🤔 It really is such a pitiful cost saving for the govt budget compared to the huge benefits to ensuring the "differently abled" can get to need medical appointments etc, & generally be happy healthy members of society through social connections & living as full a life as can reasonably be expected. 🥹
thanks Bex, and it shows a few of us having conversations, yet I havent seen the ministers out talking to us, as if we are all considered “bottom feeders” by our CEO, oops I mean Prime Minister. There isnt a week that goes by now without a cut to something needed by disabled.
That's a solid point. I've seen a LOT of shoulder shrugging about this from the relevant Ministers, as though there is nothing they can do. It's infuriating! This is a deliberate choice and they simply think our communities aren't worth lookibg after.
i dont align to any party, but i do note I saw one set of posts by the greens around total mobility I think, but on all the topics I have written about recently, I havent seen any reaction from any political parties.. their silence confirms why we need disabled in all the parties sitting in Government. It will force the beehive to have better accessibility and not rely on the Be Accessible certificate which is aspirational access not actual access. It is a terrible place for access
Surely the amount saved will be peanuts in the overall scheme of things. I have noticed with a lot of financial issues people can focus on the small amounts because they know what that looks like. With large amounts they have no concept of the amount.
when it accumulates with the other cuts and losses disabled are experiencing since this coalition came in, when we were already stretching what lttle most of us have, this may seem peanuts, but its just another cut after another where its too hard even with the small cuts being made. The cost is far higher than just making a choice, it has led to a lot of losses for some disabled and the “small amounts” are just added to the larger losses already faced. On its own, maybe, but put all the cuts and changes together and its a massive cut when added to all the recent cuts
The govt could save money if they reviewed mp's entitlements - travel, accommodation, etc. Maybe they could all stay in a cheap back packers when in Wellington rather than rent their own accommodation? This would demonstrate their commitment to austerity for all.
Thanks, Bex. Let’s hope we can get Ministers Bishop and Upston to change their minds and reverse course.
In December 2025, I estimated and wrote that the 1 July reduction in the Government fare subsidy from 75% to 65% would effectively transfer around $10 million in costs from the Government onto users of the Total Mobility Scheme. I also made my own submission to the Ministry of Transport before submissions closed on 22 March, 2026 highly critical of the proposed changes, and the 1st July 2026 changes as being 'off-limits' in the submission process.
As far as I know the Ministry of Transport hasn't even published a summary of the submissions, let alone provided public access to individual submissions. That itself raises concerns about fair process and consultation.
The way Chris Bishop and Louise Upston framed the changes in their December 2025 press statement also deserves closer scrutiny. They presented the changes as ‘strengthening’ the scheme and making it more ‘sustainable’ through fiscal responsibility. In plain terms, that meant reducing government expenditure and shifting more of the cost onto disabled people and others who rely on the scheme.
There was also an uncomfortable implication in their framing that Total Mobility users receive a special ‘perk’ through subsidised taxi travel that other members of the community do not receive. That completely misses the point. The scheme exists because many users face mobility, disability, health, cognitive, or age-related barriers that prevent them from using ordinary public transport in the same way as others.
Now, following Nick and Blake’s account of their meeting with Chris Bishop last week, it appears further changes may be coming to the Total Mobility Scheme that could negatively affect scheme users, their whānau and supporters.
It is hard to understand why MPs, media organisations, and the wider public have paid so little attention to this until now. But hopefully, with a concerted effort, we can put enough pressure on the Government to secure another eleventh-hour U-turn, or at the very least turn up the heat on the decision-makers.
Due to the surge in innovative mobility technology, the line between the choices people make regarding what devices suit the reality about their mobility need and what works for them, the official approval regarding this matter has lagged severely. While AT transport services go to great efforts to accommodate the needs of NZers who live with profound mobility impairments, as a matter of service provision policy, they neglect the needs of the much larger group of NZers whose impairments are less obvious, most of whom are Total Mobility Card holders.
The complaint regarding the cost of the Total Mobility card services could be met by altering the service protocol regulations to enable Total Mobility cardholders to have permission to wheel their chosen equipment on board and ride with their mobility equipment. This would be a cost free way to extend access to road transport services for NZers who live with a mobility impairment.
Escooters, and micro-mobility devices: While they can be used to help someone deal with impaired mobility, there is no NZ regulation which states any differentiation between the use of this equipment to meet a mobility impairment and the recreational use of identical equipment.
