Submission on the Ministry of Justice Draft Long-term Insights Briefing

 “The Future Operation of the Courts and Justice Services”

Word - Read & Download Submission

PDF - Read & Download Submission

Submitted by:

Access Matters Aotearoa Trust and Dr Lida Ayoubi, Senior Lecturer, AUT Law School.

Date: 9 November 2025

Contact: Dianne Rogers | Operations Manager | [email protected]

1. Introduction

Access Matters Aotearoa (AMA) and Dr Lida Ayoubi welcome the opportunity to comment on the Ministry of Justice’s Draft Long-term Insights Briefing on the Future Operation of the Courts and Justice Services. We commend the Ministry’s commitment to exploring how justice can be delivered more effectively, inclusively, and with dignity for all New Zealanders.

AMA promotes the rights, participation, and inclusion of individuals with access needs by enabling cross-sector collaboration, influencing legislation and policy, raising public awareness, and advocating for full implementation of Article 9 of the UNCRPD.

Our vision is an Aotearoa where access is universal, disability is valued, and everyone fully participates. We shift hearts, minds, and systems through evidence-based advocacy and cross-sector collaboration.

The Kōrero for Change – Justice webinar (13 August 2025) explored systemic ableism in Aotearoa’s justice system and pathways to inclusion, belonging, and equity for disabled people. Four panels — the Deciders, Thinkers, Creators, and Doers — brought together government, researchers, advocates, and practitioners.

1.1 Scope and Alignment

AMA and Dr Ayoubi support the direction of the Briefing and agree that future-focused reform is essential. However, accessibility remains notably absent as a guiding principle and measurable system outcome.

Accessibility reforms must also recognise intersectional disadvantage. Disabled people who are Māori, Pacific, women, migrants, LGBTQIA+, or experiencing poverty face compounded and overlapping barriers in the justice system. Embedding an intersectional framework is essential to ensure equity in both design and outcomes.

Accessibility and co-design should be embedded as core stewardship functions under the Public Service Act 2020. Building an accessible justice system strengthens trust, efficiency, and resilience. Accessibility must therefore be a foundational concept across all justice reforms, consistent with the upcoming Consultation Accessible Aotearoa New Zealand Bill, the NZ Disability Strategy refresh, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and UNCRPD obligations.

The Draft | Consultation Accessible Aotearoa New Zealand Bill, developed by AMA with pro bono support, is a civil-society draft Bill designed to stimulate public discussion on enforceable accessibility standards across all public systems.

2. Context — Alignment with the Chief Justice, Tomo Mai Judicial Committee, and Whaikaha

We acknowledge the leadership of the Chief Justice, Dame Helen Winkelmann, and the Tomo Mai Judicial Committee in advancing access to justice for Deaf and disabled people. Their submission on the Disability Strategy refresh aligns with our recommendations. AMA also supports the direction of the Toi Committee and Whaikaha.

Key shared priorities include:

• Cross-sector collaboration
• Bridging policy and practice
• Rights-based framing
• Participation and representation
• Disability and Deaf competence in training
• Mandatory review of protections

2.1 International Learning – Accessible Justice in Canada

AMA acknowledges the work of Professor David Lepofsky, whose leadership under the AODA Alliance demonstrates how enforceable accessibility standards and systemic monitoring can transform court accessibility.

Key resources include: The Weiler Report (2006), AODA Alliance Court Accessibility Resources, and the Law Society of Ontario webinar series.

3.Recommendations

- Treat accessibility as a performance measure equal to timeliness and efficiency.

- Embed co-design grounded in Te Tiriti and UNCRPD’s ‘nothing about us without us’.

- Establish a National Navigation Service and Accessibility & Self-Representation Desks. Disabled people should not need to navigate fragmented, inconsistent systems. A unified Accessible Justice Information Hub should provide clear, consistent pathways and information.

- Collect disability-disaggregated data using the Washington Group Short Set.

- Mandate WCAG 2.2 and NZSL accessibility for all digital justice platforms.

- Develop a National Accessible Justice Workforce Strategy, led by lived experience educators.

- Introduce Accessibility Impact Assessments for all justice policies and procurements.

- Establish an Accessible Justice Dashboard reporting annually on outcomes.

4. Looking Ahead – A Shared Vision for 2045

By 2045, Aotearoa’s justice system can be accessible by default, governed by universal design principles and shared accountability. This includes accessible infrastructure, co-designed procedures, inclusive workforce development, and transparent data reporting.

5. Conclusion

We thank the Ministry for the opportunity to contribute. We urge the Ministry to embed accessibility as a core principle of justice stewardship, drawing on the expertise of disabled people, the judiciary, Whaikaha, and the Toi Committee. A justice system accessible by design will serve all people in Aotearoa with dignity and fairness. 

Appendix A

Access Matters Aotearoa Kōrero for Change – Justice Webinar Proceedings Summary

The Kōrero for Change – Justice webinar, held on 13 August 2025, explored systemic ableism across Aotearoa New Zealand’s justice system and pathways to inclusion, belonging, and equity for disabled people. The session featured four panels — the Deciders, the Thinkers, the Creators, and the Doers — representing government agencies, researchers, advocates, and practitioners.

Panel 1 – The Deciders

Dr Huhana Hickey, Warren Forster, Superintendent Andrew Mortimer, and Dr Juanita Ryan discussed ableism in the courts, policing, and corrections. Speakers described how systemic discrimination, inaccessible procedures, and lack of disability awareness perpetuate exclusion and injustice. They also outlined emerging positive changes, such as Corrections’ Pae Ora disability framework and Police’s Disability Roadmap. Warren Forster called for a national accessibility law with an independent regulator, while Dr Hickey and Dr Ryan emphasised early intervention, holistic rehabilitation, and cross-agency collaboration.

Panel 2 – The Thinkers

Moderated by Kera Sherwood O’Regan, the Thinkers Panel included Dr Brigit Mirfin-Veitch, Dr Michael Roguski, and Dr Lida Ayoubi. Speakers presented research and recommendations for transforming the justice system.

• Dr Mirfin-Veitch noted that disabled-led research consistently calls for reforms to improve physical, informational, and communication access. Encouragingly, recommendations from disabled people and from judges are aligned, reflecting strong allies for change. She highlighted CRPD Article 13 as the foundation for equal participation in justice.

• Dr Roguski argued that Aotearoa’s system is both punitive and ableist — people needing a health response are often criminalised. His evaluation of an adult safeguarding pilot revealed that fragmented professional worldviews (criminal justice, medical, advocacy) prevent coherent action. He advocated for legislative reform and macro-level change to shift toward a health-based model.

• Dr Ayoubi identified three interlocking priorities: ensuring procedural fairness and access, using strategic litigation to enforce rights, and embedding inclusion through institutional co-design. She also urged that disability rights education begin in law schools.

The Q&A reinforced the need for equitable access to communication assistants, consistent implementation of Ministry of Justice guidelines, and Deaf and disabled co-researchers in all projects.

Panel 3 – The Creators

Moderated by Tarewa Cowan, the Creators panel featured Susan Martell, Prudence Walker, Paul Gibson, and Kate Mackay. Each offered practical insights on reform and innovation.

• Susan Martell described persistent access barriers in policing, legal aid, incarceration, and parole, noting that Aotearoa Disability Law exists to fill unmet need that should not exist in a fair system. She called for consistent NZSL interpreter access, trained lawyers, and equitable supports across the justice process.

• Prudence Walker examined how laws reflect and entrench social thinking, and how the justice system can instead challenge ableism through implementation of CRPD Article 13 and UN guidance. She urged embedding Te Tiriti, UNDRIP, and CRPD principles in law, strengthening accommodation duties, and expanding advocacy and representation.

• Paul Gibson outlined priorities for the refresh of the New Zealand Disability Strategy — reducing violence and abuse against disabled people, preventing youth offending through early support, and enacting a Disability Rights Act to embed obligations and standards.

• Kate Mackay focused on neurodivergence, highlighting the need for sensory accommodations across the system, quiet spaces, neurodiversity training, and reform of law school curricula to include disability law. She also illustrated the risks of excluding disabled perspectives in lawmaking, citing drug-driving legislation that could penalise ADHD medication users.

Panel 4 – The Doers

Moderated again by Tarewa Cowan, the Doers panel featured Darryn Aitchison (YouthLaw), Tania Thomas (IHC), and Nan Jensen (Better Lives Legal).

• Darryn Aitchison argued that justice impacts every facet of life and must be restructured to reflect human rights. He urged for CRPD-aligned domestic law, disability representation in Parliament and governance, and disability-aware training for all justice professionals.

• Tania Thomas emphasised the importance of research and data, empowerment programmes, and accessible information for intellectually disabled people and their families. She called for improved cross-agency collaboration and use of technology for navigation support.

• Nan Jensen identified multiple discriminatory laws (Human Rights Act, Education and Training Act, PPPR Act, Social Security Act) and called for prescriptive legal duties to enforce inclusion. She also noted systemic barriers for autistic and neurodivergent lawyers in professional accreditation.

Q&A and Closing Reflections

In discussion, panellists emphasised practical steps to strengthen self-determination and advocacy. Tania Thomas highlighted training through IHC and People First; Nan Jensen advocated for freer advocacy; and Darryn Aitchison urged designing supports within community settings where people already seek help.

