Disability Support Services Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank members and the Minister for quite a wide-ranging back and forth today, but it’s clarified a fair bit as well. The title of this bill is the Disability Support Services Bill, and it’s reasonably vanilla, but I would include, in brackets, after “Services” and before “Bill”, “(Just the Status Quo)”. This is the “Disability Support Services (Just the Status Quo) Bill”, because the Minister in the chair had the opportunity to transform the disability support services landscape and she has chosen not to. She has outlined her reason why, and that is: “We have a difference in approach.” That’s really what it boils down to.

On this side of the Chamber, we were in the process of transforming disability support services to such a point where the starting question to access services is not “What support you need?” but “What does a good life look like to you?”. Then transforming the processes and the systems that sit behind the funding lines and funding streams to be able to then deliver a package of support that would make meaningful difference to disabled people, carers, and the disability communities more broadly and to ensure that disabled people have more choice and control over the services and supports that they access and that they are supported by the State to live with dignity and independence as far is possible—instead of us as a society moving in that trajectory, all this bill does is codify a system that is fragmented and not working for disabled people and carers. Therein lies my disappointment with this legislation. When we have an opportunity in this Chamber to make things better, all we are doing is legislating for the status quo that we all know doesn’t work.

That is the crux of why I feel that this bill should be titled slightly differently. It could also equally be the “Disability Support Services (Not Transformational) Bill”, because, ultimately, it doesn’t achieve any sort of transformation. The Minister’s point is that once we’re done with another five years of then putting into secondary legislation the detail of what is currently available, then we can get to a point of transformation, but I would argue that disabled people have been waiting a very long time for that change—it’s been twenty-odd years since Enabling Good Lives, as a uniquely New Zealand approach, was developed to deal with some significant failures in the sector, in terms of disability support services back then.

Here we are today, where we could also argue that this the “Disability Support Services (Actually Taking us Backwards) Bill”, because the assessment and allocation tools that the Minister has talked about in this committee stage today takes us back to the lowest common denominator. It doesn’t progress us. She has talked about it in terms of increasing consistency—and I would probably agree with her that maybe it does go some way to increasing consistency—but it increases consistency and certainty not in the way that we would have liked, not in an aspirational way to improve lives, just to ensure that everyone gets access to basic supports that don’t actually make a huge difference. Well, not that it doesn’t make a difference to them; it does. It is important funding, but it could have been better. Instead, we’re legislating to bring it down to the lowest common denominator, and that is very disappointing.

I will take the Minister’s point that there are certain changes that have been made, and the select committee supported some changes because of the significant pushback from disabled people—

💬 Hon Member: Pressure.

“Pressure” is a good way to put it. There was significant pressure from disabled people, who had not been consulted at the start of this process. That has now led to some changes that are good, but they don’t go far enough.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I just note that that was probably a third reading speech and that any other contributions won’t be given quite the same largesse as that one was given.

Committee of the whole House

Point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to draw your attention to Speakers’ ruling 127/3, on page 127 of the Speakers’ Rulings—just in relation to your guidance, which I understand wasn’t a ruling, but it leaves us in some trouble here, because we have a number of engaged spokespeople from the Opposition who wish to give concluding remarks on this bill.

Speakers Hartley, Robertson, and Tisch have all affirmed the latitude of the Opposition, in making speeches on the preliminary clauses at the end of a debate which summarise and make concluding remarks about a bill, about the issues that they have raised within the committee’s consideration of a bill. I just wanted to clarify, given that it’s a new practice in this Parliament for the chairs of committees to give not rulings but sort of guidance to members, which is by and large helpful, whether your guidance there is that spokespeople from the Opposition should not give concluding sorts of remarks in the committee stage.

Say, in the 2004 example, where Speaker Hartley affirmed that position, that was in a debate where the Government had called repetition on members after 18 calls that the Opposition had made in concluding remarks around a preliminary clause. I just want to clarify the level at which you’re giving that guidance and whether it is, in fact, a ruling which disagrees with the remarks of Speakers Hartley, Robertson, and Tisch.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Absolutely not. Any wise and experienced speaker will ensure that if they are speaking to the title and commencement, they will make more than a passing reference to it at different stages during a five-minute presentation. There is always some latitude. Also, the amount of repetition—if a series of speakers stand up and say the same thing. Each presentation will be taken on its merits, but any wise speaker, especially when they’re the third speaker in the series, would make some fairly constant reference to title and commencement, or to invite a closure motion.

