Disability Support Services Select Committee recommendations: our response
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 a number of changes. This article explains what the committee recommended, what it is likely to mean in practice, and the questions we are left with.
Nothing changes today for anyone who receives Disability Support Services. When we consider the Minister’s stated intentions, it’s possible that nothing substantive will even change in future. But we do feel significant gaps remain, which could change the fundamental rights of disabled people to be equal citizens under the law.
The process, in numbers
The Bill was referred to the committee under urgency on 21 May 2026.
The House told the committee to report back by 13 August 2026, roughly half the time usually given to a Bill.
In all, 3,382 people and groups made written submissions.
The committee heard 143 submitters, at hearings in Wellington and by videoconference (New Zealand Parliament).
By comparison, the Government's earlier nationwide consultation on disability support drew 1,501 submissions (Disability Support Services).
The recommendation was not unanimous. The New Zealand Labour Party and the Green Party of Aotearoa each recorded a formal differing view opposing the Bill in full.
The Bill still has to go through two more readings in Parliament before it can become law.
In May we explained what the Disability Support Services Bill means for disabled people and whānau. We also published a guide to making a submission.
The changes
1. Family and whānau responsibility
What the committee recommended. The words "responsibility in the first instance for" in clause 8(2)(a) are replaced with "a responsibility to contribute to". The committee said the Bill as introduced "was unclear about the responsibility of family and whānau".
What it means. The original wording suggested families had to be relied on first, before Disability Support Services stepped in. The new wording describes families as contributing alongside the service. This is a real improvement.
Likely impact. No one's allocation changes because of this wording. The effect will show up in assessment and allocation conversations, where a needs assessor or provider weighs what a family already does. The old wording pointed towards a sequence. The new wording points towards a judgement call. Because the new term is not defined, that judgement could be made differently from region to region, assessor to assessor. Families with large extended networks are the most exposed to that variation. The broad definition of "family member" in clause 4 is unchanged. It still includes spouses, children, grandchildren, siblings, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, and cousins, plus anyone else in a close relationship with the person.
Questions we are left with.
What guidance will Disability Support Services give assessors about what "a responsibility to contribute to" means in a real household?
Is there any ceiling on what can be expected of a family member, and who decides where it sits?
Why was the definition of "family member" in clause 4 left untouched when submitters raised it directly?
How will inconsistent decisions be picked up, and what can a family do if they disagree with one?
2. New principles for decision-makers
What the committee recommended. A new clause 8(2)(b) requires decision-makers to take into account a disabled person's:
choice or preferences, including where the person needs support to communicate them
safety and dignity
immediate and long-term needs and circumstances
own resources, where appropriate
support from other publicly funded sources
support from family, whānau, other culturally recognised groups, and their community, where appropriate.
The committee said these elements come from the Enabling Good Lives principles and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It made the changes "in response to submitters' suggestions".
What it means. Choice, safety, and dignity now have to be considered when decisions are made about a person's support. This is the change that most closely matches what we and many other submitters asked for.
Likely impact. A decision-maker who ignores a person's stated preference is now acting against the Act, not just against good practice. That gives people something concrete to point to in a review or complaint. But the list works in both directions. Choice and dignity sit in the same list as "own resources" and "support from family". The Bill does not say which one wins when they pull against each other. Someone could be told their preference was considered and then outweighed. Whether this change helps people will depend on how the principles are weighted in practice, and on whether people can see the reasoning behind a decision.
Questions we are left with.
Which principle takes priority when a person's choice conflicts with an expectation to use their own resources?
Will decisions record how each principle was considered, in a form the person can understand?
Can a decision be challenged on the grounds that a principle was not properly considered?
Will communication support be funded so that people who use augmentative and alternative communication, or New Zealand Sign Language, can express their choices?
3. Consultation with disabled people
What the committee recommended. New subclauses (4A) and (4B) in clause 11. The Minister "must consult such representatives of disabled persons as the Minister considers appropriate" before making a support programme. That includes programmes that propose or change means testing.
What it means. For the first time, the Bill would require consultation with disabled people's representative organisations before future support programmes are made.
Likely impact. Future programmes should now come with a consultation step attached, and that step covers means testing. That is a genuine gain. Two things limit it. The Minister decides who counts as an appropriate representative. And new subclause (4B)(b) states that a failure to consult "does not invalidate a support programme". So a programme made without consultation would still stand. In practical terms, the pressure to comply would be political rather than legal. There is also an exception for changes that are minor in effect or fix a technical error, where no eligible person is adversely affected. Most of the work of consulting will fall on Disabled People's Organisations, who will need funding and time to reach the people they represent.
Questions we are left with.
Who will the Minister treat as appropriate representatives, and will that list be published?
Will Disabled People's Organisations be resourced to consult properly, including reaching people who are not connected to any organisation?
