The Social Services and Community Committee has examined the Disability Support Services Bill and recommends by majority that it be passed. We recommend all amendments by majority.

The Disability Support Services Bill seeks to establish a legislative framework for the provision of disability support services (DSS). The bill relates to services provided to eligible disabled persons that are funded through Vote Disability Support Services and administered by the Ministry of Social Development.

The bill proposes to:

• set out the purpose of DSS and provide an authorising framework for DSS system policy settings and how funding is used that:

  • strengthens the system by improving the consistency, fairness, and transparency of decision making

  • clarifies that responsibility for care of disabled people rests in the first instance with family and whānau, where appropriate

• make clear existing employment relationships within the DSS system

• mitigate the Crown’s fiscal and litigation risks in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Fleming v Attorney-General [2025] NZSC 188, [2025] 1 NZLR 973.

The purpose of DSS-funded disability support services, as stated by the bill, 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.

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, but note the issues we identified in relation to clause 8. We address those matters later in this report.

We received and considered submissions from 3,382 interested groups and individuals, and heard from 143 submitters. We thank all those who submitted on the bill—many of whom are disabled people or their family, whānau, carers, and advocates—for engaging by sharing their personal stories and deep concern regarding the changes this bill proposes.

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

We propose the following amendments to clause 4, to clarify some core terms used in the bill.

We recommend replacing the definition of “disability support services”. Our proposed definition would make clear that disability support services includes both goods, services, and facilities, as well as financial assistance provided for the purpose of purchasing any such goods, services, and facilities. This is intended to capture flexible funding services, that could be provided under programmes approved by the Minister to provide disability support services, under clause 11.

We recommend amending the definition of “DSS-funded disability support services” to make clear that it excludes:

• services for people who are transitioning out of services provided under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 and into the community

• any administrative services that facilitate providing disability support services or the stewardship of DSS funding legislation or policy.

Clause 8 as introduced set out two principles that the ministry and contracted providers must take into account when making decisions about providing DSS-funded disability support services. These are that families and whānau have responsibility in the first instance for the well-being of their members, and that a person should, where appropriate, use their own resources and other support available to them before being provided with DSS-funded services.

Many submitters expressed significant concern that the bill would place sole reliance on family and whānau, including wider extended family, to care for disabled family members. Submitters were worried the wording in the bill would require disabled people to exhaust every form of support possible before becoming eligible for any DSS-funded disability support services. Some submitters felt these principles would result in them having to do even more for their family member with disabilities when they already felt undervalued and overworked. Submitters also raised that these principles would result in an over-reliance on family members, and would lead to unsafe situations for disabled people.

We propose that clause 8 be amended to include changes to the principle of family and whānau responsibility, and to include additional principles that are specific to the disabled person, rather than focusing solely on the wider support system.

Clause 11 of the bill would empower the Minister to approve and establish programmes for the purpose of providing disability support services. These programmes would be secondary legislation administered by the ministry. We note that disability support services programmes that are approved by the Minister are referred to as “support programmes” by the ministry.

Submitters expressed concern about leaving the details of such programmes for secondary legislation. Some submitters felt uncertain about appeal and safeguard mechanisms not being included in the primary legislation. However, we note that there is no current requirement or mechanism for the consistent authorising of policy and funding for disability support, or public accountability for these decisions. This bill and the subsequent programmes approved by the Minister would provide this.

The bill states that a programme may specify funding allocation or client eligibility criteria. We recommend inserting clause 11(2)(b)(iia) to allow programmes to specify ways in which disability support services may or must be provided under the programme. We also recommend inserting subclause (3A) to make clear that this provision of services can include:

• commissioning a person to provide disability support services for a disabled person or group of people

• making payments to persons who provide disability support services to an eligible person who is their family or who is otherwise in a close social relationship with them

• funding for residential care

• providing financial assistance for goods, services, and facilities.

We also recommend that the likely outcomes for disabled persons of approving and establishing the programme must be taken into account by the Minister.

Some submitters noted that the bill as introduced is not consistent with employment law. We recommend the following amendments to remedy this.

We recommend the insertion of clause 17 in new Part 3, which proposes a mandatory review of the Act’s operation within 5 years of the Act’s commencement. The Minister must consider whether any amendments are necessary or desirable and prepare a report to be presented to the House of Representatives on their findings.

We also considered the petition of Victoria Coleman. It was presented to the House on 6 July 2026 by Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan and transferred to us on 23 July 2026. The petition requests:

• That the House of Representatives not pass the Disability Support Services Bill; and note that 15,861 people have signed a similar online petition.

