Disability Support Services Bill and whānau hauā Māori
Published 1 September 2026
The Social Services and Community Committee reported back on the Disability Support Services Bill on 13 August 2026. It recommends, by majority, that the Bill be passed with changes. Here is what the report means for disabled Māori.
The committee's majority commentary contains no reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. None to whānau hauā Māori.
For Recenia Kāka (Ngāpuhi), Kaiārahi ā-motu at CCS Disability Action, that silence tells a story. She has watched a Bill about whānau move through Parliament without the whānau it is about.
"Whānau love their disabled family members deeply," she says. "But aroha should never become the default because the Crown is looking to step back. Disability support is a human right. This Bill turns it into something you might receive, but only if you have nowhere else to turn. That should concern all of us, because most New Zealanders will experience disability at some point in our lives. The Bill rewrites the relationship between disabled people and the Government, and it does it without asking Māori."
CCS Disability Action supports a clear legal foundation for disability support.
We have set out the detail of the Bill in what the new Disability Support Services Bill means for disabled people and whānau. There is a point-by-point guide to the committee's changes in what the committee changed. Unfortunately, the committee has not addressed the Te Tiriti question at all – raised in our submission and many others.
Disabled Māori are not a small group. Stats NZ puts the Māori disability rate at 21% in 2023 (Stats NZ). That is the highest of any ethnic group, four points above the national rate, and 184,000 people. Almost one in four Māori adults is disabled, and that figure is likely to be undercounted.
A Bill about whānau, written without whānau
The Bill was introduced on 18 May 2026 and passed its first reading three days later. Submissions closed on 12 June. Submitters had 15 working days (New Zealand Law Society). The committee then held three and a half days of hearings, all in Wellington.
No public consultation happened before the Bill was introduced. The Government's own Regulatory Impact Statement says so at paragraph 44. There would be "no community consultation prior to the DSS Bill being introduced to the House of Representatives".
Recenia sees this lack of consultation as a key failing in the process.
"A disability support system that works for Māori whānau looks like Māori communities shaping it from the beginning, not being handed a Bill written in 25 days and told to submit in five minutes," she says. "Tino rangatiratanga | self-determination means leading the design of the systems that affect them, and to do that whānau hauā need to be in the room when decisions are made."
There is a further gap here. We could not find one published submission on this Bill from a kaupapa Māori disability organisation. None from an iwi authority. None from an Iwi Māori Partnership Board. Out of 3,382 submissions, that absence says something about who a 15 working day window reaches.
What the committee changed, and what it means for whānau
The committee made a number of amendments.
Family and whānau responsibility
The Bill said families had "responsibility in the first instance for" supporting a disabled family member. The committee recommends replacing that with "a responsibility to contribute to". It said the Bill as introduced "was unclear about the responsibility of family and whānau".
The committee's own commentary records that "many submitters expressed significant concern that the bill would place sole reliance on family and whānau … to care for disabled family members".
What the Bill still does not do is say what "a responsibility to contribute to" actually means, or set a limit on it. The definition of family member in clause 4 is unchanged. It still reaches grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and anyone else in a close relationship with the person.
This wide definition of family is problematic, as is the assumption underneath it. It assumes there is a resource sitting there, waiting to be used.
"The Bill tells families that their resources will be considered as part of their eligibility," Recenia Kāka says. "But disabled whānau already earn less, spend more, and carry more than their share. Manaakitanga and whanaungatanga are about collective care. They are not a one-way obligation on whānau to absorb what the Crown should be funding. The Bill doesn't address that reality. It just makes it someone else's problem."
The numbers back this up. Only 49.4% of disabled Māori aged 18 to 64 said they had enough income. For disabled Pākehā in the same age group it was 62.5% (CCS Disability Action, State of wellbeing and equality, 2021). More than half of tāngata whaikaha Māori put off going to the doctor because of cost (New Zealand Disability Strategy 2026–2030). Some 37% could not see a health professional they needed. Another 36% went without assistive equipment (Stats NZ).
Wider whānau responsibility lands hardest on the households with the least to give. Whānau is not a funding stream. It is about relationships.
New principles, and what is missing from them
The committee recommends a new clause 8(2)(b). Decision-makers would have to take into account a disabled person's choice or preferences, and their safety and dignity. They would also weigh the person's immediate and long-term needs, their own resources where appropriate, other publicly funded support, and support from family, whānau, other culturally recognised groups, and their community.
