Today, in my role as Co-Chair as Access Matters Aotearoa, I had the privilege of presenting the Access Matters Aotearoa submission on the Regulatory Systems (Government Processes) Amendment Bill. This submission focussed on how the Bill puts accessibility at risk and endangers the human rights of disabled people. We used the UNCRPD as a framework to highlight the risks this Bill poses. This post includes the video and my notes.
About AMA
Access Matters Aotearoa advocates for all areas of public life to be accessible to everyone. Our movement has thousands of committed campaigners, supporting organisations, and business champions calling for accessibility legislation with enforceable standards.
When we talk about access and accessibility, we are referring to our ability to engage with, and belong to, the world around us. When people are denied access, we call that a barrier.
Barriers disabled people face in everyday life include:
Obstacles when getting around (getting into public buildings, crossing the road, inaccessible public transport)
Information and communication barriers (inaccessible websites, apps, signage and printed materials, lack of closed captioning.
Existing legislation does not provide enough guidance to organisations on how to design a website, provide employment, or deliver goods and services in a way that everyone can access. We need ways to address accessibility issues with new legislation. Creating good legislation means creating standards and policies that support accessibility and embed it across a range of areas.
The RSB, in its current form, risks entrenching barriers for disabled people and undermining New Zealand’s human rights obligations to its populace, particularly with regard the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). We have summarized these into 5 key risks in our submission:
1. Socio-Economic rights for disabled people at risk
This Bill prioritizes reducing regulatory burden, in economic terms. However, for disabled people, good regulation is often what enables basic rights to be enacted. This includes access to housing, education, transport, and public services.
Articles 19 (the right to live independently and be included in the community), 24 (right to inclusive education), and 28 (the right to an adequate standard of living and social protection) of the UNCRPD cannot be upheld without regulatory protections and investment. Under this Bill, the necessary policy interventions can be too easily dismissed, creating a ‘regulatory chill’ that discourages inclusive practices.
2. Equity measures are in the firing line
The Bill creates a framework whereby equity-promoting regulations, such as anti-discrimination laws or implementation of accessibility standards, face additional layers of red tape and are vulnerable to repeal if they deemed to be “inefficient” or “overly expensive”.
This contradicts Article 4: General obligations (adopt all appropriate legislative measures for implementation) of the UNCRPD. Adequately implementing this right requires proactive legislative action to achieve accessibility and inclusion.
3. Accessibility is now further away
New Zealand does not currently have mandatory, enforceable accessibility standards across most sectors.
There is one exception to this statement! NZS 4121:2001, our building accessibility standard. However, this standard is over 20 years old and long overdue for revision. Despite repeated calls from disabled people and allies, the standard remains unchanged. The Ministry responsible has not yet taken the necessary steps to update it. Without robust regulation, inaccessible environments persist.
This Bill creates additional red tape and processes, which further delays progressing accessibility standards.
4. Erosion of non-discrimination protections
Article 5: Equality and non-discrimination prohibits discrimination and demands equal protection under the law. But, under this Bill, rights-based regulations are able to be sidelined in favour of economic reasons and cost-efficiencies. Protections in areas like education, employment, housing, and access to services could be diluted or removed if their enforcement is deemed too costly.
We cannot not let human rights be traded away. Our human rights obligations to each other are not “regulatory burdens”, they are part and parcel of creating a healthy, fully functioning society.
5. Reduced voice and participation
This Bill reduces opportunities for marginalised and minoritized groups, and especially disabled people, to shape policies and legislation that affect their lives.
Article 19: The right to live independently and be included in the community
Article 21: The right to freedom of expression and access to information
Article 28: The right to an adequate standard of living and social protection
of the UNCRPD affirm the right of disabled people to be involved in decision-making.
Processes like co-design and consultation are not bureaucratic red tape. They are democratic imperatives, not inefficiencies. They help create better laws and shape policies in ways that mean they can work to achieve what is intended.
Responses to previous comments
In response to suggestions from other submitters that the Bill won’t stop the Government making laws, as the RSB isn’t legally binding, the chilling effect of the “takings clause” will absolutely work to prevent the Government of the day from making certain laws because of the potential expense of compensation claims. This had direct consequences for accessibility-related legislation. The RSB also puts at risk the legal rights disabled people currently have because of the retrospective nature of the Bill.
In response to the assertion that Bill won’t affect people’s human rights because some government officials have said that it won’t, AMA would like to note the response of the Human Rights Commission, which strongly disagrees with this assertion. The Human Rights Commission is the single accredited National Human Rights Institution for Aotearoa and has the role of advising the Government on human rights in NZ. They said, in their submission on the Regulatory Standards Bill, that
“there can be no way this Bill can be said to be genuinely consistent with New Zealand’s international human rights obligations, nor the Bill of Rights Act.”
And that the Bill could be a
“huge blow for human rights in New Zealand” because “many of the substantive rights gains that people enjoy on an everyday basis are the result of laws which have balanced an array of considerations. Such laws may treat people differently, limit certain liberties, and may not withstand a narrow cost-benefit analysis [that this legislation would require]. These laws are in the sights of the Bill for dismantling.”
If enacted, this Bill risks elevating individual economic rights above collective wellbeing and accessibility, violating New Zealand’s commitment to the UNCRPD and to creating a fair and inclusive society.
Conclusion: Regulation must serve the public good
In conclusion, we urge the Committee to reject the Bill. If we must have regulatory standards, we need one that explicitly protects accessibility, equity, and inclusive participation. Regulatory quality must be measured by whether it upholds human rights, advances social equity, and includes diverse voices in decision-making.
Share this post