Disability rights and the Regulatory Standards Bill

How the RSB will make it harder to uphold Kiwi values in Aotearoa

I talked with

Melanie Nelson

for her podcast, Coherent, about the very real potential for the Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) to negatively and detrimentally impact on disability rights, including how it could unwind the hard fought for progress we are making as a country in access, inclusion, and support.

Melanie and I having a great chat!

You can listen to our chat on Spotify here:

Or watch the episode in full on Melanie’s Substack:

Dr Rebekah Graham: The RSB, Disability, and the Politics of Exclusion

---

Below I provide some easy-to-use text regarding the UNCRPD, the statistics I mention in the podcast regarding disability, and their relevance to the RSB. Please feel free to use these as you like in a submission or a letter to your MP:

UNCRPD (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities)

In the podcast I touch on the potential for the RSB to disrupt and/or wind back progress on NZ’s implementation of the UNCRPD. This government has already halted progress on several of the UN’s recommendations from the most recent review and concluding comments. The Regulatory Standards Bill, if enacted, could result in further breaches of New Zealand’s obligations under the UNCRPD.

Relevant UNCRPD articles:

• Article 4: General obligations

• Article 5: Equality and non-discrimination

• Article 9: Accessibility

• Article 19: Living independently and being included in the community

• Article 21: Freedom of expression and access to information

• Article 24: Education

• Article 28: Adequate standard of living and social protection

Looking across articles, here is a summary of the core rights of disabled persons that are likely to be impacted by the Regulatory Standards Bill:

1. Undermining of socio-economic rights (Articles 19, 24, and 28)
   The RSB priorities (property rights, freedom of contract) may result in a regulatory chill where necessary public policy for disability inclusion (e.g. accessibility standards, funding models for disability supports, inclusive education measures) are deemed “unjustified” interventions in private markets. This undermines Articles 19, 24, and 28.

2. Disproportionate scrutiny of equity-promoting regulations (Article 4)
   Laws designed to improve equity and access for disabled people (e.g. anti-discrimination measures, building codes, or health funding mechanisms) could be subject to challenge or struck down if they impose compliance costs. This contradicts the state's obligation to adopt progressive measures under Article 4.

3. Accessibility measures often require active regulation (Article 9)

   This means things like building codes, transport design, digital inclusion standards, or interpreter services. These measures could be challenged as infringing on private property rights or imposing costs on businesses and government. This would particularly harm physical access to buildings, digital accessibility, and transport equity, which are already underdeveloped.

4. Failure to uphold non-discrimination (Article 5)
   The RSB could incentivise deregulation in areas like accessible housing, employment protections, or social services, leading to increases in direct and indirect discrimination. The RSB could create a regulatory chill, making governments more hesitant to enact or enforce anti-discrimination protections out of fear they’ll be challenged as “unjustified” or “inconsistent” with economic freedoms. Disability protections in employment, education, and access to services could be weakened or avoided altogether. Regulations that aim to reduce systemic inequities (e.g. quotas, priority services, or universal design standards) could be overturned as being "unfair" to others, even when they address deeply embedded exclusion. This potentially breaches all the listed Articles.

5. Erosion of Participation and Voice (Articles 19, 21, 28)

   Disabled people have fought hard for participatory mechanisms in law and policy. This progress has been hard fought for over decades. The RSB risks devaluing and/or removing requirements for inclusive and participatory policy-making, especially if these processes are deemed to slow down regulation or add cost. It would also reduce the legal standing of consultation processes with marginalised communities, including disabled people, whose voices are primarily heard as a result of these mechanisms.

As a legislative mechanism, the RSB risks creating a hierarchy of rights that favours individual economic and property rights over collective, cultural, and socio-economic rights. The latter are essential to our collective wellbeing and to human flourishing, for both disabled and non-disabled people, and for tāngata whenua and tauiwi. The RSB essentially violates the spirit of Te Tiriti o Waitangi - and risks putting us in breach of our obligations under the UNCRPD (and under UNDRIP - do follow

Tina Ngata

for a more in-depth discussion on this).

Disability and material hardship

In the podcast I briefly touch on the existing statistics regarding disability and hardship. These are very broad brush statistics, but they highlight the need for equity-focussed policies and approaches across the life course in order to address existing disparities:

• Disabled people are twice as likely to live in material hardship compared to non-disabled people (Source: Stats NZ, "Disability and wellbeing in New Zealand", 2023)

• In 2023, 29.7% of disabled adults (aged 18–64) lived in households experiencing material hardship, compared with 9.4% of non-disabled adults. (Source: Stats NZ, "Disability and wellbeing in New Zealand", 2023)

• In 2022, the median weekly income for disabled adults was $495, compared to $820 for non-disabled adults. (Source: Stats NZ, Household Labour Force Survey, 2022)

• Disabled people are less likely to be in employment; 43% of disabled adults (15–64 years) were employed in 2022, compared with 80% of non-disabled people. (Source: Stats NZ, Household Labour Force Survey, 2022)

• Education disparities also exist, with disabled people less likely to have a post-secondary qualification and more likely to be NEET (not in education, employment, or training). In 2022, the NEET rate for disabled youth aged 15–24 was 41.5%, almost 3 times higher than for non-disabled youth (13.5%). (Source: Stats NZ, Labour Market Statistics: Disability, December 2022 quarter)

• Disabled children are twice as likely to experience multiple forms of deprivation. (Source: Ministry of Social Development, Household Incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2022)

• Parents of disabled children face additional barriers to employment due to care responsibilities.

These statistics are a result of existing barriers and inadequate supports. We need to implement legislation and approaches to reduce this gap, not increase it. The RSB creates additional barriers and increases the red tape regarding implementation of policy and legislative solutions to addressing these known issues.

The Regulatory Standards Bill creates the conditions for poor decision making and bad legislation, that is not made in the interests of public good or in the interests of human flourishing, but rather prioritises the interests of a small amount of wealthy individuals - at the expense of the rest of us.

Write to your MP today - and of course, do make a submission on the RSB!

Remember - the more thoughtful, original, and clear each of our submissions, the harder it will be to dismiss our collective voices (even though Seymour is desperately trying to do so!).

---

Know someone who needs to hear this? Share the episode and help spread the word about what’s at stake.

---

Further disability-related resources:

This RSB Tool by

Ryan Ward

and

Melanie Nelson

. This has a whole section on disability and some excellent questions to consider and work through. You don’t have to answer every question in your submission! If you are short on time, energy, or resource, even answering just one is more than enough.

Áine Kelly-Costello and Patti Poa writing for The D*List, have a great article titled Why the Regulatory Standards Bill is a threat to disability communities. This article covers some great points for including in any submission.

This list of Ideas for Regulatory Standards Bill submissions, which has some great considerations around disability impacts.

And, even if you’ve already made a submission you can still help by sharing the word, sharing this post, and helping others:

hapaitehauora

A post shared by @hapaitehauora