Final reflections called for mobilising hearts as well as minds to build public will (Aitchison), expanding allyship across society (Thomas), and asserting disabled people’s voting power to drive change (Jensen). The event closed with gratitude from moderator Franceska Tangaere, a call to complete the post-event survey, and a karakia whakamutunga, reminding all that 'He waka eke noa' — we are all in this together to dismantle ableism.

Word - Read & Download Submission

PDF - Read & Download Submission

Rapid Review: The Inadequacy of Accessibility in Public Buildings and Housing in New Zealand

Word - Read & Download Submission

PDF - Read & Download Submission

16 March 2026

By Dr Claire Flemmer, School of Built Environment, Massey University and Dianne Rogers, Access Matters Aotearoa

Abstract

This rapid review summarises recent evidence on accessibility in public buildings, housing, and the wider built environment in Aotearoa New Zealand. It integrates academic literature, BRANZ technical research, statutory analysis, demographic data, and qualitative testimony from the Access Matters Aotearoa webinar of 19 June 2024. The data suggests that persistent accessibility barriers in New Zealand’s built environment and an under supply of accessible housing are caused by ambiguous, fragmented legislation that excludes most residential buildings, coupled with inconsistent compliance pathways and weak enforcement mechanisms. Comparative analysis shows that New Zealand’s accessibility framework remains structurally narrower than that of the United Kingdom and Australia. The review concludes that accessibility reform should include improved legislation encompassing public buildings, residences and infrastructure, with mandatory inspection-based compliance and nationally consistent enforcement protocols. This reform will ensure that New Zealand meets its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability and will be critical in preparing for New Zealand’s increasing ageing population. An inclusively built environment will also reduce the health costs and increase the employment rate of people with disability, which will, in turn, benefit the country’s economy.

1. Introduction

New Zealand is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD 2006) which, in Article 9, affirms the obligation to ensure access to the physical environment equally for everyone. Accessibility in the built environment is foundational to participation, independence, and equal citizenship.

In New Zealand, 17% of the population are people with disabilities, with 35% of this cohort aged 65 and older (Household Disability Survey, 2023). Demographic projections suggest substantial growth in the population aged over 65 by 2035, implying more older people with disabilities and an urgent need for reform to meet their needs.

1.1 Key Definitions

Accessibility refers to the design of buildings and environments so that they can be safely and independently used by people with diverse physical, sensory, cognitive, and age-related needs.

Universal Design refers to design that benefits the widest possible range of users without the need for adaptation or specialised design (Steinfeld & Maisel, 2012).

Visitability refers to minimum dwelling features enabling wheelchair users to enter and access essential ground-floor facilities.

Adaptable Housing refers to housing designed to allow cost-effective modification over time to accommodate changing needs.

2. Regulatory Framework in New Zealand

The New Zealand Building Code Clause D1 establishes the legal requirements for safe building access routes (MBIE, 1992). To ensure that buildings comply with this clause, the New Zealand Standard NZS 4121:2001 (Design for access and mobility) provides the detailed design requirements for making buildings accessible to people with disability. However, this legislation primarily applies to public buildings and does not encompass private housing. The result is a partial compliance framework rather than comprehensive accessibility legislation.

3. Built Environment Inadequacy

Recent research by the Building Research Association of New Zealand (BRANZ) identifies persistent, wide-ranging access barriers in public buildings, including narrow pathways, inadequate accessible bathrooms (too few, too small and missing critical access features), hard-to-open doors, non-inclusive signage, and step-only entrances (Flemmer & McIntosh, 2025; 2025a). There is also inconsistent interpretation and enforcement of accessibility requirements across consenting authorities (Stefanitsis et al., 2023).

4. Housing Accessibility and Structural Undersupply

The New Zealand government’s “Going for Housing Growth” (GfHG) programme is aimed at addressing the country’s housing shortage (MFE, 2025). Accessible housing is more costly than standard housing, so there is a financial incentive to focus on increasing the number of standard houses. International research suggests that without regulatory imperatives, accessible housing is given a low priority (Lindsay et al., 2024). In New Zealand, disabled people remain disproportionately represented in substandard housing conditions (Human Rights Commission, 2022).

5. Universal Design costs less than retrofitting houses

By definition, Universal Design supports older adults, carers, families with prams, and people with temporary injuries. Designing new homes with accessible features such as level thresholds and reinforced bathroom walls is more cost effective than modifying existing houses.

6. Economic Impact of Inaccessible Public Buildings and Housing

Accessibility is critical to the health and wellbeing of people with disability. It produces measurable economic impacts across the health service, housing sector, and labour force.

6.1 Health System Costs

International evidence indicates that accessible buildings provide many health and social benefits for people with disabilities. Inaccessible housing contributes to preventable falls, extended hospital stays, increased residential care admissions, and depression (Lindsay et al., 2024). As New Zealand’s population ages, there will be more people with disabilities and an increase in public health costs from the inaccessible housing stock.

6.2 Retrofit Costs Versus Upfront Design

Incorporating accessibility features in the design of new buildings is significantly less expensive than retrofitting the building post-occupancy. For example, it is over eight times more expensive to retrofit essential universal design features (such as level thresholds, wide passages and reinforced bathroom walls) in a standard New Zealand home, compared with adding those features at the design stage (BRANZ, 2018). Therefore, failing to provide sufficient accessible housing simply transfers future retrofit costs onto homeowners, insurers, ACC, and public health systems.

6.3 Productivity and Labour Market Participation

International research shows that inaccessible buildings and infrastructure (such as transportation) create substantial barriers for people with disabilities in finding and maintaining employment (Ulahannan et al., 2025). In New Zealand the workforce participation rate is about 45% for disabled adults, while that for non-disabled adults is about 84% (Whaikaha, 2024). Data shows a fiscal benefit of $1.45 billion if the participation rate of disabled people in the labour market equaled that of non-disabled people (Boshier et al, 2020).

6.4 Macroeconomic Implications

Accessibility reform should be understood as not only meeting New Zealand’s obligations under UNCRPD, but also as benefitting the country’s economy through reduced health costs and an increased labour market. It is also a critical part of New Zealand’s ageing population preparedness strategy.

7. Conclusion

New Zealand’s accessibility framework remains ambiguous, fragmented, incomprehensive, and weakly enforced. Comparative international frameworks demonstrate that effective reform requires clear, comprehensive legislation that encompasses public buildings, residences and infrastructure with regular inspection-based compliance requirements and nationally consistent enforcement mechanisms. Inclusive accessibility should be designed into New Zealand’s built environment and should not be considered an optional future change.

References

Access Matters Aotearoa. (2024, 19 June). Kōrero for Change: Housing and the built environment [Webinar], available at: https://www.accessmatters.org.nz/housing_and_the_built_environment.

Boshier, P., McIntyre, L & Tesoriero, P. (2020). Making Disability Rights Real. Office of the Ombudsman, Third report of the Independent Monitoring Mechanism on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Aotearoa/New Zealand 2014-2019, pp. 1-273. Available at: https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/sites/default/files/2021-11/Making%20Disability%20Rights%20Real%202014%20to%202019.pdf

BRANZ Build Research Association of New Zealand (2018). Build supplement 168, Universal design for houses. Available at: https://www.buildmagazine.org.nz/assets/ebooks/B168%20Supplement/Build-168-Universal-Design-Supplement.html

Flemmer, C., & McIntosh, A. (2025). Perceptions of people with disabilities on the accessibility of New Zealand’s built environment. Disabilities, 5(3), 75. https://mro.massey.ac.nz/server/api/core/bitstreams/66611aaf-f286-48aa-a0b3-ac47b17abcb6/content

Flemmer, C., & McIntosh, A. (2025a). Making New Zealand’s built environment inclusive and accessible for everyone. BRANZ report ER104, pp. 1-64, available at: https://www.branz.co.nz/pubs/research-reports/er104/.

Household Disability Survey (2023). Statistics New Zealand, ISBN 978-1-991307-44-6, pp. 1–36, available at: https://www.stats.govt.nz/reports/household-disability-survey-2023-findings-definitions-and-design-summary/ .

Human Rights Commission Te Kāhui Tika Tangata (2022). Shortage of accessible homes is a human rights deficit. available at: https://tikatangata.org.nz/news/shortage-of-accessible-homes-a-human-rights-deficit

Lindsay, S., Fuentes, K., Ragunathan, S., Li, Y. & Ross, T. (2024) Accessible independent housing for people with disabilities: A scoping review of promising practices, policies and interventions. PLoS ONE, 19(1): e0291228, available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291228 .

MBIE Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (1992). New Zealand Building Code Clause D1: Access Routes [Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations 1992]. Wellington, New Zealand.

MFE Ministry for the Environment (2025). Going for Housing Growth: Providing for urban development in the new resource management system, available at: https://consult.environment.govt.nz/resource-management/going-for-housing-growth/

NZS4121:2001; Design for Access and Mobility—Buildings and Associated Facilities. Standards New Zealand: Wellington, New Zealand, 2001.

Stefanitsis, M., Flemmer, C., Rasheed, E., & Ali, N. A. (2023, November). Accessibility to the Built Environment for Mobility-Impaired Persons: A Review. In International Conference on Engineering, Project, and Production Management (pp. 111-127). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.

