The "Disability Tax": Why we must stop charging people for the right to their own money
By Nathan Bond, Disabled Leadership Advisor, CCS Disability Action
Published 17 February 2026
Imagine earning just $24,000 a year – an income already stretched thin by the cost of living crisis. Now, imagine the government forcing you to pay a $624 fee to audit how that money is spent, simply because you are disabled.
You didn’t ask for the audit. You didn’t hire the accountant. But you have to pay the bill.
This is the reality for many New Zealanders under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights (PPPR) Act. It is a system that claims to protect vulnerable people, but too often, it ends up penalising them.
The high cost of "protection"
Late last year, we submitted a response to a Parliamentary petition that highlighted this exact injustice. The petitioner rightfully pointed out the absurdity of a system where a person on a very low income is forced to surrender a significant portion of their money to administrative and audit fees.
This issue hit the headlines recently with a shocking case reported by Stuff, where a property manager was charged $21.50 simply for making a phone call, querying a surprise bill applied to his disabled tenant. This example highlights the same fundamental power imbalance: disabled people are being charged exorbitant rates for a service they have no choice in receiving.
Why this is discriminatory
Our submission supported the petition’s call to remove these fees, but we went further. We argued that this current setup is fundamentally discriminatory.
Consider this: Non-disabled people make financial decisions every day. Sometimes they make good ones; sometimes they make bad ones. But the state does not force them to pay for an annual audit of their bank accounts to ensure they are spending their money "wisely."
By imposing these costs solely on disabled people deemed to "lack capacity," we are effectively levying a disability tax. We are charging people for the "privilege" of having their rights restricted.
The root cause: Substituted vs. supported decision making
While removing these fees is an urgent and necessary interim step, it is merely a band-aid on a broken leg. The real issue isn't just the fees; it’s the law itself.
The PPPR Act is based on an outdated model known as Substituted Decision Making. This is where the law decides a person cannot manage their own affairs, so it appoints someone else (a manager or trustee) to make decisions for them.
This approach strips a person of their agency. It says, "We don't trust you to navigate the world, so we will do it for you."
This is out of step with modern human rights standards. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD – which New Zealand has signed) recognises Supported Decision Making as best practice.
The future we need
Supported decision making flips the script. Instead of taking power away, it builds a circle of support around the person. It asks: "What support do you need to understand this decision and make it yourself?"
It acknowledges that we all use supported decision making. When a CEO asks their CFO for advice before signing a contract, that is supported decision making. When you ask a tech-savvy friend which phone to buy, that is supported decision making. You seek advice, but you make the call.
Disabled people deserve that same dignity.
A call for reform
We support the petitioner’s request to waive unfair audit fees for low-income New Zealanders. It is a cruel irony to drain the bank accounts of those who have the least.
However, our advocacy cannot stop there. We must continue to push for a complete overhaul of the PPPR Act. We need a legislative framework that moves away from the paternalism of the past and embraces a future where disabled people are supported to live their own lives, make their own mistakes, and own their own successes – without having to pay an auditor for the privilege.
Key takeaways:
People under the PPPR Act are paying high fees (e.g., $624 on a $24k income) for mandatory audits.
This is discriminatory; non-disabled people are not charged to have their spending audited.
We support waiving these fees immediately.
We must replace "Substituted Decision Making" (deciding for people) with "Supported Decision Making" (helping people decide), in line with UN guidelines.