The committee says this language comes from the Enabling Good Lives principles and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
So the Bill has moved. Before the report, it referenced neither.
But this is selective borrowing, not a rights-based foundation. The Convention and Enabling Good Lives supply some wording in a list of things a decision-maker must consider. Neither is named in the Bill. The purpose clause was not rewritten. And Te Tiriti o Waitangi is still absent entirely.
Income and asset testing
Clause 11(3) allows income-based and asset-based criteria in ministerial programmes. We asked for those clauses to be removed.
The committee did not remove them. It expanded them, adding eligibility for an entitlement card such as a Community Services Card to the list of criteria. Those cards are income and asset based.
The committee's own commentary records that "the current wording of the bill does not prohibit the extension of means-testing in the future, beyond current settings".
Means testing has never applied to direct disability support in this country. The Bill does not introduce it now. It keeps the legal architecture to do it later, by regulation.
Dr Huhana Hickey MNZM (Ngāti Tahinga), a Māori disability lawyer and advocate, read the family and means-testing clauses together. "A supposedly equal system can still produce unequal outcomes," she wrote. "Without explicit Te Tiriti protections, the Bill risks deepening inequities while appearing 'neutral'."
Card-based criteria are a blunt tool. They set a threshold, and disability costs do not follow income across it. Given the income gap above, tāngata whaikaha Māori would be among the most exposed if testing were ever extended.
Family carers
In December 2025 the Supreme Court found unanimously that two parents providing round-the-clock care were homeworkers under the Employment Relations Act 2000 (Fleming v Attorney-General). They were entitled to the minimum wage. The Bill responds by deeming hours a family carer provides above their funded allocation not to be work under the Minimum Wage Act 1983.
The committee accepted that "the bill as introduced is not consistent with employment law" and recommended technical fixes to clauses 13 and 14. The underlying policy did not change. The Crown is still deemed not to be the employer of family carers.
Most family carers in Aotearoa are women. Many are older parents still supporting disabled adult sons and daughters.
"The Supreme Court said: what these carers do is work," Recenia Kāka says. "This Government's response was to change the law so it isn't work anymore. That's not a disability policy. That's cost-cutting on the backs of the most stretched whānau in Aotearoa."
The Minister for Disability Issues, Hon Louise Upston, says the Bill does not affect the two successful claims. She also says the Government will "soon be consulting on a carers' package" (Beehive). That package was announced on 2 June 2026. It could include a carer payment, better respite options, and other practical support. No funding and no start date have been announced.
Māori already have the answers
Here is what makes the silence in this report hard to accept. The work has already been done.
Whāia Te Ao Mārama, the Māori Disability Action Plan, was built in partnership with tāngata whaikaha Māori and more than 200 Māori contributors. Its goals were direct. Tāngata whaikaha Māori would take part in designing health and disability services. They would have control over their own support. Services would be responsive to te ao Māori. The plan is grounded in the principles of Te Tiriti. It expired in 2022 and has not been replaced.
A te ao Māori view suggests disability should not be framed as deficit or burden, but as part of human diversity within whakapapa and whānau. Solutions must centre Māori-led approaches, not slot people into existing systems.
None of this is theoretical.
"We need to be honest about where the real expertise lies. Whānau hauā have the answers themselves," Recenia Kāka says. "Through our work at CCS Disability Action we've seen again and again that when whānau are trusted and empowered, when their voices are genuinely centred, they create pathways to the lives they actually aspire to."
A genuinely Māori-led system would look like services for tāngata whaikaha Māori designed and delivered with Māori communities. It would put decision-making with whānau, hapū, and iwi, rather than inside ministerial programmes set by regulation. It would treat Te Tiriti as the foundation of the legislation, not as a line in a disclosure statement.
Why a missing Te Tiriti clause is not a technicality
The Government's disclosure documents record that no Treaty analysis requiring legislative expression was identified. Submitters disagreed, and said so in direct terms.
The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists went to the heart of it in its submission. "Invoking 'whānau' as a concept without substantive Te Tiriti obligations attached to it risks using the language of te ao Māori to obscure a reduction in state responsibility," it said. "This is not tino rangatiratanga. It is not partnership."