Steinfeld, E., & Maisel, J. (2012). Universal design: Creating inclusive environments. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, USA, ISBN: 978-1-118-16681-9.

Ulahannan, A., Birrell, S., & Herriotts, P. (2025). Inclusive streetscapes: Embedding disabled people's lived experience into street accessibility. Wellbeing, Space and Society, 8, 100261. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666558125000272?via%3Dihub

UNCRPD (2006). United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) - Articles. Available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/convention on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-2.html.

Whaikaha – Ministry of Disabled People (2024). Labour market statistics for disabled people - June 2024 quarter. Available at: https://www.whaikaha.govt.nz/news/news/labour-market-statistics-for-disabled-people-june-2024-quarter

Word - Read & Download Submission

PDF - Read & Download Submission

Rapid Literature Review: The Inadequacy of New Zealand’s Current System to Provide Certainty for Digital Accessibility

Word - Read & Download Submission

PDF - Read & Download Submission

16 March 2026

By Neil Jarvis, Neil Jarvis Consultants and Dianne Rogers, Access Matters Aotearoa Trust

1. Executive Summary

Purpose

This rapid review examines whether New Zealand’s current digital accessibility framework provides clear, enforceable, and consistent regulatory certainty across government and the wider economy.

Core Finding

The evidence demonstrates that New Zealand’s digital accessibility system is:

• Partially mandatory (for central government only)
• Weakly enforced
• Inconsistent in capability and compliance
• Not embedded in primary legislation
• Largely non-binding on the private sector

Without primary legislation embedding enforceable digital accessibility standards, regulatory oversight, procurement obligations, and monitoring, digital access in Aotearoa remains uneven and uncertain.

2. Current Regulatory Framework

2.1 NZ Government Web Standards

From March 2025, central government agencies must comply with Web Accessibility Standard 1.2 and Web Usability Standard 1.4. These align with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 Level AA (Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), 2025).It is noted that DIA views the March 2025 Web Accessibility Guidelines as an interim for a much bigger update in 2027. However, that will see an update of platforms covered but is unlikely to see any changes to the scope of entities covered, as there is no primary legislation to make that happen.

The Department of Internal Affairs (Digital Government) administers these standards.

• They apply primarily to central government agencies
• Enforcement mechanisms are limited
• Monitoring relies largely on self-assessment
• No independent regulator oversees compliance
• Sanctions for non-compliance are minimal

2.2 Human Rights Framework

The Human Rights Act 1993 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 prohibit discrimination. However, neither statute explicitly embeds web accessibility standards. They operate reactively (complaint-based), do not create proactive compliance duties, and do not establish digital accessibility benchmarks. This creates a regulatory gap between principle and enforceable practice. In the more than 30 years of both these acts, has there ever been a successful challenge to the inaccessibility of a website, digital product or platform, even in the case of central Government. This tells us why new legislation is needed.

3. Evidence of Systemic Digital Accessibility Gaps

3.1 Organisational Capability Deficit

A 2026 Deque analysis reports that 33% of NZ organisations are unaware of WCAG, and a further 33% are aware but lack detailed understanding. Integration of accessibility into procurement remains limited (Deque Systems, 2026).

3.2 Persistent Use of Inaccessible Formats

A 2024 Public Sector Network report found continued reliance on inaccessible PDF forms, inconsistent PDF tagging and structure, and ongoing implementation gaps despite guidance recommending HTML formats (Public Sector Network, 2024).

3.3 Weak Monitoring and Enforcement

Compliance is technically mandatory for specified agencies, but monitoring is inconsistent and capability support uneven. There is no independent audit body, compliance inspection regime, graduated penalty structure, or public reporting dashboard.

DIA has developed  a tool called the Centralised Web Accessibility Checker (CWAC)

https://www.digital.govt.nz/standards-and-guidance/nz-government-web-standards/centralised-web-accessibility-checker-cwac

As of February 2026, two quarterly scans have been carried out. Reliance on this data is a little risky since there is missing context in the high-level results at least, and the data is produced by automated testing which at best only picks up less than half of potential issues. But they are a start to a monitoring regime.

DIA publishes a "leaderboard" after each quarterly scan to show how agencies are doing.

https://www.digital.govt.nz/standards-and-guidance/nz-government-web-standards/centralised-web-accessibility-checker-cwac/agency-leaderboard-cwac

4. Structural Certainty Gaps

System Element	Current NZ Position	Gap Identified
Binding digital accessibility law	No	Standards sit in policy, not primary legislation
Independent regulator	No	No inspection or enforcement authority
Private sector coverage	No	Applies mainly to central government
Procurement obligations	Inconsistent	No universal accessibility requirement
Public reporting	Limited	No transparency framework
Timelines	Partial (public sector only)	No whole-of-economy transition plan

5. International Comparison

Australia: The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1992 provides protection for everyone in Australia against discrimination based on disability. An update to the Human Rights Commission’s guidance to the DDA for providers of digital services was published in 2025 and recommended the application of the latest version of WCAG (rather than a specific version). Australia has also adopted, in full, the European Standard EN 301549. A suite of Digital standards and policies (including for inclusion and accessibility) have been adopted by the Commonwealth government over the past two years with respect to the services they provide.

United Kingdom: Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) Accessibility Regulations 2018 mandate WCAG compliance, accessibility statements, monitoring, and public reporting.

United States: Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires federal digital systems to meet accessibility standards, supported by procurement-linked compliance and ADA enforcement pathways.

Canada: The Accessible Canada Act establishes binding ICT standards, an Accessibility Commissioner, inspection powers, and mandatory organisational reporting. Canada has also adopted the European Standard EN 301549 in full.

European Accessibility Act (EEA): The EAA builds on the EU Web Accessibility Directive. The Web Accessibility Directive only applied to public sector websites and applications. The EAA includes non-public sector digital products. It also applies to hardware devices, including smartphones, TV equipment, and ATMs. The Web Accessibility Directive only covered software that runs on these devices. The EAA reflects The European Standard EN301549. Private sector organisations above a specific size which provide goods and services to consumers in the EU are covered by the EAA.

6. Systemic Consequences of NZ’s Current Approach

• Unequal access to government services
• Barriers to employment and education
• Reputational and litigation risk
• Procurement of inaccessible software
• Market disincentives to build accessible digital products
• Economic loss in terms of lost business and loss of contribution from disabled people caused by unemployment or underemployment

Research from the United Kingdom estimates the value of the 'Click-Away Pound' at approximately £17.1 billion per year (Scope, 2019).

Applying a proportional population-based adjustment suggests a potential New Zealand equivalent in the order of NZ$1.5–2.0 billion per year¹ in unrealised consumer spending. This figure is indicative rather than definitive but illustrates the likely magnitude of economic leakage associated with inaccessible digital systems.

Accessibility therefore becomes dependent on goodwill and internal capability rather than regulatory certainty — resulting in both social exclusion and avoidable economic cost.

7. Why Primary Legislation Is Needed

• Mandatory digital accessibility standards embedded in primary law
• Independent regulatory oversight
• Audit and inspection powers
• Graduated penalties for non-compliance
• Procurement-based enforcement mechanisms
• Coverage of both public and private sectors
• Coverage of hardware as well as web-based platforms
• Transparent reporting obligations
• Clear implementation timelines

This aligns with New Zealand’s obligations under Article 9 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

8. Conclusion

New Zealand’s current digital accessibility framework relies heavily on policy standards rather than statute, is weakly enforced, applies narrowly to government agencies, and does not provide regulatory certainty. Without primary legislation embedding enforceable standards and oversight mechanisms, digital accessibility will remain inconsistent and inequitable.

Footnotes

1. Methodological note: Estimate derived by proportionally scaling the UK £17.1 billion Click-Away Pound (Scope, 2019) by population size (UK ~67m; NZ ~5.2m) with approximate 2026 exchange conversion. Indicative only; does not adjust for GDP per capita, retail composition, e-commerce penetration, or disability prevalence. Further modelling required for a NZ-specific estimate.
2. The Government procurement rules describe how procurement should be undertaken. In the previous edition of the rules, Rule 61 specifically explained which agencies must, and which agencies should, include the New Zealand Government web standards as a pre-condition in their Notice of Procurement, when outsourcing web development. The 5th edition of these rules has shifted this to the more generic Rule 17 covering all notice requirements. It says:
3. “It is a requirement of the NZ Government Web Standards | NZ Digital government that when outsourcing web development work Public Service departments, New Zealand Police and New Zealand Defence Force, include a requirement that the work complies with the mandatory requirements in the latest version of the New Zealand Government web standards.” The rule links to the Web Accessibility Standard but says no more about why this matters.

