The Opportunity Party is a New Zealand political party founded in 2016 to enact policy that affords every Kiwi equal opportunity to pursue their potential, in ways that are socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable. We approach disability support in line with New Zealand’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which provides that disabled people, and the families that care for them, are rights-holders, not recipients of discretionary government charity. 

The scale and significance of what this Bill proposes to regulate demands proportionate care in its design and passage. Opportunity acknowledges that the disability support system has operated without a proper statutory foundation, and that the Supreme Court decision in Fleming v Attorney-General created genuine urgency to address the question of employment status for family carers. There are elements of this Bill that address real problems and that Opportunity supports in principle. 

Opportunity supports the establishment of a clear statutory foundation for DSS. The current legal grey area is itself a source of instability and uncertainty, and a principled legislative framework is overdue. Opportunity also welcomes Schedule 1’s transitional arrangements and the three-year transition period for people requiring high levels of care who have limited decision-making capacity. Greater transparency and consistency in the funding and assessment framework, if implemented well, have the potential to improve outcomes for disabled people.

Process deficiencies

The process used to develop and introduce the Bill has been inadequate. Several of its substantive provisions risk causing significant harm to disabled people and their whānau. Too much of the detail that matters most has been deferred to secondary legislation and Ministerial discretion. These are not minor quibbles: they go to the heart of whether the legislation will reliably deliver what it promises.

Absence of meaningful consultation

Good disability policy requires meaningful co-design with disabled people and their whānau in line with article 4.3 of the UNCRPD, to which New Zealand is a signatory.The Government's own Regulatory Impact Statement discloses that, due to the ‘sensitivity of proposals’, there was no community consultation prior to the Bill being introduced. This fails to meet New Zealand’s international obligations and to safeguard the rights of our disabled people. 

Compressed Select Committee timeframe

The Bill is being progressed through Parliament on a highly compressed timeline, with a public submission period of approximately three weeks: roughly half the standard period. This creates systemic barriers to participation for the very people the Bill most affects. Disabled people, families providing intensive care, and service providers all require adequate time to understand complex legislation, seek advice, and prepare considered submissions. 

Over-reliance on secondary legislation

Many of the most consequential operational settings, including eligibility criteria, assessment processes, funding allocation, and the conditions under which income or asset testing could be introduced, are not provided for in the Bill itself. They are to be set through Ministerial programmes, regulations, and operational policy that attract no direct parliamentary scrutiny. This is not an appropriate way to govern a system of this scale and importance, and is not in line with the approach to other forms of Government support. Disabled people and their families cannot plan their lives, or challenge decisions, around support conditions that can change at the stroke of a pen. 

Family support obligations and family carer rights

Unclear and potentially unlimited family obligation

Clause 8 of the Bill’s treatment of ‘natural supports’, including family and whānau, is concerningly vague in light of the Bill’s presentation as a ‘stabilising measure’. It is not clear how much informal family care the Bill implies must be provided before funded government support is triggered. Families and whānau, many of whom are already providing care at substantial personal cost, should not face an undefined and potentially unlimited obligation to fill gaps in formal support. 

Disabled people also have a right to choose who provides their care. This may not mean their family in all cases. 

Erosion of employment rights for family carers

The Crown's desire to manage costs is understandable; but reducing the rights of some of New Zealand's most burdened carers is not an acceptable way to achieve this. The Supreme Court's decision in Fleming was a significant and hard-won recognition that parents providing intensive funded care for disabled adult children are entitled to the employment protections all New Zealanders expect. The Bill effectively neutralises that ruling.

Opportunity does not accept that the complexity created by the Supreme Court's decision can only be resolved by removing rights rather than clarifying obligations. If a family member is providing 40 or more hours of funded care per week, there are principled grounds for ensuring they are entitled to outcomes similar to those in full-time employment, including fair overall compensation, contributions to retirement saving, and guaranteed minimum working conditions. 

We Recommend:

Opportunity recommends that the Committee:

• Require genuine consultation with disabled people, their whānau, and representative organisations before the Bill proceeds further, as required by Article 4.3 of the UNCRPD.

• Extend the submission period and the overall Select Committee timeline to allow meaningful participation by those most affected.

• Require that key operational settings including eligibility criteria, assessment processes, and any future income or asset testing be set in primary legislation, not through Ministerial programmes or regulation.

• Explicitly define the limits of family obligation and centre the right of disabled people to choose and control who provides their care.

• Restore legal recourse for family carers and provide a clear statutory entitlement to fair employment conditions for those providing intensive levels of funded care.