Prudence Walker is the Disability Rights Commissioner at Te Kāhui Tika Tangata | Human Rights Commission. She told the committee that "neither the process or the content of the bill meet the Te Tiriti or human rights standards of active participation required for such legislation" (Human Rights Commission).
The committee's majority did not respond to any of it. The only place Te Tiriti appears in the report is in the New Zealand Labour Party's differing view. It states the Bill should "reflect the Crown's role as a partner in Te Tiriti o Waitangi", and adds: "The bill does none of the above." A differing view is recorded in the report. It has no effect on the Bill.
The rest of the disability system does not work this way. The New Zealand Disability Strategy 2026–2030 launched in December 2025. It states that it helps the Government meet its Treaty obligations. It promises "partnership, participation and protection for tāngata whaikaha Māori".
In 2021 the Waitangi Tribunal found the Crown had breached the Treaty by failing to actively address Māori health inequities. It called for governance that empowers tino rangatiratanga (Waitangi Tribunal). Disability support was part of the same inquiry.
So the Bill is not being asked to invent something new. It is being asked to keep up.
What the Minister said, and what the law enables
Hon Louise Upston accepted the committee's recommendations. "As Minister, I acknowledge the intent of the Bill was not as clear as it should have been," she says. "The Select Committee has heard this, and I agree with their recommended changes."
She said the revised Bill reflects the language of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Enabling Good Lives principles. She also said consultation through disabled people's representative organisations will be required on future support programmes (Beehive).
A commitment describes what this Government plans to do. A law describes what is possible for any Minister, in any year. For tāngata whaikaha Māori, that distinction is not abstract. It is the difference between a system that has to work in partnership and one that can choose to.
Naming Te Tiriti in the Bill would close that gap. So would defining what a family's responsibility to contribute means, and putting the means-testing assurance into the Act rather than into a media release.
What this means for whānau right now
Nothing has changed. There are no changes to current supports, funding, or eligibility. The Bill still has to clear a second reading, a Committee of the whole House, and a third reading.
If you or your whānau need support, our teams work in 17 branches across the motu. You can reach us through the CCS Disability Action support pages.
"Nothing about us without us is both a disability rights principle and a Treaty principle," Recenia Kāka says. "Legislation about whānau hauā Māori, written without them, is not a partnership. It is the opposite."
Frequently asked questions
Does the Disability Support Services Bill mention Te Tiriti o Waitangi?
No. It did not before the select committee stage, and the committee did not recommend adding it. The majority commentary contains no reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, whānau hauā Māori, or tāngata whaikaha Māori. Te Tiriti appears only in the Labour Party's differing view, which has no effect on the Bill.
Did the committee add the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?
Not by name. A new clause 8(2)(b) sets out principles that the committee says draw on the Convention and the Enabling Good Lives approach. Neither is named in the Bill, and the purpose clause was not rewritten.
How many submissions were made on the Bill?
In total, 3,382 people and groups made written submissions, and the committee heard 143 submitters. Submitters had 15 working days to prepare.
How many Māori are disabled in Aotearoa New Zealand?
Stats NZ recorded a Māori disability rate of 21 % in 2023, the highest of any ethnic group. That is 184,000 people.
What is Whāia Te Ao Mārama?
It is the Māori Disability Action Plan, developed in partnership with tāngata whaikaha Māori and grounded in the principles of Te Tiriti. It set out that tāngata whaikaha Māori should help design services and hold control over their own support. Support would also be responsive to te ao Māori. It expired in 2022.
Could the Bill lead to means testing of disability support?
Not immediately. Clause 11(3) allows income-based and asset-based criteria in ministerial programmes, and the committee expanded those criteria to include entitlement card eligibility. That creates a legal pathway for a future Government to introduce means testing by regulation, without new legislation.
When will the Bill become law?
It has not yet. Following the report back on 13 August 2026, the Bill must pass a second reading, a Committee of the whole House, and a third reading.
About CCS Disability Action
CCS Disability Action is the largest pan-disability support and advocacy organisation in Aotearoa New Zealand.
We support people with all types of impairments and have been working alongside disabled people since 1935.
We are at the forefront of service provision, advocacy and information sharing in the disability sector. We partner with disabled people, their families and whānau to enable them to have choice and control in their lives. Our vision is to see every disabled person and whānau hauā interwoven into the lives of their whānau and community.