We discuss comments that the petition raises in this report. We have no further matters to bring to the attention of the House.

Labour does not support the Disability Support Services Bill.

Under this Government, disability communities have been subjected to significant changes that have created uncertainty, trauma, and harm. This began with changes to flexible funding in March 2024 that were announced with no consultation with disabled people or carers, and were implemented with immediate effect.

Further changes have adversely impacted disabled people, carers, and disability communities more broadly, such as the reduction of the Total Mobility scheme fare subsidy and this Government’s decision to abandon the Enabling Good Lives (EGL) rollout. These changes have pushed disabled people and carers into a near-constant state of uncertainty, exhaustion and anxiety.

It is within this context that the Disability Support Services Bill was introduced. The stated aim of the bill is to increase consistency, fairness, and transparency for disabled people and their carers by introducing a statutory framework that is meant to “strengthen and stabilise the provision of disability support services”.

The Labour Party agrees that a foundational legislative framework for disability support services is necessary. Yet, as drafted, this bill does not achieve its purported aims.

The bill itself was not drafted with any input from disabled people, whānau, or carers. It is yet another example of this Government deciding they know what is best for disabled people and carers and ignoring the community’s rallying cry “nothing about us, without us”.

Many submitters also made the point that this legislation should be rights-based and include references to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Enabling Good Lives principles, and reflect the Crown’s role as a partner in Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The bill does none of the above.

A social, or rights-based, approach would have changed the focus from a medical- or charity-based perspective to one that is rooted in human rights. Such an approach would view disabled people as equal citizens and active rights-holders and would place an obligation on society to remove barriers that prevent them from exercising their rights and participating in society.

The bill fails in this regard too.

Many submitters also highlighted that too much detail is left to secondary legislation, and we agree. While it may be beneficial to leave some level of detail to secondary legislation, particularly with regard to detail that may need to be adjusted over time, Labour strongly believes that the primary legislation must contain a greater level of detail, such as eligibility criteria and the broad types of disability support services that can currently be accessed by disabled people and their whānau.

The Ombudsman noted, in their submission, that the development of robust, transparent, and accessible safeguarding, such as appeals and complaints processes, should be a fundamental aspect of the legislative framework for the disability support services system. These are of crucial importance to ensuring the fairness and functioning of the system and should have been incorporated into the DSS bill.

The bill places too much weight on secondary legislation and binding Ministerial directions. While we agree with the select committee recommendation that the Minister is required to consult with disabled people through representative organisations, we also believe that the bill needs to include a greater level of detail in primary legislation to increase certainty and transparency.

The Government’s decision not to do this weakens transparency, reduces legal certainty, and leaves essential eligibility and allocation settings vulnerable to change without full parliamentary scrutiny.

The bill also enables Ministerial programmes to specify income- or asset-based criteria. If this clause in the bill is meant to reflect current practice, it should be explicitly stated in primary legislation so that the criteria cannot be broadened to apply to other disability support services through secondary legislation.

As drafted, this bill introduces the potential for means- or asset-testing to be introduced further down the line. The Labour Party strongly opposes this.

The Labour Party also agrees with submitters who have said that the DSS bill should be separate from the Crown’s response to manage fiscal and litigation risk following the Supreme Court decision in Fleming v Attorney-General. Many submitters have also opposed the way in which this bill is being rushed through Parliament, with a truncated select committee process, and we agree with them.

It was clear, from so many submissions, that disabled people and carers are exhausted. They disagree with the emphasis on family supports and the lack of statutory limits, safeguards, and clarity around who makes the decisions about when family support is appropriate. The anxiety that disabled people have expressed was and remains valid.

Submitters have been very clear that many families already go above and beyond to support their disabled family members and that the state should not legislate for any level of family support before funding is made available for disabled people to live independent lives.

As such, having listened to disabled people and disability communities on the contents of this bill, we believe the bill in its current form will weaken the rights, choice, control, and participation of disabled people and is not aligned with the principles of Enabling Good Lives (EGL).

It weakens the inherent dignity of disabled people and takes us backwards as a society.

Disabled people, carers, whānau, and disability communities deserve better than this.

The Green Party does not support the Disability Support Services Bill. We have seen the current coalition Government create instability for disabled people and their families and have made decisions on legislation that officials warn go against the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA). We are grateful to all the submitters who took the time out of their already busy lives to bring lived experience and evidence to the committee.