Who decides whether a change is "minor in effect", and can that call be reviewed?
If consultation does not happen, what practical options does anyone have?
4. Income and asset testing
What the committee recommended. No change to remove the clauses that allow income and asset-based criteria. Instead, the criteria in clause 11(3) are expanded to include eligibility for an entitlement card, such as a Community Services Card. Those cards are income and asset based.
What the committee said. "Some of us are concerned that the current wording of the bill does not prohibit the extension of means-testing in the future, beyond current settings." The majority's view was that the Bill increases transparency, because a Minister could already change means-testing settings without notice.
What it means. Income and asset testing already applies to a small number of supports, such as home modifications. The Bill does not extend it now. It also does not prevent it being extended later through secondary legislation. We asked for clauses 11(3)(f) and (g) to be removed. They remain.
Likely impact. Nobody will be asked about their income or assets tomorrow because of this Bill. The change is to what a future Minister can do without getting feedback from Parliament. Adding entitlement card eligibility to the list widens the tools available. Card-based criteria are blunt. They create a threshold, and people just above it get nothing while people just below it qualify. Disability costs do not follow income in that way. If testing were ever extended, it would come through a support programme, which would trigger the new consultation duty. That duty has no legal consequence if it is breached.
What the Minister said. The Bill "does not change current eligibility, entitlements or support, or introduce income or asset testing where it is not currently used" (Beehive). That is a statement of current intent rather than a limit written into the law.
Questions we are left with.
If there is no intention to use income and asset criteria, why widen them rather than remove them?
Will the Government support an amendment that rules out any extension in the Act itself?
If a future programme did introduce testing, how much notice would people get, and in what formats?
What happens to a person whose income sits just above a Community Services Card threshold but whose disability costs are high?
5. Support programmes and secondary legislation
What the committee recommended. Wider powers for ministerial support programmes, not narrower ones. New clause 11(2)(b)(iia) lets programmes specify ways services may or must be provided. A new subclause (3A) adds four more powers: Programmes can cover commissioning providers, payments to family carers and others in a close relationship, funding for residential care, and financial help for goods, services, and facilities. The Minister must also consider outcomes for disabled people before establishing a programme.
What it means. Many submitters, including us, asked for more detail to be moved into the Bill itself, where Parliament debates it and the public can make submissions. That did not happen. More detail stays in secondary legislation, which a future Minister can change by regulation.
Likely impact. This is the most structural change, and the least visible. Decisions that shape daily life now sit in regulations that can be made and remade without a select committee process. That includes how residential care is funded, how family carers are paid, and how services must be delivered. For providers, it means contracting settings could shift with a programme change. For disabled people and whānau, it means the detail of what you can expect is not fixed in the Act you can read. The new duty to consider outcomes for disabled people is a check, but the Bill does not say how outcomes are defined or measured.
Questions we are left with.
Will support programmes be published in full, in accessible formats, before they take effect?
Will they be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance, like other secondary legislation?
How much notice will people get before a programme changes something they rely on?
What appeal route will a person have against a decision made under a programme?
How will "outcomes for disabled persons" be defined and measured, and by whom?
6. Family carers and employment law
What the committee recommended. Technical fixes to clauses 13 and 14. The committee accepted that "the bill as introduced is not consistent with employment law". A written agreement now becomes "conclusive proof" of employment status, using the same approach as the Screen Industry Workers Act 2022. Clause 14 is deleted because amended clause 13 now covers both the Crown and contracted providers.
What it means. The underlying policy has not changed. The Crown is still deemed not to be the employer of family carers. Future claims like the Supreme Court case Fleming v Attorney-General are closed off. Our submission asked for a plan to recognise and resource family carers, developed with carers, before that change went ahead.
Likely impact. Family carers being paid today keep being paid. What changes is what they can do if they think the arrangement is unfair. Without an employment relationship with the Crown, the usual routes are narrowed, and pay stays tied to funding policy rather than to bargaining. The Bill also confirms that the Minimum Wage Act cannot be used to require payment inconsistent with funding policy.
Questions we are left with.
What will the carers' package contain, when does consultation open, and will carers help design it?
If hours, rates, leave, and breaks are not set by employment law, what sets them, and who can a carer raise a problem with?
The Minister says the two successful Supreme Court claims are unaffected. What about people in similar situations who had not filed a claim?
7. Transition period and a mandatory review
What the committee recommended. The transition period in Schedule 1 extends from three years to five years. The exception is clause 5, which covers paid family carers and stays at three years. A new clause 17 requires a review of how the Act is working within five years, with the Minister reporting findings to Parliament.
What it means. There is more time to put the new consultation requirements in place, and a set point at which the law must be looked at again.