References

1. Deque Systems. (2026). Digital accessibility maturity analysis: New Zealand snapshot.
2. Department of Internal Affairs. (2025). NZ Government Web Standards.
3. Human Rights Act 1993 (NZ).
4. New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZ).
5. Public Sector Network. (2024). Digital accessibility in the NZ public sector.
6. (2019). The Click-Away Pound Report.
7. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
8. Australia: Guidelines on equal access to digital goods and services
9. Digital Inclusion Standard sets the requirements for inclusive and accessible digital government experiences. It came into effect from January 2025 for new services and June 2025 for existing services. Agencies are required to report on their progress.
10. United Kingdom. (2018). Accessibility Regulations 2018.
11. United States. (1973). Rehabilitation Act, Section 508.
12. United States. (1990). Americans with Disabilities Act.
13. (2019). Accessible Canada Act.
14. European Union. The European Accessibility Act 2019 is a directive that creates a unified approach to accessibility across the whole of the European Union. It is legislation which affects anybody working in or doing business with consumers in the European Union. Some of the key requirements came into force on 28 June 2025.
15. New Zealand. New Zealand Government Procurement Rules 5th edition
16. World Wide Web Consortium (2023). WCAG 2.2.

Word - Read & Download Submission

PDF - Read & Download Submission

Submission to the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) on the Discussion Document: Strengthening New Zealand's Emergency Management Legislation

Word - Read & Download Submission

PDF - Read & Download Submission 

By email to [email protected]

Date: 20 May 2025 (revised deadline)

Submitter information

Name: Dianne Rogers

Email address: [email protected]

Organisation: Access Matters Aotearoa.  See www.accessmatters.org.nz for more information on who we are.

☒ The Privacy Act 2020 applies to submissions. Please tick the box if you do not want your name or other personal information to be included in any information about submissions that NEMA may publish.

☐ NEMA may publish submissions or a summary of submissions to its website, civildefence.govt.nz. If you do not want your submission or a summary of your submission to be published, please tick the box and type an explanation below:

Does your submission contain confidential information?

☐ I would like my submission (or parts of my submission) to be kept confidential and have stated my reasons and the grounds under section 9 of the Official Information Act that I believe apply, for consideration by NEMA.

Use of information

Submissions will be used to inform NEMA’s policy development process and will inform advice to Ministers. Your submission (including identifying information) may also be shared with other government agencies working on policies related to emergency management. NEMA may contact submitters directly if we need clarification on their submission or would like further information from them.

 Consultation questions

These questions relate to the issues and options raised in the discussion document Strengthening New Zealand’s emergency management legislation. You can find the full discussion document on NEMA’s website. You do not need to answer all questions.

Objectives for reform

The Government’s proposed objectives for reform are to:

• strengthen community and iwi Māori participation in emergency management
• provide for clear responsibilities and accountabilities at the national, regional, and local levels
• enable a higher minimum standard of emergency management
• minimise disruption to essential services
• ensure agencies have the right powers available when an emergency happens.

Introduction

The Access Matters Aotearoa submission has been greatly enriched by the thoughtful collaboration and shared insights of Parents of Vision Impaired New Zealanders, Go Eco, Manaaki Matakāoa, the Disabled Persons Assembly NZ, and others. We are especially grateful for the opportunity to align on key themes, identify areas for mutual support, and adopt common language to amplify our collective impact. This spirit of partnership reflects the strength and unity of our shared commitment to accessibility and inclusion. In December 2024 we hosted the Kōrero for Change webinar on Emergency Preparedness. Direct quotes from participants are included in this submission.

Links to transcript and recording.

1. Have we identified the right objectives for reform?

☐ Yes

☒ No

☐ Not sure / no preference

Q1: No. non-Māori disabled people and tāngata whaikaha Māori – disabled Māori, must be explicitly recognised in the objectives of the proposed emergency management legislation. The evidence outlined below demonstrates the disproportionate impact of disasters on disabled people and the systemic exclusion they experience in emergency planning and response.

1. Demographic Context

Disabled people constitute approximately 17% of the population in Aotearoa New Zealand, and 26% of Māori identify as disabled. This means tāngata whaikaha Māori are significantly overrepresented in disability statistics. 900,000 New Zealanders—one in six—identify as disabled. This is not a fringe concern. As our population ages, the number of people with impairments will only grow. By 2028, over a million New Zealanders will be aged 65 and over; by 2050, that number will climb to 1.5 million. We must act now to future-proof our systems, so they can support everyone, regardless of age or ability, when disaster strikes.

1. Greater risk due to systemic inequity during Disasters

International and national research has consistently shown that disabled people are disproportionately affected by emergencies and disasters. These crises amplified existing inequalities, with disabled individuals often disproportionately left behind. Lessons from past emergencies in New Zealand show that accessible communication, inclusive planning, and targeted support are not optional extras- they are lifesaving necessities. For example, after the Christchurch quakes, “74% of disabled respondents (in one survey) agreed that emergency information did not take account into account the needs of disabled people”. Contributing factors include lack of accessible infrastructure, exclusion from planning processes, and inaccessible emergency communication systems.

1. Impact on tāngata whaikaha Māori

Disabled Māori face compounded risks due to the intersection of colonisation, systemic exclusion, and social inequities. These risks are further magnified in emergency contexts where disabled Māori are not actively involved in co-design or planning efforts.

International research (Alexander & Sagramola, 2014; Popovski, 2023), alongside experiences in Aotearoa New Zealand (e.g., Christchurch earthquakes, COVID-19 pandemic, Cyclone Gabrielle, Auckland floods, and East Coast floods) confirm that disasters disproportionately impact disabled individuals and their families. Highlighting the importance of disability-inclusive policies in all phases of disaster management directs that the voices of our most vulnerable people are included in emergency planning.

Persons with disabilities are among those most impacted by natural hazards and climate induced disasters, yet more likely to be excluded from disaster risk reduction (DRR) related decision-making and practice (Twigg, Kiett & Lovell, 2018).

Inclusive efforts require making disaster responsiveness a shared agenda. This means increased multi-stakeholder collaborations and partnerships among governments, I/NGOs, UN agencies, OPDs, and civil society actors, as well as encouraging resource and capacity sharing (Gvetadze & Pertiwi, 2021).

Lessons Learned from Past Emergencies: Recent national emergencies have underscored systemic gaps in how our emergency management system serves disabled people. In this section we reflect on three major events – the Christchurch earthquakes, the COVID‑19 pandemic, and Cyclone Gabrielle – and the key challenges disabled people faced in each. These lessons illustrate why disability inclusion must be a cornerstone of any strengthened emergency management legislation.

Christchurch Earthquakes (2010–2011): The devastating Canterbury earthquakes revealed many accessibility failings in disaster response. Disabled people reported widespread barriers in receiving emergency information and services. In one study of quake-affected disabled individuals, only 2 out of 34 surveyed said they experienced no barriers to accessing emergency information, meaning the vast majority struggled to get crucial updates.​

Communication formats were often inappropriate – Deaf people were given information via telephone calls, while blind or low-vision people received written notices they couldn’t read​.

“Agencies ignored requests for accessible forms of communication.”​ (Kōrero for Change participant)

Additionally, evacuation centres and emergency shelters largely failed to accommodate disabled people’s needs (e.g. lack of ramps, sign language interpreters, or quiet spaces for those with sensory sensitivities). Many disabled residents had difficulty evacuating safely or accessing relief services due to mobility challenges, inaccessible transport, or loss of assistive equipment. Personal support networks were disrupted – some people lost contact with their support workers or caregivers in the chaos. As a result, disabled people experienced greater isolation, anxiety, and hardship. It became clear that “information provided did not cater for their needs and ... communication and transport [were] major issues.”​ (Kōrero for Change participant)

The Christchurch experience taught us that standard emergency approaches often overlook disabled people, with life-threatening consequences. It highlighted the need for alternate communication methods (e.g. radio, SMS, social media, door-to-door checks) and pre-planned disability supports in any emergency response.

COVID‑19 Pandemic (2020–2022): The global pandemic was an entirely different kind of emergency, yet it too exposed inequities for disabled New Zealanders. On the positive side, New Zealand’s early elimination strategy and public health response “undoubtedly saved countless lives” among high-risk populations including disabled people​.

The commitment to televised daily briefings with NZSL interpreters and captions set an inclusive communications precedent. However, COVID‑19 also “exacerbated existing inequities for disabled people and tāngata whaikaha Māori”, as noted by the Disability Rights Commissioner​. (Kōrero for Change participant)

 Pandemic measures often failed to account for disabled people’s unique circumstances. For example, lockdowns and social distancing disrupted home care services, personal support, and routine healthcare for many disabled individuals. Some could not access grocery delivery or essential supplies due to lack of disability-friendly processes. Early on, information was not always provided in accessible formats like Easy Read or audio, causing confusion – especially for those with intellectual or sensory disabilities. There were instances where disabled people felt decisions about vaccine access or medical care did not adequately involve or prioritize them.​

An inquiry into the pandemic response found that many support recommendations “were not acted on or…extensively delayed,” causing distress and putting disabled people at risk​.

