Disability Support Services Bill

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got a question for the Minister for Disability Issues on the commencement date. Does the Minister think that the commencement date is fit for purpose, based on the feedback that we have received from disabled people, who have felt excluded throughout the process and have only had limited ability to give input in the select committee stage through oral submissions?

I ask this because the commencement date in and of itself could give the Minister an opportunity to say, “Let’s pause this. Let’s potentially continue hearing from disabled people”—not just through the select committee stage, which disabled people have talked about; how it was insufficient because it was a truncated select committee process. I’m curious to know whether the Minister is satisfied that the commencement date as it stands adequately takes into account the feedback that she has thoroughly received from disabled people, advocacy groups, and carers that they haven’t been able to co-design this bill with her. Would she be open to amendments to the commencement date to give her a bit more time to adequately engage with disabled people and carers, who can then give input on whether the provisions in this bill actually reflect their aspirations?

Ultimately, I know that, throughout the debate, she dismissed a lot of the concerns by nature of just saying, “Well, nothing is changing.” But that’s kind of the point, right? Disabled people and carers have told us that the status quo isn’t working for them. To simply keep things the same, in my view, does not adequately reflect the feedback we’ve received from disabled people. I am just concerned that the way in which we’ve got this commencement date and this bill and the rush with this process reflects more an aspiration from the Minister to be able to create a legislative framework from disability support services as opposed to actually honouring disabled people’s and carers’ voices along the way.

I’m curious to know if she would be supportive of any tabled amendments we propose in this moment to act in good faith and honour the feedback we’ve received on actually co-designing this bill. As has been noted by both the Green Party and the Labour Party, our commitment has been to scrap it and sort of start the process again, but we don’t have to—we could just delay the commencement date, go back as much as we can to the drawing board, and perhaps refer this back to the select committee and actually do it justice. I guess my question is: why the rush? Why the rush when disabled people have told us that they’d rather us take the time we need to design this well.

For me, I think that would prevent what has happened, actually, which was the Minister coming out of the select committee process and apologising for the grief she had caused to disabled people. Disabled people had a right to be upset about this. I would loathe for the Minister to have to come back and apologise—for example, for ongoing or unintended harm that this bill may be causing to carers and disabled people. So, on the commencement date itself, I just want the Minister to put on the record as to why she thinks there is a rush, despite a multitude and a variety of disabled voices telling us that the process has been fraught from the get-go.

I want to reiterate that I am by no means claiming that there’s a monolithic voice in here, but I would say that I have met National Party, Labour Party, Green Party and the odd New Zealand First and ACT Party voters who are disabled who have not supported this process. I don’t think this is so much a partisan sort of issue as it is about a community that has, through its multitude of voices and experiences, told the Government this process is fraught. Why not at least end this legislative process, delay the commencement, so that we can actually, then, potentially go back to the select committee or adequately canvass disabled people’s voices so that whatever comes out of it is fit for purpose.

I just don’t think that, so far, what we’ve got adequately reflects disabled people’s voices and aspirations. Even if we look at some of the previous parts of the debate, we did not even get adequate engagement—or any engagement—on, for example, how the Minister could ignore the need to consult disabled people’s representatives in the design of disability support services. So, in good faith, I’d asked the Minister to offer us any reflections on whether she’d be open to delaying the commencement, to do this bill right.

We won’t be changing the name and title of this piece of legislation. We will not be changing the commencement date, and I want to explain why. It’s because the lives of disabled people in New Zealand are frankly not good enough. They are not served well enough by not just the Disability Support Service but Government agencies across the board. That’s why it is important that this legislation is passed so that continued improvements can be made to the lives of disabled people, their families, and carers. In terms of the principles of Enabling Good Lives, they are very much at the heart of this legislation, which is why it is important it is passed and that it commences. Significantly, some of the improvements that have already been made by this Government in increasing funding over both Budget 2024 and 2025 in areas of flexible funding, where there are now no walls and no guidelines, that are having a significant improvement over the lives of disabled people—this is important that we pass this legislation and we get on with the improvements that disabled people deserve.