This enabling process remains willfully unsupported by AT Transport services. Without using their chosen equipment, many micro-mobility device users have difficulty getting to and from the bus stop, navigating around at their destination, and boarding the bus, because of the expectation to dead-lift the equipment onto the bus, causing pain and risking injury; for which any liability about potential health and safety is placed upon the passenger, and used as an excuse to refuse legitimate services.
Most Total Mobility card holders use bespoke mobility equipment, and are unable to use standard or hired scooters because the generic design and guaranteed access to this hired equipment is unable to control safely. I see many tourists using the hired equipment, and some use it irresponsibly. NZers who use micro-mobility equipment as a means to get around generally need bespoke equipment and own their devices, and use it responsibly, but bear the brunt of regulatory abuse aimed at irresponsible able-bodied micro-mobility equipment users.
However AT Road Transport services management are refusing to engage with or update their business processes to improve access to NZers who live with mobility impairments using their road transport service in particular.
A component in this refusal to make allowances for passengers using this equipment to meet a mobility impairment, and seeking to wheel the equipment on board, are not practical but 'Political'. Enabling the visible presence of the fewer numbers of NZers living with profound mobility impairments disguises the fact that a different service provision reality is delivered for other NZers living with impairments which are less severe or obvious.
A retail vendor of this equipment stated to me that he was unwilling to share the marketing image of the micro-mobility devices and equipment his business was selling with the image of similar equipment being used by 'disabled people'. Many sports orientated and associated NZ businesses depend on the tourism industry. Because these businesses have to accommodate many cultures, some of which regard the visible presence of NZers living with disability as undesirable; the 'health and safety' argument is a 'loophole' to enable avoidance to provide goods and services to customers which they perceive as damaging their marketing image, and a convenient way to mask prejudice, and get away with ongoing discrimination against NZers living with mobility challenges.
This mindset could include a visible presence on public transport. AT's Transport's hardline enforcement of their requirement to 'fold and carry' this equipment on board AT road transport vehicles, excludes access to NZers who use this equipment to meet a mobility need, who often need to wheel the equipment to move it while it enables able bodied passengers to travel with the same equipment.
AT and other Auckland contracted PT Transport operators have constructed their service protocols to include a generous service autonomy regarding the authority individual bus drivers have over who boards their bus and what service level they are willing to provide. Most Bus drivers provide ongoing support for this regulatory barrier and are unapologetic about the manner in which they choose to proceed when enforcing these protocols. This causes widespread human rights abuses regarding the ability to access AT Road services public transport,in particular. Because this matter is ongoing, antagonism is created and used to prevent the creation of a space of social acceptance for Elder and Disability discrimination and abuse, around what is a space between what AT road services management teams will accept and what is in reality best practice.
There is little difference in the size of this equipment folded or unfolded, or the room it takes up, or the frequency with which Mobility Card holders use Road public transport services compared to that permitted to travel with able bodied passengers riding with escooters, passengers traveling with infants and young children in full sized unfolded Mountain Buggies, travelers boarding with multiple wheeled suitcases, trampers packs, full shopping trundlers, or sports equipment, and in one instance a used unwrapped full sized dog kennel, and regularly, a local driver permitting a passenger wheeling on a mountain buggy stacked with newsletters. All of these passengers, with the exception of the passenger carrying an escooter, were permitted to roll their equipment on board and travel without folding it, and without any intervention from the driver.
While requiring to fold escooters and mobility scooters prior to boarding, may sound like a reasonable expectation to service personnel with a poor understanding of service provision or knowledge about the restrictions experienced by people living with reduced mobility and physical impairments, common sense and compassion is also ignored in this instance. In reality to comply with this service ultimatum requires the passenger to be capable of dead-lifting the full weight of their equipment onto the bus. It is my experience that often bus drivers also exacerbate the predicament by refusing or ignoring requests to lower the bus step, often expressing impatience towards passenger's struggle to comply. Being able to fold the equipment after boarding would be less unreasonable, but I am skeptical that it is necessary to fold this equipment, because other items bus drivers permit on board without requiring the passenger to fold them, are of similar size.
NB; This rule is not applied to passengers traveling with infants sitting in pushchairs. However when this is pointed out to AT transport providers by a complaint, they refuse to listen. AT transport service providers argue that the complainant is being combative towards their staff, and towards other vulnerable passengers, which is a psychological strategy to avoid taking responsibility for this abuse.
Enforcing unreasonable service use demands on less able passengers in the name of 'equity' forces less able bodied NZers into a situation which unreasonably prevents them from meeting using their mobility equipment of choice, while permitting other able bodied passengers to board and travel with the same equipment constitutes a breach of NZ's Human Rights Act, by undermining the right of NZers living with mobility impairment.