 In short, disabled people and their whānau often felt invisible in the pandemic planning, until advocates spoke up. The lesson from COVID‑19 is that authorities must proactively include disabled perspectives in emergency planning – during a crisis is too late. Clear protocols for maintaining disability support services (e.g. allowing caregivers as essential workers, providing assistive technology or medication deliveries) and for accessible public communication must be established before the next public health emergency. We also learned the value of data: the lack of disaggregated data on disabled people’s outcomes hindered timely adjustments. Going forward, collecting disability-specific data during emergencies is critical to ensure no group “falls through the cracks.” (Kōrero for Change participant)

Cyclone Gabrielle (2023): This severe cyclone and flooding disaster in Te Ika-a-Māui (the North Island) has been called an “inequality amplifier” for the way it impacted vulnerable communities. Disabled and elderly people were often deprioritised or forgotten in evacuations and relief efforts.​

 In hard-hit regions like Tairāwhiti (East Coast), responders later recounted harrowing examples: “Some [elderly disabled residents] couldn’t move out… they just stayed in their room until somebody turned up”, and one “lady who was stuck in her wheelchair… by the time people found her, the water was at her neck”.​ (Kōrero for Change participant)

These stories highlight fatal risks when emergency services fail to identify and evacuate disabled people in time. Many disabled residents also lost power, communications, and access to medication or dialysis when roads washed out. Being isolated from healthcare and support networks for days greatly heightened anxiety and health dangers.​

In summary, these events taught New Zealand hard lessons about the cost of excluding disabled people from emergency preparedness. Time and again, we saw that “one-size-fits-all” approaches fail those with different needs.​

Conversely, when disabled people and Māori disabled people are included – for instance, when information is delivered in NZSL, or community networks organize to check on vulnerable neighbours – outcomes improve dramatically. Strengthening emergency management legislation is our chance to apply these lessons, so that future emergencies do not repeat the same mistakes. Disabled New Zealanders deserve to have equal chance to survive and recover from disasters, and that requires systemic changes addressed in the next section.

Recommendation:

That the objectives of the proposed emergency management legislation include explicit recognition of disabled people, particularly tāngata whaikaha Māori, to ensure inclusive, equitable, and effective disaster preparedness and response.

 

 

 

Citations:

Alexander, D., & Sagramola, S. (2014). Including People with Disabilities in Disaster Preparedness and Response. www.coe.int/europarisks

Gvetadze, N., & Pertiwi, P. (October 2021). Including Persons with Disabilities in Disaster Risk Reduction: A Research Study from Eight Countries of Africa, Asia and South/Central America. Disability Inclusive Disaster Risk Reduction Network, Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund Deutschland.

Human Rights Commission. (2020). Disabled people’s rights in Aotearoa New Zealand: Submission to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Retrieved from https://www.hrc.co.nz

King, D., Gledhill, K., & Petherick, L. (2014). Disaster risk reduction: What do people with disabilities think? GNS Science Report 2014/52. Retrieved from https://www.gns.cri.nz

Laking G, Caddie M, Thorpe H, et al. 2024. Te Weu me Te Wai – Research into health and wellbeing impacts of adverse weather conditions. Te Weu Tairāwhiti: Te Tairāwhiti

Ministry of Social Development & Office for Disability Issues. (2022). Te Arawhata: Access, Inclusion and Equity for Disabled Māori. Retrieved from https://www.msd.govt.nz

Popovski, V. (2023). Policies for Disability-inclusive Disaster Risk Reduction in the Context of the Republic of North Macedonia.

Stats NZ. (2023). Disability Survey 2023: Initial Results. Retrieved from https://www.stats.govt.nz.

Twigg, J. Kett, M. Lovell, E. (2018). Disability inclusion and disaster risk reduction: Overcoming barriers to progress.

UNDRR. (2013). Survey on living with disabilities and disasters: Key findings. Retrieved from https://www.unisdr.org.

 

 

 

Objective 1: Strengthening community and iwi Māori participation.

Issue 1: Meeting the diverse needs of people and communities.

We have identified options to ensure the emergency management system better meets the diverse needs of communities, with a particular focus on those who may be disproportionately affected during an emergency. Refer to pages 10–13 of the discussion document to answer the questions in this section.

1. Do you agree with how we have described this problem?

☐ Yes

☒ No

☐ Not sure / no preference

Q2: No. We agree that the current system does not adequately protect the rights, safety, and inclusion of disabled people in emergencies, and strongly support the overall direction of the proposed reforms. However, it is unclear if this specifically includes tāngata whaikaha and their whānau. Disabled Māori have specific needs in disaster responses.

The NZ Civil Defence failed to adequately support disabled people and their families in both Christchurch earthquakes because they weren’t included in Civil Defence plans. The mitigation and support plans for managing the Auckland floods did not include persons with physical disabilities, people with mobility challenges, or those with long term health conditions.

There is a need to specifically mention and work with both Māori disabled in culturally appropriate ways, and with non-Māori disabled. Different disabilities have different requirements for access and support. The documentation does not specifically mention disability or disability communities.

New Zealand cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. The Christchurch earthquakes, the COVID-19 pandemic, and Cyclone Gabrielle have each laid bare a dangerous truth: when disabled people are overlooked in emergency planning, the consequences can be devastating—and too often, life-threatening.

Accessibility, inclusive communication, targeted supports, and genuine partnership with disabled people and their organisations are not optional. They are foundational to a fair, effective, and resilient emergency response system.

In comparison, while Australia has implemented national frameworks for disaster resilience that explicitly recognise and address the needs of disabled people, New Zealand has a unique opportunity to lead globally. By embedding mandatory accessibility and disability inclusion standards into our emergency management legislation, we can build a system that protects all lives—equally.

The question is not whether we can afford to do this. It’s whether we can afford not to.

This submission sets out practical recommendations for embedding disabled people's voices, ensuring minimum accessibility standards, safeguarding critical services, and upholding human rights through emergency powers.

(Consultation Questions 1–6)

1.Are there other reasons that may cause some people and groups to be disproportionately affected by emergencies?

 Q1: Yes. Disabled people often face barriers such as inaccessible communication, lack of transport, disconnection from support services, and assumptions of dependency that delay their inclusion in planning and response. The discussion document identifies disproportionately affected groups but does not address the root causes of vulnerability, such as systemic ableism, poverty, colonisation, and rural isolation.

2.What would planning look like (at the local and national levels) if it was better informed by the needs of groups that may be disproportionately affected by emergencies?

Q2: It would be co-designed with disabled people, involve DPOs, and include tailored communication, accessible shelter and transport, and a registry for those with high support needs. Plans must fully integrate the needs of people experiencing disability, poverty, rural isolation, and colonisation. Planning must shift the burden of engagement from communities to emergency management agencies by resourcing outreach, accessible formats, physical accessibility, and building trusted relationships.

3.Should we consider any other problems relating to community and iwi Māori participation?

Q3: Yes. Engagement mechanisms must be resourced, and emergency planning should specifically include tāngata whaikaha Māori as a distinct group. Disabled people and disabled people's organisations must be included as full partners alongside Māori and other community stakeholders. Existing community support networks that are trusted and experienced should be leveraged and resourced. Emergency management should acknowledge that many disproportionately affected communities, including marae and rural communities, are structurally exposed to risk and excluded from planning.

Emergency preparedness advice must be realistic about the resources available to low-income and disabled households. Information and evacuation procedures must be accessible to all people, including D/deaf, blind, low vision, and people with learning disabilities.

From a class and Indigenous perspective, emergency management often mirrors broader societal inequities. Planning must acknowledge both vulnerability and resilience, recognising how communities have adapted where systems failed.

Planning must explicitly include disabled people in culturally appropriate ways (for both Māori and non-Māori disabled people) and recognise that different disabilities require tailored responses.

"Disabled people are often missing from planning tables, even though they are the ones most at risk when disaster hits." (Kōrero for Change participant)

Recommendations:

• Mandatory engagement with DPOs in planning.
• Establish Disability Advisory Groups within each CDEM Group.
• Recognise tāngata whaikaha Māori needs through partnerships with iwi.
• Implement legislative Option 4 to require national-level consultation with disabled representatives.
• Prioritise high-risk, low-income and Indigenous communities in adaptation funding.
• Prohibit construction of infrastructure in flood-prone or geologically unstable areas.
• Link this legislation with the National Adaptation Framework and Resource Management reforms.
• Apply a climate justice lens and equity-based universal design to emergency legislation.

4.Are there other reasons that may cause some people and groups to be is proportionately affected by emergencies?

Q4: “We need to ensure that our emergency preparedness plans are inclusive and accessible to all, especially disabled individuals who are often disproportionately affected during crises.” — Dr. Michelle Villeneuve, Centre for Disability Research and Policy, University of Sydney (Kōrero for Change participant)

Accessibility features may be limited. For example:

• Evacuation: Emergency shelters, transportation, and evacuation procedures are traditionally not accessible. This includes mobility, sensory, and cognitive disabilities. People with physical disabilities or mobility issues typically rely on specialist equipment, carers, family members, specialist vehicles or vehicles with adaptations to mobilise. None of these supports may be available in a disaster.
• Communications: Emergency alerts and updates are often in inaccessible formats. This consultation document is a classic example of an inaccessible format – tables are not generally very accessible, neither are they necessary in a template (you will note that I have taken out the tables as they were quite difficult to navigate).

Support systems are often disrupted. For example:

• Loss of caregivers or services: Emergencies can interrupt access to essential support, such as personal care attendants, therapists, or routine medical care. How would a family know if the emergency centre has a refrigerator for medicine storage? What if the care workers live in a different city/suburb, will they still be able to manage providing care? If not, who will provide personal cares?
• Informal networks: Many disabled persons rely on friends or family for help. These networks may not be formally recognised but often meet access and support needs. These family may also be affected or unable to assist during a crisis.
• Separation from assistive devices: In the chaos of evacuation, people may be separated from wheelchairs, hearing aids, medications, communication devices, and other equipment. Some of this equipment is necessary to sustain life and comes with specialist adaptors for charging. How will these factors be accounted for and mitigated?