Likely impact. A mandatory review is the clearest accountability point in the Bill. It creates a date at which the Government has to report publicly on how the Act is working. That is useful for advocacy, because it gives everyone a shared deadline and something to gather evidence for. Five years is also a long time. A lot can be set in place through support programmes before the first review happens, and the review looks at the Act rather than at individual programmes.
Questions we are left with.
Who will carry out the review, and will disabled people lead or take part in it?
Will the terms of reference be public, and will they cover compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?
Will the review look at the effect of support programmes, not just the wording of the Act?
What happens in the meantime if a programme causes harm?
What the Minister said, and what the law enables
Hon Louise Upston, Minister for Disability Issues, 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 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Enabling Good Lives principles. She also said no additional expectations will be placed on families, and that formal consultation through disabled people's representative organisations will be required on future support programmes (Beehive).
We take those commitments at face value, and we share the goal behind them. We think the intent is sound. Our questions are about the words on the page.
A commitment describes what this Government plans to do. A law describes what is possible for any Minister, in any year. Where there is a gap between the two, it is worth closing, and we think it can be.
Income and asset testing. The Government says the Bill does not introduce income or asset testing where it is not used now. We accept that. Putting it in the Act would give that assurance a longer life than any one Government.
The role of families. The new wording is genuinely better. Defining what a family's "responsibility to contribute" means would make the commitment easier to hold to.
Consultation. The new duty to consult is a real step forward, and we welcome it. It would carry more weight if a programme could not proceed where consultation had not happened.
Employment certainty. The Bill settles the position for the Crown. Family carers are still waiting for certainty about pay, hours, and recognition. The carer support package is the chance to give them that.
Why it matters. Disability Support Services describes this Bill as "the first step in building a foundational legal framework". Foundations are hard to revisit, so it is worth getting the wording right now rather than later.
None of this is a reason to stop. We want to keep working with the Minister, with officials, and with the community to close these gaps before the Bill is passed. Where the intent is already agreed, writing it into the Act is the straightforward part.
Where the report reflects what submitters said
The committee's commentary records the same concerns that came through submissions from disabled people, whānau, and organisations across the sector. In its own words:
On family responsibility: "many submitters expressed significant concern that the bill would place sole reliance on family and whānau … to care for disabled family members".
On consultation: "many submitters expressed concern about the lack of mandatory consultation with the disabled community about decisions that affect them".
On secondary legislation: "submitters expressed concern about leaving the details of such programmes for secondary legislation".
On employment law: "the bill as introduced is not consistent with employment law".
Those findings line up closely with the points in our submission, and with what many other organisations told the committee.
What the report did not address
The definition of "family member" in clause 4 is unchanged.
The clauses allowing income and asset-based criteria remain, and were expanded rather than narrowed.
Substantive detail was not moved from secondary legislation into the Bill.
The majority commentary does not mention Te Tiriti o Waitangi, whānau hauā Māori, or tāngata whaikaha Māori | Māori disabled people. Those points appear only in Labour's differing view, which has no legislative effect.
What this means for you right now
Nothing changes today. If you receive Disability Support Services, your assessment, your allocation, and your supports stay as they are while the Bill goes through Parliament. If you employ a support worker using your funding, that arrangement continues.
The Bill now returns to the House for its second reading. There is still time for changes. We are asking members of Parliament to:
Remove clauses 11(3)(f) and (g), and rule out any extension of income and asset testing in the Bill itself.
Set clear limits on family responsibility, and narrow the definition of "family member" in clause 4.
Make the new consultation duty enforceable by removing subclause (4B)(b).
Pause the family carer provisions in clauses 12 to 16 until a carers' package exists and carers have agreed it.
Write Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities into the purpose of the Act.
Frequently asked questions
What is the Disability Support Services Bill?
It sets out, for the first time in primary legislation, the purpose and operating rules for Disability Support Services. The service is administered by the Ministry of Social Development.
Does the select committee report change my support?
No. Nothing changes while the Bill is before Parliament. Current eligibility, allocations, and supports continue.
How many people made submissions on the Bill?
In total, 3,382 people and groups made written submissions. The committee heard 143 submitters in Wellington and by video conference.
Did the committee remove the income and asset testing clauses?
No. It recommended adding eligibility for an entitlement card, such as a Community Services Card, to the criteria in clause 11(3). Those cards are income and asset based. The committee's commentary states that the Bill "does not prohibit the extension of means-testing in the future".
Does the Bill now require the Minister to consult disabled people?
Yes, before making a support programme. The Minister must consult representatives of disabled people that the Minister "considers appropriate". A new subclause also states that failing to consult does not invalidate a programme.
When will the law be reviewed?
A new clause 17 requires a review of how the Act is working within five years of it coming into effect. The Minister must report the findings to Parliament.
What happens next?
The Bill returns to the House for its second reading. It then goes through a committee of the whole House stage and a third reading before it can become law.
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.