🤔 It really is such a pitiful cost saving for the govt budget compared to the huge benefits to ensuring the "differently abled" can get to need medical appointments etc, & generally be happy healthy members of society through social connections & living as full a life as can reasonably be expected. 🥹
thanks Bex, and it shows a few of us having conversations, yet I havent seen the ministers out talking to us, as if we are all considered “bottom feeders” by our CEO, oops I mean Prime Minister. There isnt a week that goes by now without a cut to something needed by disabled.
That's a solid point. I've seen a LOT of shoulder shrugging about this from the relevant Ministers, as though there is nothing they can do. It's infuriating! This is a deliberate choice and they simply think our communities aren't worth lookibg after.
i dont align to any party, but i do note I saw one set of posts by the greens around total mobility I think, but on all the topics I have written about recently, I havent seen any reaction from any political parties.. their silence confirms why we need disabled in all the parties sitting in Government. It will force the beehive to have better accessibility and not rely on the Be Accessible certificate which is aspirational access not actual access. It is a terrible place for access
Surely the amount saved will be peanuts in the overall scheme of things. I have noticed with a lot of financial issues people can focus on the small amounts because they know what that looks like. With large amounts they have no concept of the amount.
when it accumulates with the other cuts and losses disabled are experiencing since this coalition came in, when we were already stretching what lttle most of us have, this may seem peanuts, but its just another cut after another where its too hard even with the small cuts being made. The cost is far higher than just making a choice, it has led to a lot of losses for some disabled and the “small amounts” are just added to the larger losses already faced. On its own, maybe, but put all the cuts and changes together and its a massive cut when added to all the recent cuts
The govt could save money if they reviewed mp's entitlements - travel, accommodation, etc. Maybe they could all stay in a cheap back packers when in Wellington rather than rent their own accommodation? This would demonstrate their commitment to austerity for all.
Thanks, Bex. Let’s hope we can get Ministers Bishop and Upston to change their minds and reverse course.
In December 2025, I estimated and wrote that the 1 July reduction in the Government fare subsidy from 75% to 65% would effectively transfer around $10 million in costs from the Government onto users of the Total Mobility Scheme. I also made my own submission to the Ministry of Transport before submissions closed on 22 March, 2026 highly critical of the proposed changes, and the 1st July 2026 changes as being 'off-limits' in the submission process.
As far as I know the Ministry of Transport hasn't even published a summary of the submissions, let alone provided public access to individual submissions. That itself raises concerns about fair process and consultation.
The way Chris Bishop and Louise Upston framed the changes in their December 2025 press statement also deserves closer scrutiny. They presented the changes as ‘strengthening’ the scheme and making it more ‘sustainable’ through fiscal responsibility. In plain terms, that meant reducing government expenditure and shifting more of the cost onto disabled people and others who rely on the scheme.
There was also an uncomfortable implication in their framing that Total Mobility users receive a special ‘perk’ through subsidised taxi travel that other members of the community do not receive. That completely misses the point. The scheme exists because many users face mobility, disability, health, cognitive, or age-related barriers that prevent them from using ordinary public transport in the same way as others.
Now, following Nick and Blake’s account of their meeting with Chris Bishop last week, it appears further changes may be coming to the Total Mobility Scheme that could negatively affect scheme users, their whānau and supporters.
It is hard to understand why MPs, media organisations, and the wider public have paid so little attention to this until now. But hopefully, with a concerted effort, we can put enough pressure on the Government to secure another eleventh-hour U-turn, or at the very least turn up the heat on the decision-makers.
Due to the surge in innovative mobility technology, the line between the choices people make regarding what devices suit the reality about their mobility need and what works for them, the official approval regarding this matter has lagged severely. While AT transport services go to great efforts to accommodate the needs of NZers who live with profound mobility impairments, as a matter of service provision policy, they neglect the needs of the much larger group of NZers whose impairments are less obvious, most of whom are Total Mobility Card holders.
The complaint regarding the cost of the Total Mobility card services could be met by altering the service protocol regulations to enable Total Mobility cardholders to have permission to wheel their chosen equipment on board and ride with their mobility equipment. This would be a cost free way to extend access to road transport services for NZers who live with a mobility impairment.
Escooters, and micro-mobility devices: While they can be used to help someone deal with impaired mobility, there is no NZ regulation which states any differentiation between the use of this equipment to meet a mobility impairment and the recreational use of identical equipment.
