This morning I spoke to the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee about the potential for the proposed Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) to undermine disability rights.
To try to make the potential impact on disability rights from the RSB tangible and real, I provided a couple of examples from existing legislation that have made a positive, material difference in the lives of disabled people and families - and which would be at risk if the RSB is passed:
Copyright (New Technologies and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2008.
✅ This amendment enabled certain copyright exceptions to allow the creation and distribution of accessible format copies (e.g. Braille, large print, audio, and digital) in specific contexts (like education, libraries, and personal use). This flexibility supported the creation of alternate formats (e.g., Braille, audio versions, large print, digital/e-reader friendly files).
✅ It paved the way for the government to sign and implement the Marrakesh Treaty, with the Copyright (Marrakesh Treaty Implementation) Amendment Act entering into force in 2020. The Marrakesh Treaty aims to ensure people who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled have access to books and other literary works in accessible formats.
✅ The Marrakesh Treaty amendment included a specific exception that allowed organisations to create and share accessible formats for people with print disabilities without needing permission from the copyright owner. This went beyond the 2008 Act and removed long-standing legal barriers that kept blind and vision-impaired people from accessing books, learning materials, and other content.
How are these rights at risk from the RSB?
❌ Under the Regulatory Standards Bill framework, copyright holders’ rights would be prioritised over blind people’s right to equitable access to information, delaying or derailing similar reforms.
❌ NZ's ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty (a landmark in removing the “book famine” for blind and print-disabled people) represented a shift from market-based logic to human rights and equity thinking; precisely the kind of shift the Regulatory Standards Bill is designed to suppress.
❌ The heavy emphasis of the RSB on not diminishing private property rights, including intellectual property, means this piece of legislation could be challenged as a breach of property rights. Under the RSB, the disability rights provisions could be framed as an unjustified interference with copyright owners rights.
❌ The 2008 law prioritised public benefit in areas like education, accessibility, and preservation. The RSB, however, prioritises minimal regulatory interference. This means that exceptions based on social good or equity become harder to justify and must meet a particular economic threshold.
❌ The RSB requires existing laws to be retrospectively assessed. The Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 might not pass the RSB’s Principles of Responsible Regulation, particularly the following:
Principle (b): Property rights must not be taken without consent and compensation
Principle (g): Regulation must not impair contractual freedom
Principle (c): People must not be disadvantaged by laws that apply retrospectively
This could lead to challenges to exceptions and rights granted in the 2008 Act.
New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Disability Support Service Payment for Care of Children) Amendment Act 2020
This Act primarily repealed Part 4A of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000, and has since been superseded by the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act 2022. These Acts removed discriminatory laws that excluded parents from being paid to care for their disabled child/family member.
✅ Under the previous law (Part 4A of the NZ Public Health and Disability Act), parents were either prohibited from being paid carers, or were only allowed under strict, arbitrary conditions which were set by Cabinet. It also prevented families from challenging this discrimination in court.
✅These laws removed previous rules that prevented parents and close family members from being paid to care for their disabled children. It meant disabled people could choose who provided their care, including family, and allowed for family carers to be paid carer wage rates. This addressed years of systemic injustice and represents a significant step forward in recognising the value of whānau care.
✅It helped address poverty, supported parents (often mothers) who had given up paid employment to support a child with high needs, and acknowledged caregiving as legitimate, skilled work, separate to the role of parent.
How is this change at risk from the RSB?
❌ Under the Regulatory Standards Bill, this law change could be dismissed as too expensive, too complex, or ideologically incompatible with the narrow economic lens the Bill demands.
❌ Favouring property rights and economic neutrality means this bill would be considered to "unfairly advantage” one group, the cost-benefit analysis prioritises quantifiable, economic benefits over human rights, lived experience, or long-term social good.
❌The idea that government should not interfere in private/family matters unless essential would make it harder to justify public funding of intra-family arrangements. If this framework had applied, it would reject the change as too costly or unfair to other groups not eligible for equivalent funding, and required individual disabled people to demonstrate economic productivity or benefit to justify the expense (this is highly discriminatory and breaches human rights).
❌ The RSB could be used to challenge or block policies that pay parents to care for their disabled children by arguing that doing so creates preferential treatment. Funding family to provide care becomes framed as state interference in private family responsibilities. This means that the right to be recognised (and appropriately paid) for skilled care work by parents and/or family members could be overturned or weakened.
❌ Pae Ora Act requires Te Whatu Ora/Health NZ to actively address health and disability inequities. In contrast, the RSB treats any policy that benefits a specific group (e.g. parents of a disabled child) as unjustified. This means that any program designed to support families with disabled children could be labelled as non-compliant with the principles of the RSB and cut back.
❌ Discourages reform. The requirements of the RSB creates an additional layer of red tape for policymakers. New and/or improved supports for families may not progress if deemed non-compliant with the RSB, preventing progress on human rights and for family carers.
Both of these examples are cases where the law righted an injustice and brought policy in line with New Zealand’s human rights obligations. Under the Regulatory Standards Bill, both would likely be dismissed as too expensive, too complex, or ideologically incompatible with the narrow economic lens the Bill demands. Essentially, the Regulatory Standards Bill is poor law-making, creates barriers to implementing the human rights of disabled persons, and creates unnecessary layers of red tape.
Share this post