Government funding for social housing must deliver accessible homes

By Bettina Syme, Operations Manager, CCS Disability Action
Published 4 August 2026

The Government is changing how social housing is delivered in New Zealand. Kāinga Ora will build fewer homes, while community housing providers are tasked with developing more new homes.

That makes one question more important than ever: what outcomes should taxpayers expect from that investment?

One answer should be non-negotiable. Every dollar of government funding for social housing should deliver accessible homes. Accessibility should not depend on who builds the house or whether budgets are under pressure. It should be a condition of receiving public funding.

The experience of Kāinga Ora shows exactly why.

Earlier this year, Kāinga Ora quietly removed its commitment that at least 15% of eligible new social housing builds would meet full universal design standards. Until this financial year, that commitment appeared in the agency's Statement of Performance Expectations, meaning it was publicly measured and reported.

From 2025/26 it disappeared.

When the change became public in May 2026, the Minister of Housing explained it had been removed following Kāinga Ora's stronger focus on "financial sustainability and value for money". Kāinga Ora itself proposed removing the measure as part of its turnaround plan.

In other words, accessibility became a budget line that could be cut.

That should concern every New Zealander – not simply because of what it says about Kāinga Ora, but because it demonstrates what happens when accessible housing depends on organisational priorities instead of government funding requirements.

When Kāinga Ora adopted the target in 2019, its own Accessibility Policy described 15% as "our minimum, starting goal" and committed to increasing it over time. Six years later the commitment has not been increased. It has been removed altogether.

Yet the need has only grown.

More than 800 disabled New Zealanders under the age of 65 are living in aged residential care because there is nowhere accessible for them to live in the community. More than 2,200 people remain on the waiting list for accessible public housing. Disabled people wait longer because the homes they need are the ones we build least of.

This is not a niche issue. Disabled people, older New Zealanders and people who acquire impairments through illness or injury are disproportionately represented in social housing. Accessibility benefits someone recovering from a stroke, someone losing their sight, a parent pushing a pram, and whānau supporting disabled family members. Universal design creates homes that work for more people throughout their lives.

The figures offered to reassure the public deserve closer examination.

The Minister says Kāinga Ora has built 1,464 homes to its own definition of accessibility, namely full universal design since 2019. Against a portfolio of around 75,000 homes, housing approximately 191,000 people, those homes represent less than two per cent of the total stock. That is hardly evidence that accessibility is embedded across the system.

The Minister also points to more than 16,000 homes that have received "a modification of some description". Kāinga Ora's Chief Financial Officer explains these include relatively minor changes such as grab rails and accessible shower fittings. Those improvements are valuable, but they are not substitutes for homes designed to be accessible from the outset. Retrofitting after construction almost always costs more than incorporating universal design during construction, and it usually happens only after someone has already struggled.

A further 330 accessible homes are attributed to community housing providers. Some of these used the Lifemark (a division of CCS Disability Action) standards and assurance process to ensure robust and accessible outcomes.

Meanwhile, Kāinga Ora has planned just 97 fully universally designed homes for 2025/26. That sits uneasily alongside claims that accessibility remains a continuing commitment.

Our teams see the consequences every week. People decline housing offers because the bathroom cannot accommodate their needs. Families shoulder caring responsibilities that well-designed housing could have reduced. Disabled people remain in hospital because there is no safe home to discharge them to.

Kāinga Ora also acknowledges that many of these homes are suitable only for tenants with "mild needs" and may still require adaptation for people with more complex impairments. In other words, the fallback approach does not serve those facing the greatest barriers.

There is an argument that because Kāinga Ora claims to have exceeded its 15% target in recent years, removing it makes little practical difference.

The opposite is true.

The target applied only to eligible new builds, a relatively small proportion of Kāinga Ora's overall programme. Despite meeting or exceeding that target, fully universally designed homes still account for less than two per cent of the total housing portfolio. If anything, that suggests the target was too low, not unnecessary.

In some developments, accessible homes exceeded 50% of the build programme (see Tamaki Regeneration for an example), demonstrating that significantly higher levels are both achievable and practical. As at least one in six New Zealanders is disabled and the population continues to age, demand for accessible housing will only increase.

That is why this discussion can no longer focus solely on Kāinga Ora.

As the Government increasingly funds community housing providers to deliver social housing, accessibility must become a condition of public investment. Every organisation receiving taxpayer funding should be required to deliver measurable accessible housing outcomes against a consistent national standard and report publicly on those outcomes.

Otherwise, we risk repeating the same mistake across an even larger part of the housing system.

Financial sustainability and accessibility are not competing priorities. Building homes that people can use throughout their lives is one of the most cost-effective investments government can make. It reduces expensive retrofits, supports earlier hospital discharge, helps older people remain independent, and enables disabled New Zealanders to participate fully in their communities.

Kāinga Ora should not be remembered simply as the agency that removed an accessibility target. It should be remembered as the lesson that accessible housing cannot rely on goodwill alone.

Government funding should buy accessible outcomes.

Anything less is simply paying more tomorrow for homes that should have been built properly today.