Socioeconomic factors compound and exacerbate challenges:

• Higher poverty rates: Disabled individuals and their families are more likely to experience economic poverty. This limits their resilience to disaster, and results in a reduced ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters.
• Housing vulnerability: Many disabled individuals and their families live in less safe or more disaster-prone housing. Affordable housing is currently being built on flood plains in Auckland – it is likely that disabled people will live here.

Health-related vulnerabilities impact in the following ways:

• Chronic health conditions: It is not uncommon for disabled people to have additional an/or multiple medical needs. These needs can worsen without consistent access to healthcare or medication during an emergency. "Without my ventilator and my caregiver, I don't just lose my independence—I lose my life." (Kōrero for Change participant)
• Increased stress and trauma risk: Emergencies can have a more severe psychological impact, especially when autonomy or dignity is compromised.

Discrimination and stigma towards disabled people make things more difficult:

• Systemic bias: Emergency responses tend to prioritise the general population, with disabled people seen as “less urgent.” The immediate response to the Christchurch earthquake completely ignored the needs of people who were blind or had low vision. This was largely in part due to this population group not being included in disaster management planning, so no one in the Civil Defence team knew where they lived or how to contact them. "Recovery is not just about rebuilding roads and houses — it’s about rebuilding lives inclusively." (Kōrero for Change participant)
• Inadequate training: Emergency personnel often have limited and/or inadequate training in how to assist individuals with disabilities respectfully and effectively. There is a general lack of investment in this area for Civil Defence. Staff turnover impacts on this also, with staff leaving resulting in a knowledge gap for remaining staff.

Exclusion from planning: Disabled individuals are often excluded from planning and decision-making processes. This has flow in impacts. For example, not including disabled persons in the design and planning of social housing has impacted on resilience for older people.

"Disabled people are often missing from planning tables, even though they are the ones most at risk when disaster hits." (Kōrero for Change participant)

“It's crucial that we involve disabled people in the planning and decision-making processes for emergency preparedness to ensure their needs are adequately met.”

— Mojo Mathers, Chief Executive, Disabled Persons Assembly (DPA) (Kōrero for Change participant)

1. Do you have any comments about the likely impacts (benefits, costs, or risks) of the initial options we have identified? Do you have any preferred options?

Framing preparation activities for disaster as a cost is rather problematic. We view it as an investment into communities to mitigate risks for both infrastructure and people.

"We (disabled people) need to know who is responsible for us when everything else falls apart." (Kōrero for Change participant)

1. What would planning look like (at the local and national levels) if it was better informed by the needs of groups that may be disproportionately affected by emergencies?

Emergency planning would be fully informed by the needs and insights of disabled people through co-designed strategies that prioritise accessibility and inclusion. Communication during emergencies would be provided in accessible formats, including New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL), Easy Read, and other formats tailored to a range of access needs. Emergency shelters would be designed to accommodate mobility, sensory, and other disability-related requirements. "Accessibility isn’t an extra - it’s fundamental to survival." (Kōrero for Change participant)

Disabled people can contribute their significant knowledge (for example advising on accessible evacuation routes or communication needs, the plans will be more effective and equitable.

All emergency personnel would receive comprehensive disability awareness training, and accessible transport options would be available for safe and efficient evacuations. Plans would include provisions to ensure continuity of care, timely access to assistive devices, and the inclusion of carers as essential to support.

Local response efforts would be informed by accurate data on disabled populations, enabling targeted and effective action. All initiatives would be grounded in Te Tiriti o Waitangi and aligned with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), ensuring responses are equitable, culturally responsive, and uphold the rights and dignity of all disabled people during emergencies.

1. Are there any other options that should be considered?

Some disabilities and long-term health conditions require highly specialised equipment that emergency planners and response centres may not be aware of. It is unrealistic to expect that even well-trained personnel will automatically know where to go or who to contact in every situation. For example, individuals with spinal cord injuries rely on two national centres for acute care, located in Auckland and Christchurch. Access to the correct catheters, batteries, pain relief, mattresses, and cushions can be lifesaving and must be secured as quickly as possible.

Peer support organisations affiliated with these acute centres played a crucial role during recent floods, working alongside hospitals to support affected individuals. Ideally, these organisations should be directly connected to regional emergency centres to ensure people with spinal injuries who are evacuated can be promptly identified and assisted.

Two key priorities are: ensuring the resilience of communication infrastructure and minimising the number of steps required to get the correct equipment to the right location from the appropriate distribution centre. Ongoing collaboration with disabled people, individuals with long-term health conditions, and their representative organisations is essential to maintaining emergency preparedness—especially given that medical and disability equipment and supply needs often change at least every two years.

Issue 2: Strengthening and enabling iwi Māori participation in emergency management

We have identified options to recognise the contributions made by iwi Māori in emergency management, to the benefit of all people in New Zealand. Refer to pages 13–16 of the discussion document to answer the questions in this section.

1. Do you agree with how we have described this problem?

☒ Yes

☐ No

☐ Not sure / no preference

(Consultation Questions 7–11)

Q7-Q11: Tāngata whaikaha Māori and whānau are disproportionately disadvantaged by disasters. As such it is important that tāngata whaikaha are specifically identified from the outset in all emergency planning. The same for disabled persons in general.

8.Have we accurately captured the roles that iwi Māori play before, during and after emergencies?

☒ Yes

☐ No

☐ Not sure / no preference

Māori communities play a significant role in disaster preparedness and are often involved in planning and recovery in ways that central and/or local governments are not.

The initial options do not adequately address the basic needs of disabled people. Disabled communities routinely face unacceptable barriers during emergencies. These barriers include inaccessible communications, evacuation plans that overlook mobility and sensory needs, and critical delays in receiving assistance. These are systemic failures that place disabled lives at risk. There is a need for the explicit and enforceable inclusion of disabled people across all stages of disaster planning. Without this, resilience efforts will continue to exclude those most at risk.

Preferred option: Introduce mandates that necessitate disability-specific planning across all emergency systems. This must include direct consultation and genuine co-design with disabled people, tāngata whaikaha Māori, and disability service providers. Anything less will continue to marginalise and endanger a significant portion of our population.

Local iwi and marae are critical partners – noting that many whānau include disabled members, and tāngata whaikaha Māori with distinct cultural needs that should be respected in emergency responses. Inclusive participation is not just fair – it improves outcomes, as community networks can reach those government services might overlook. Iwi Māori should be recognised as equal partners in emergency management, grounded in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, just as disabled people and their families should be included in recognition of Braille, NZSL and East Read to meet communities disproportionately impacted by disasters. Their role must reflect not just engagement but actual decision-making power at all levels — local, regional, and national.

CDEM Groups should formalise their partnerships with iwi Māori through Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) to ensure that iwi Māori perspectives are incorporated into all emergency phases: preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation.   "We need to know who is responsible for us when everything else falls apart."

Roles and Responsibilities

Knowledge and Partnership Emergency management must go beyond recognition and actively embed mātauranga Māori and tikanga as foundational knowledge systems in climate resilience and disaster planning. A genuine Crown–Māori partnership in this space requires shared power and shared resources. The current discussion document still frames Māori participation in passive terms like "seeking advice" and "engaging with" rather than committing to true partnership under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The climate crisis is not coming. It is here. And it is not a weather problem, but a justice problem. Communities, hapū, and nature-based organisations are ready to lead. But we cannot do it with ad hoc grants, top-down systems, and legislation that still centres control over care.

Resourcing and Relationships

None of the proposed options include tangible commitments to resourcing iwi Māori participation, despite acknowledging current capacity constraints. Our research shows that the strength of iwi Māori emergency response often stems from deep community relationships and pre-existing networks. These must be recognised and supported before emergencies occur. The role of groups like Hono (the Māori Emergency Management Network) and other kaupapa Māori initiatives should be acknowledged and uplifted.

Language and Representation

The terminology used in the discussion document — such as “iwi Māori” — does not fully reflect the localised realities of Māori emergency leadership, including hapū and marae-led responses. Furthermore, phrases like “addressing roles” or “engaging with” fall short of the expectations of tino rangatiratanga and Te Tiriti obligations. Advice provided by Māori partners should be required to be meaningfully integrated into emergency planning and response.

8.Do you think more fundamental changes are needed to the way direction and control works during the response to an emergency?

Q:8 Yes. There must be clarity on who is responsible for ensuring accessibility and support for disabled people across different phases of response.

9.Should we consider any other problems relating to responsibilities and accountabilities at the national, regional, and local levels?

Q9: Yes. Disability inclusion responsibilities must be written into law and not left to interpretation or goodwill. "We need to know who is responsible for us when everything else falls apart." (Kōrero for Change participant)

Recommendations:

• Assign specific responsibilities for disability inclusion.
• Name Whaikaha – Ministry of Disabled People as a key emergency management agency.
• Integrate Disability Liaison Officers into Emergency Operations Centres.
• Include evaluation of disability support in post-event reviews.
• Introduce minimum standards of emergency management.

