our consideration of the bill, we have examined its consistency with principles of legislative quality. We have no issues regarding the legislation’s design to bring to the attention of the House.

This commentary covers the main amendments we recommend to the bill as introduced. We do not discuss minor or technical amendments.

The bill as introduced uses the term “tāngata whaikaha” throughout to refer to Māori disabled people. We were advised that “tāngata whaikaha” can also refer to disabled people in general. We think the bill should be clear in its language when referring to Māori disabled people. Therefore, we recommend amending the bill to use “tāngata whaikaha Māori” to refer to Māori disabled people.

Clause 11 of the bill sets out the process for appointing members of the Accessibility Committee. It also sets out requirements for the composition of the Committee. Clause 11(2)(c)(iii) would require the Minister to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that the Committee as a whole has a “gender balance”. We consider that this language should be inclusive of other gender identities. We recommend amending clause 11(2)(c)(iii) to require the Minister to ensure that people of different genders are represented on the Committee.

Clause 15 sets out the functions of the Committee. One of the functions would be to make recommendations to the Minister about the prevention or removal of accessibility barriers by specified entities.¹ When making such a recommendation, clause 15(3)(a) would require the Committee to identify “the domain in which the accessibility barrier or accessibility practice exists”. We consider the use of “domain” could unintentionally limit the scope of the Accessibility Committee’s recommendations. We recommend amending clause 15(3)(a) to change “domain” to “aspect of life”. This term would also mirror the language used in Article 9 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

We think that the Committee should be required to receive and consider the views and experiences of disabled people, tāngata whaikaha Māori, their families or whānau, and others with accessibility needs in a way that is accessible and then report annually on accessibility barriers that people experience. We consider that a report that states common accessibility barriers that people experience in one place would help to raise awareness of disabled people’s experiences. We also think it would help to hold specified entities to account for reducing or removing those barriers. The report would state:

• the barriers that people face

• the views of those people on the barriers

• the specified entity in charge of improving that area

• any legal or statutory obligations the specified entity has to comply with related to the barriers

• the progress being made in preventing or removing the barriers.

We think that the Committee should publish the report online and provide it to the Minister, who would then table the report in the House of Representatives. Accordingly, we recommend amending clause 15 to allow the committee to receive and consider people’s views and experiences, and inserting clause 16A to make this reporting a function of the Committee.

Clauses 18, 19, and 20 of the bill as introduced would allow the Accessibility Committee to collect information from public agencies. In his submission, the Chief Ombudsman questioned why the bill would create a unique information access system for the Committee. In particular, the Ombudsman noted that the Committee would have less access to information than a regular person would under the Official Information Act 1982. We agree that the Committee should not have a proprietary system for requesting information, but nor should it be overly restricted from collecting relevant information.

We recommend deleting clauses 18 to 20 and instead inserting new clauses 17A and 17B. Clause 17A would require specified entities to supply the committee with information when the committee is performing its functions. Clause 17A would also require the chief executive to support the Committee in requesting information from specified entities. Clause 17B would create some privacy restrictions on what information the committee could request.

Clause 22(b) would require the Minister to present recommendations made by the Accessibility Committee to the House of Representatives. We think that this requirement could be clearer as to when the Minister would be required to do so. We recommend amending clause 22(b) to require the Minister to present recommendations from the Accessibility Committee to the House as soon as practicable after receiving them.

Schedule 2, clause 2 would allow the Minister to remove a Committee member from office, with some restrictions. These restrictions include requiring that there be “just cause” for removal, and that “reasonable accommodations” have been made for that member before they are removed.

We consider that the “reasonable accommodations” are unclear as they relate to removing a member from the Committee. We recommend amending clause 6 to add a definition of “reasonable accommodations” to clarify that it has the same meaning as in Article 2 of the UNCRPD. We also recommend amending Schedule 2 to insert new clause 2A. New clause 2A would clarify that it is the Committee chairperson’s responsibility to ensure that members of the Committee are reasonably accommodated to be able to fully participate in the Committee’s work.

The majority of us see the establishment of an Accessibility Committee as only a first step in creating an accessible Aotearoa, and reaffirm the importance of having those with lived experience involved with the development of solutions to eliminate barriers to accessibility.

Submitters told us that these barriers exist across all sectors including the built environment, transport, housing, health, education, broadcasting, and communications, and that they were significantly impacting their lives.

The majority of us acknowledge that while for some sectors a mix of awareness-raising, education, funded programmes, and policies will be the best way to eliminate accessibility barriers, for others legislative solutions (e.g. standards / regulations) will be required.

While the work to achieve an accessible Aotearoa is complex and will require an ongoing commitment to working across sectors, this should not preclude this work being undertaken at pace. In addition, nothing in this bill should preclude improving accessibility outside of the Accessibility Committee’s work.

The majority of us urge the Minister to move quickly to establish the Accessibility Committee and to ensure it is adequately resourced, so the Committee can begin the process of collating, exploring, and advising on solutions to eliminate the accessibility barriers experienced by New Zealanders.

National Party members of the committee consider that the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill falls well short of the transformational legislation promised by the Minister when introducing the bill.

National Party members of the committee do not consider that the bill meets the purpose stated “to accelerate progress towards a fully accessible New Zealand”.

National Party members of the committee agree with the many submitters who were disappointed that the bill lacked enforceable standards and did not go far enough, calling for considerable strengthening of the bill in the select committee process.

National Party members of the committee also note that the majority of submitters from the disability sector had expectations of a more regulatory model based on Australian or Canadian standards within a New Zealand context.

While National Party members of the committee acknowledge that some changes have been made to accommodate a register or public list of known accessibility barriers to: i) increase communication between the public and the Accessibility Committee, ii) increase public awareness of systems-level accessibility barriers, iii) increase public accountability of specified entities, we do not consider the changes to the bill have been significant enough to warrant support of the bill.

National Party members of the committee consider the bill is fundamentally flawed and will therefore not be supporting the bill. National recommends the bill be withdrawn and a new bill drafted that aligns more closely with the expectations of the disability sector as expressed in the majority of submissions.

Green Party members of the committee recognise disabled people have pre-existing rights as articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and more specifically, the UNCRPD. Accessibility is a core principle of the Convention; it is a right and a precondition to the enjoyment of other fundamental rights.

In the most recent UNCRPD review of New Zealand, the committee raised concerns from organisations of persons with disabilities that “the Accessibility for New Zealanders bill, currently before Parliament, does not contain enforcement mechanisms, may not cover private entities or local government, lacks standard-setting and decision making bodies and lacks obligations to make tangible changes within fixed time frames.”

They made a recommendation that the state party “Establish a co-design and co-production process with organisations of persons with disabilities to address concerns about the Accessibility for New Zealanders bill, following release of the Select Committee’s report.”

This recommendation reflects the importance of accessibility and the UNCRPD requirement for governments to closely consult with and actively involve disabled people, through their representative organisations.

82 percent of submissions and 93 percent of submissions with a stated position made recommendations for substantial change to this bill. It is the view of Green Party members of the committee that these submissions reflect the view of disabled people, and in an area so central to the rights of disabled people Government should not be acting against the wishes of disabled people and their organisations.

We note too the strong view of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism, Ombudsman, Human Rights Commission, and Disabled People’s Organisations Coalition who made a rare, if not unprecedented, submission to this select committee reminding us of our obligations and the inadequacy of this bill.

We call on the Government to follow the UN’s advice and engage in a co-design and co-production process.

Green Party members of the committee cannot support an accessibility bill that is not supported by disabled people.