This enabling process remains willfully unsupported by AT Transport services. Without using their chosen equipment, many micro-mobility device users have difficulty getting to and from the bus stop, navigating around at their destination, and boarding the bus, because of the expectation to dead-lift the equipment onto the bus, causing pain and risking injury; for which any liability about potential health and safety is placed upon the passenger, and used as an excuse to refuse legitimate services.
Most Total Mobility card holders use bespoke mobility equipment, and are unable to use standard or hired scooters because the generic design and guaranteed access to this hired equipment is unable to control safely. I see many tourists using the hired equipment, and some use it irresponsibly. NZers who use micro-mobility equipment as a means to get around generally need bespoke equipment and own their devices, and use it responsibly, but bear the brunt of regulatory abuse aimed at irresponsible able-bodied micro-mobility equipment users.
However AT Road Transport services management are refusing to engage with or update their business processes to improve access to NZers who live with mobility impairments using their road transport service in particular.
A component in this refusal to make allowances for passengers using this equipment to meet a mobility impairment, and seeking to wheel the equipment on board, are not practical but 'Political'. Enabling the visible presence of the fewer numbers of NZers living with profound mobility impairments disguises the fact that a different service provision reality is delivered for other NZers living with impairments which are less severe or obvious.
A retail vendor of this equipment stated to me that he was unwilling to share the marketing image of the micro-mobility devices and equipment his business was selling with the image of similar equipment being used by 'disabled people'. Many sports orientated and associated NZ businesses depend on the tourism industry. Because these businesses have to accommodate many cultures, some of which regard the visible presence of NZers living with disability as undesirable; the 'health and safety' argument is a 'loophole' to enable avoidance to provide goods and services to customers which they perceive as damaging their marketing image, and a convenient way to mask prejudice, and get away with ongoing discrimination against NZers living with mobility challenges.
This mindset could include a visible presence on public transport. AT's Transport's hardline enforcement of their requirement to 'fold and carry' this equipment on board AT road transport vehicles, excludes access to NZers who use this equipment to meet a mobility need, who often need to wheel the equipment to move it while it enables able bodied passengers to travel with the same equipment.
AT and other Auckland contracted PT Transport operators have constructed their service protocols to include a generous service autonomy regarding the authority individual bus drivers have over who boards their bus and what service level they are willing to provide. Most Bus drivers provide ongoing support for this regulatory barrier and are unapologetic about the manner in which they choose to proceed when enforcing these protocols. This causes widespread human rights abuses regarding the ability to access AT Road services public transport,in particular. Because this matter is ongoing, antagonism is created and used to prevent the creation of a space of social acceptance for Elder and Disability discrimination and abuse, around what is a space between what AT road services management teams will accept and what is in reality best practice.
There is little difference in the size of this equipment folded or unfolded, or the room it takes up, or the frequency with which Mobility Card holders use Road public transport services compared to that permitted to travel with able bodied passengers riding with escooters, passengers traveling with infants and young children in full sized unfolded Mountain Buggies, travelers boarding with multiple wheeled suitcases, trampers packs, full shopping trundlers, or sports equipment, and in one instance a used unwrapped full sized dog kennel, and regularly, a local driver permitting a passenger wheeling on a mountain buggy stacked with newsletters. All of these passengers, with the exception of the passenger carrying an escooter, were permitted to roll their equipment on board and travel without folding it, and without any intervention from the driver.
While requiring to fold escooters and mobility scooters prior to boarding, may sound like a reasonable expectation to service personnel with a poor understanding of service provision or knowledge about the restrictions experienced by people living with reduced mobility and physical impairments, common sense and compassion is also ignored in this instance. In reality to comply with this service ultimatum requires the passenger to be capable of dead-lifting the full weight of their equipment onto the bus. It is my experience that often bus drivers also exacerbate the predicament by refusing or ignoring requests to lower the bus step, often expressing impatience towards passenger's struggle to comply. Being able to fold the equipment after boarding would be less unreasonable, but I am skeptical that it is necessary to fold this equipment, because other items bus drivers permit on board without requiring the passenger to fold them, are of similar size.
NB; This rule is not applied to passengers traveling with infants sitting in pushchairs. However when this is pointed out to AT transport providers by a complaint, they refuse to listen. AT transport service providers argue that the complainant is being combative towards their staff, and towards other vulnerable passengers, which is a psychological strategy to avoid taking responsibility for this abuse.
Enforcing unreasonable service use demands on less able passengers in the name of 'equity' forces less able bodied NZers into a situation which unreasonably prevents them from meeting using their mobility equipment of choice, while permitting other able bodied passengers to board and travel with the same equipment constitutes a breach of NZ's Human Rights Act, by undermining the right of NZers living with mobility impairment.
🤬😓