(Consultation Questions 12–16)

Q12-16: Burden of Responsibility: The current options in the discussion document place the burden on communities to connect with formal structures rather than requiring the formal systems to support and enable community leadership. Ensuring that disabled people and disabled people's organisations/service providers and networks are empowered and enabled as full partners in emergency situations, working alongside other community stakeholders.

Proactivity vs Reactivity: Rather than addressing the causes of these communication failures, the discussion document focuses on reactively "managing offers" from communities.

Address Disempowerment, Commit to Resourcing: The discussion document fails to acknowledge how previous policy changes have undermined community response capabilities. For example, previously, volunteer Community Resilience Groups received basic support from Civil Defence that assisted in their operation—this has since diminished. The discussion document expects communities to perform similar functions without addressing this previous disempowerment.

The options provided contain no commitment to resources for community resilience, despite the government response explicitly committing to “direct a greater share of emergency management investment in community resilience initiatives.”

Recommendations:

• Mandate CDEM Groups to co-design plans with tangata whenua and disability advocates.
• Fund targeted community engagement led by those communities most impacted.
• Ensure that evacuation, information systems, and recovery services meet universal accessibility standards.
• CDEM plans must include precise, resourced mechanisms for recognising and integrating: Volunteer networks; Local food and water security systems; Ecological restoration networks; Citizen science and hapū led local monitoring hubs.
• Make information available in accessible formats for all communities, i.e., D/deaf, learning disability, blind and low vision, etc.

Accessibility is still treated as discretionary. Accessible communications, inclusive evacuation planning, shelter accessibility, and continuity of support services for disabled people.

Recommendation:

• Embed mandatory national accessibility standards into the law.

Comparative Note:

Australia has strong frameworks but relies largely on voluntary adoption. New Zealand can lead internationally by embedding enforceable minimum standards for accessibility into law. "Accessibility isn’t an extra - it’s fundamental to survival." (Kōrero for Change participant)

Recommendations:

• Make it a legal requirement that CDEM Group plans address disabled people's support needs.
• Establish national standards for accessible communications, inclusive evacuations, and accessible shelters.
• Mandate disability inclusion training for emergency personnel.

1. What should be the relationship between Coordinating Executive Groups and iwi Māori?

Q12: Coordinating Executive Groups are best to have designated Māori representatives with equal authority and clear responsibilities. These representatives are best selected by iwi, not appointed by agencies.

1. What would be the most effective way for iwi Māori experiences and mātauranga in emergency management to be provided to the Director?

Q13: Iwi Māori experiences and mātauranga in emergency management should be formally embedded into CDEM planning through advisory panels, mandated reports, and funded positions within NEMA and other bodies. Regular hui should feed into national planning processes.

1. Are there any other options that should be considered?

Q14: A dedicated team within emergency management focused on vulnerable populations (disabled, Māori, ethnic minorities, rural communities) should be established and funded. The new law to explicitly require engagement with disabled people and tāngata whaikaha Māori and Iwi Māori in emergency planning. This will ensure that the unique risks faced by disabled people are identified and planned for at both local and national levels.

Issue 3: Strengthening and enabling community participation in emergency management.

We have identified options to improve communities’ ability to participate in emergency management. This includes making it easier for individuals, businesses, and other community organisations to offer resources to the “official” emergency response. Refer to pages 16–18 of the discussion document to answer the questions in this section.

1. Do you agree with how we have described this problem?

☒ Yes

☐ No

☐ Not sure / no preference

Q15: It is heartening to read such a comprehensive response, and it is well time for a co-ordinated approach to emergency management. Central and/or local government typically do not have the capacity or capability to respond to all emergencies, and even less when disasters occur on weekends or holidays.  Disabled people and their families are disproportionately impacted on both during and after a disaster. Organisations, businesses and iwi are relied on by disabled people to mitigate their limited resilience. 

1. Do you have any comments about the likely impacts (benefits, costs, or risks) of the initial options we have identified? Do you have any preferred options?

Q16: It is important to identify vulnerable populations, and to ensure their voices are included and heard. This will improve their resilience in a disaster. 

1. Are there any other options that should be considered?

Recommendations:

• Establish regional disability liaison officers embedded within CDEM Groups.
• Establish key disability advocates from Council and Community Disability Advisory Groups and Organisations who are connected to existing specialist disability networks. For example, Blind Low Vision NZ, Deaf Aotearoa, People First NZ, etc.

Issue 4: Recognising that people, businesses and communities are often the first to respond in an emergency.

We have identified options to address barriers that may stop people, businesses, and communities from acting during an emergency. Refer to pages 18–19 of the discussion document to answer the questions in this section.

1. Do you agree with how we have described this problem?
2. Do you have any comments about the likely impacts (benefits, costs, or risks) of the initial options we have identified? Do you have any preferred options?
3. Are there any other options that should be considered?

Q18-Q20: Disasters often occur suddenly and in locations where formal emergency services may be delayed in arriving. In such situations, community organisations frequently serve as the first and only immediate support—especially for isolated individuals or those with high and complex needs. Disability Information Centres are well-positioned to assist, given their established networks and local knowledge.

If disabled people, their families, whānau, and support networks are not actively included and empowered through emergency preparedness programmes, they will continue to experience disproportionate harm and disruption during emergencies. To address this, a regional register of disability support organisations—including Disability Information and Advisory Services (DIAS) and spinal support organisations—should be established and integrated into Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) systems.

Additionally, formal mechanisms should be created to enable rapid funding for non-governmental organisations already providing critical support to disabled communities during emergencies, ensuring continuity of care and timely response.

Other problems relating to this objective.

1. Should we consider any other problems relating to community and iwi Māori participation?

As noted earlier, disability-specific planning is absent in most local emergency strategies. This is an international challenge. Changing this requires making disability inclusion a core performance indicator.

Objective 2: Providing for clear responsibilities and accountabilities at the national, regional, and local levels.

Issue 5: Clearer direction and control during an emergency

We have identified options to make it clearer who oversees the operational response to an emergency. Refer to pages 20–25 of the discussion document to answer the questions in this section.

1. Do you agree with how we have described this problem?

☒ Yes

☐ No

☐ Not sure / no preference

1. Do you have any comments about the likely impacts (benefits, costs, or risks) of the initial options we have identified? Do you have any preferred options?
2. Are there any other options that should be considered?
3. Do you think more fundamental changes are needed to the way direction and control works during the response to an emergency? If so, why?

Q22 – Q25: yes, the problem is described correctly, but disability needs to be embedded explicitly not folded into generalities.

Issue 6: Strengthening the regional tier of emergency management.

Issue 6.1: Resolving overlapping CDEM Group and local authority roles and responsibilities.

We have identified options to ensure it is clear what CDEM Groups and each of their local authority members are responsible for. Refer to pages 26–28 of the discussion document to answer the questions in this section.

1. Do you agree with how we have described this problem?

☒ Yes

☐ No

☐ Not sure / no preference

 

1. Do you have any comments about the likely impacts (benefits, costs, or risks) of the initial options we have identified? Do you have any preferred options?
2. Are there any other options that should be considered?
3. Do you think more fundamental changes are needed to the way emergency management is delivered at the local government level (for example, the CDEM Group-based model)? If so, why?

Q26 – Q29: Yes, the problem is described correctly, but disability needs to be embedded explicitly not folded into generalities. Unless disability is explicitly named and addressed, emergency responses will continue to fail disabled persons and their families.

Issue 6.2: Providing for clear and consistent organisation and accountability for emergency management.

We have identified options to ensure CDEM Groups are organised effectively, with clearer lines of accountability. Refer to pages 28–31 of the discussion document to answer the questions in this section.

1. Do you agree with how we have described this problem?

☒ Yes

☐ No

☐ Not sure / no preference

1. Do you have any comments about the likely impacts (benefits, costs, or risks) of the initial options we have identified? Do you have any preferred options?
2. Are there any other options that should be considered?

Q30 – Q32: Yes, the problem is described correctly, but disability needs to be embedded explicitly not folded into generalities. Unless disability is explicitly named and addressed, emergency responses will continue to fail disabled persons and their families.

Issue 6.3: Strengthening the performance of Coordinating Executive Groups

We have identified options to strengthen how Coordinating Executive Groups provide advice to and implement the decisions of their CDEM Groups. Refer to pages 31–32 of the discussion document to answer the questions in this section.

1. Do you agree with how we have described this problem?

☒ Yes

☐ No

☐ Not sure / no preference

1. Do you have any comments about the likely impacts (benefits, costs, or risks) of the initial options we have identified? Do you have any preferred options?
2. Are there any other options that should be considered?

Q33 – Q35: Yes, the problem is described correctly, but disability needs to be embedded explicitly not folded into generalities. Unless disability is explicitly named and addressed, emergency responses will continue to fail disabled persons and their families.

Issue 7: Keeping emergency management plans up to date.

We have identified options to make it easier to update the National CDEM Plan and CDEM Group plans, reflecting changes to roles and responsibilities. Refer to pages 33–34 of the discussion document to answer the questions in this section.