Committee of the whole House

Mr Chair, thank you. I would like to speak to the title of this bill, the Disability Support Services Bill. It should be titled the “Enabling Good Lives (Constituting and Reforming the Legislation) Bill”.

I’m proposing to the House that that title should have been commensurate with what was in the bill, because this bill should have given effect to the policy that is transformational and would have impacted the lives of disabled people in Aotearoa and was something that New Zealand could have been proud of on the world stage. But, in fact, this bill does the opposite of that; it reverses the policy that disabled people have been calling for for 20 years. I would suggest to the committee that this is the stage that it should vote with the Opposition to not only change the title of the bill but also reject the rest of it, because this is a bill that changes New Zealand’s framework for the better but introduces a policy that is all wrong.

I find it difficult to talk about this bill. This is a bill which is not in my specialist area. I commend the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan for her work in this area. It is not my area, but this is the area of Government reform which I find the hardest to see and hear in this House, because I think it is all in the wrong direction. I think if there is one thing that should be bipartisanly agreed in this Chamber, it is that disabled people should be able to live with dignity in a country like Aotearoa and that when they do not have the means to provide for themselves, the State should step in. That is a fundamental belief of mine, and it should be carried forward in any country that likes to call itself one where people have equitable and equal access to rights as citizens. This is more fundamental than any other change, I believe, that this Government has made, because this says that we are moving from a system where disabled people and our most vulnerable can rely on a social safety net—one that was agreed after war in the 1940s in most liberal democracies that we like to compare ourselves to—to one where they cannot, where there is uncertainty in the law regarding the sorts of services that they will be provided with, and where there is almost entirely ministerial discretion. It will come down to “first in, first served” and the most in need gets it without any kind of fundamental relationship to the idea that people with disabilities and their families should be able to rely on a fundamental standard of dignity with which to live their lives.

I walked out on to the street in Manurewa the other day. It was about 12 o’clock, and there was a chap there—his name is Hone—who was waiting for a taxi to pick him up. He used a crutch, and he had a small carry-on suitcase with him for the things that he needed to go about his day. When I walked out again after my meeting at about 1.20 p.m., he was still waiting there. I had a conversation with him about why he was waiting. He said that the taxi won’t pick him up and that he’s spoken to the taxi driver twice, but because of the changes to Total Mobility, he understands why the driver won’t pick him up. He understands why the driver has other jobs to do, he understands why it’s not profitable for the driver, and yet he waited an hour and 20 minutes.

The changes that are happening in this system mean that people like that are living worse lives. This bill does that. This should be a different bill. This should be a bill which outlines the New Zealand Government’s long-term commitment to people with disabilities. It should outline our bipartisan long-term intentions to enable them to live lives with dignity. It does not do that.

💬 Hon Member: No question. Third reading.

I hear the Government asking “What is the question?” My question is: where is the humanity in this bill? Where is the commitment to the principles that the National Party espouses and will be espousing on the campaign stumps? We will hear them say that they have compassion for people in Aotearoa. We will hear them say that they believe in the kind of future for young people where they want to stay here and build good lives. This is it too. It’s not just about the people who can afford to provide for themselves, it’s not just about the people who can aspire to own a home and live the kind of life that we would all want them to, and it’s also about their brothers, their sisters, and their kaumātua and kuia who cannot provide for themselves. At the end of the day, if they cannot rely on the State—whichever colour it is; blue or red—to fight for those people and to advocate for them and to stand in when they cannot provide for themselves, then that is a fundamental change in the way that we do things here in Aotearoa. This is that bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Ms Williams, you’ve taken a liberty. I’ll take a—oh, honourable Minister.

Committee of the whole House

I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 51

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 51

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 51

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill

Disability Support Services Bill

Report of Committee of the whole House