1. Do you agree with how we have described this problem?

☒ Yes

☐ No

☐ Not sure / no preference

1. Do you have any comments about the likely impacts (benefits, costs, or risks) of the initial options we have identified? Do you have any preferred options?
2. Are there any other options that should be considered?

Other problems relating to this objective.

1. Should we consider any other problems relating to responsibilities and accountabilities at the national, regional, and local levels?

Q36 – Q39: Yes, the problem is described correctly, but disability needs to be embedded explicitly not folded into generalities. Unless disability is explicitly named and addressed, emergency responses will continue to fail disabled persons and their families.

Objective 3: Enabling a higher minimum standard of emergency management.

Issue 8: Stronger national direction and assurance

Issue 8.1: Strengthening the Director’s mandate to set expectations and monitor performance.

We have identified options to enable a wider range of mandatory standards to be set and strengthen the Director’s ability to provide assurance about the performance of the emergency management system. Refer to pages 36–37 of the discussion document to answer the questions in this section.

1. Do you agree with how we have described this problem?

☒ Yes

☐ No

☐ Not sure / no preference

1. Do you have any comments about the likely impacts (benefits, costs, or risks) of the initial options we have identified? Do you have any preferred options?
2. Which aspects of emergency management would benefit from greater national consistency or direction?
3. Are there any other options that should be considered?

Q40-Q43: Yes, the problem is described correctly, but disability needs to be embedded explicitly not folded into generalities. Unless disability is explicitly named and addressed, emergency responses will continue to fail disabled persons and their families.

National minimum standards must include disability-inclusive emergency planning, and minimum standards for accessibility. For example, Aotearoa New Zealand can learn from Australian Minimum Accessibility Standards in Emergencies, specifically drawing from their Disability-Inclusive Disaster Risk Reduction (DIDRR) framework and national guidance:

While Australia has national frameworks for disaster resilience that recognize disabled people's needs, New Zealand now has an opportunity to lead internationally by embedding mandatory minimum standards for accessibility and disability inclusion directly into emergency management law.

New Zealand should adopt Australia’s proven emergency management disability-accessibility standards as enforceable minimum standards in the new legislation. This includes accessibility standards for shelters, as well as accessibility standards for communication (e.g., NZSL interpreters, easy-read alerts). Integration of Australian Accessibility Standards in Emergencies

We strongly recommend the adoption of mandatory Disability-Inclusive Emergency Planning Standards, like those implemented in Australia. These standards should be embedded in both national and regional emergency management frameworks to ensure consistent, enforceable, and inclusive practices across Aotearoa New Zealand.

Recommended Reference Standards from Australia: Australia has taken meaningful steps to embed disability inclusion in emergency management through:

• The National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (2011), which recognises the need for inclusive planning.
• Disability-Inclusive Disaster Risk Reduction (DIDRR) Framework and Toolkit, developed by the University of Sydney’s Centre for Disability Research and Policy and Queenslanders with Disability Network (QDN).

Australian Standards for Accessible Public Transport, Emergency Shelters, and Communications, which specify requirements for:

• Shelter access (e.g., ramps, sensory-friendly spaces, accessible toilets).
• Emergency communications (e.g., AUSLAN interpreters, Easy Read formats, screen reader-friendly alerts).
• Continuity of disability support services.
• Participation of disabled people in co-design and evaluation.

Why this matters for New Zealand?

• Consistency: Clear standards ensure that all regions respond equitably and appropriately.
• Accountability: Minimum requirements remove ambiguity in planning and resource allocation.
• Preparedness: Standards support emergency services to pre-plan for disability-related infrastructure and resource needs.

Recommendations:

• Align with Australia’s “Person-Centred Emergency Preparedness (P-CEP)” planning tools, which enable tailored planning for individuals with specific support needs.
• Adopt standards from the Emergency Management Australia Manual and the Inclusive Community Engagement Framework, which outline inclusive sheltering, evacuation, and communication protocols.
• Fund development of Aotearoa-specific guidance aligned to these standards and train Civil Defence personnel accordingly.
• Embedding these standards into New Zealand’s legislation would represent international best practice and fulfill our obligations under the UNCRPD, particularly Article 11 on situations of risk and humanitarian emergencies.

Issue 8.2: Strengthening the mandate to intervene and address performance issues.

We have identified options to better ensure those with legal emergency management responsibilities are meeting them sufficiently. Refer to pages 37–39 of the discussion document to answer the questions in this section.

1. Do you agree with how we have described this problem?
2. Do you have any comments about the likely impacts (benefits, costs, or risks) of the initial options we have identified? Do you have any preferred options?
3. Are there any other options that should be considered?

Q44-Q46: Yes, the problem is described correctly, but disability needs to be embedded explicitly not folded into generalities. Unless disability is explicitly named and addressed, emergency responses will continue to fail disabled persons and their families.

National minimum standards must include disability-inclusive emergency planning, and minimum standards for accessibility. This includes accessibility standards for shelters, as well as accessibility standards for communication (e.g., NZSL interpreters, easy-read alerts).

Issue 9: Strengthening local hazard risk management.

We have identified options to strengthen the way CDEM Groups, and their members manage the risk of hazards in their areas, including by using CDEM Group plans more effectively. Refer to pages 39–42 of the discussion document to answer the questions in this section.

1. Do you agree with how we have described this problem?

☒ Yes

☐ No

☐ Not sure / no preference

1. Do you have any comments about the likely impacts (benefits, costs, or risks) of the initial options we have identified? Do you have any preferred options?
2. What is the right balance between regional flexibility and national consistency for CDEM Group plans?
3. What practical barriers may be preventing CDEM Group plans from being well integrated with other local government planning instruments?
4. Are there any other options that should be considered?
5. Do you think more fundamental changes are needed to enable local authorities to deliver effective hazard risk management? If so, why?

☒ Yes

☐ No

☐ Not sure / no preference

Q47 – Q52: As noted earlier in this consultation document, there is an urgent need for more consistent and disability-inclusive risk management. Planning for local hazard risk management must be accessible in the first instance, and secondly, it must consider the specific vulnerabilities of disabled persons, and the adaptive strategies needed.

Issue 10: Strengthening due consideration of taonga Māori, cultural heritage and animals during and after emergencies.

Issue 10.1: Considering taonga Māori and other cultural heritage during and after emergencies.

We have identified options to ensure the impacts of emergencies on taonga Māori and other cultural heritage is considered appropriately. Refer to pages 43–45 of the discussion document to answer the questions in this section.

1. Do you agree with how we have described this problem?

☒ Yes

☐ No

☐ Not sure / no preference

1. Do you have any comments about the likely impacts (benefits, costs, or risks) of the initial options we have identified? Do you have any preferred options?
2. Are there any other options that should be considered?

Q53 – Q55: Yes, we agree with how you have described the problem, and we strongly support the recognition of taonga Māori and other cultural heritage.

Issue 10.2: Considering animals during and after emergencies.

We have identified options to ensure the impacts of emergencies on pets, working animals, wildlife, and livestock is considered appropriately. Refer to pages 45–47 of the discussion document to answer the questions in this section.

1. Do you agree with how we have described this problem?

☒ Yes

☐ No

☐ Not sure / no preference

1. Do you have any comments about the likely impacts (benefits, costs, or risks) of the initial options we have identified? Do you have any preferred options?
2. Noting that human life and safety will always be the top priority, do you have any comments about how animals should be prioritised relative to the protection of property?
3. Are there any other options that should be considered?

Other problems relating to this objective.

1. Should we consider any other problems relating to enabling a higher minimum standard of emergency management?

Q56 – Q60: Yes, we agree with how you have described the problem. For disabled people, assistance animals are critical for survival and well- being. In emergencies, support animals such as guide dogs must be accommodated alongside their disabled owners in shelters.

We also recommend that there is mandatory inclusion of disability support animals in emergency planning, and that it is made very clear that emergency shelters must allow service animals without question.

Objective 4: Minimising disruption to essential services

Q61 - Q76: As mentioned across this consultation document, essential services and infrastructure must include services that disabled people and their families rely on, such as specialist medical suppliers, wheelchair repair services, pharmacies, and personal care support.

Infrastructure and essential service providers must plan for the needs of their local disabled population, not just the general public. This will require working with disabled people and local/national disability groups.

Disability needs to be embedded explicitly not folded into generalities. Unless disability is explicitly named and addressed, emergency responses will continue to fail disabled persons and their families.

Objective 5: Having the right powers available when an emergency happens.

Q78 – Q90: as mentioned across this consultation document, disability needs to be embedded explicitly not folded into generalities. Unless disability is explicitly named and addressed, emergency responses will continue to fail disabled persons and their families.

Clear, prompt decision-making is vital. However, disabled individuals and their families must have equitable access to information about cordons, emergency powers, and changes during emergencies. This must be provided in the necessary accessible formats.

We strongly recommend that emergency communication protocols meet universal design standards, and that there is representation of vulnerable populations in local Emergency Operations Centres (EOCs) during disasters and subsequent responses.

Other comments

There is a need for specific, proactive inclusion of disabled people and their families. Without this intentionality, disabled persons and their families will continue to face unnecessary hardship and risk during emergencies.

We advise that the following will go a long way to addressing the issues outlined in our consultation response:

1. Safeguard essential services and disability rights during emergencies.
2. Embed disability leadership across all CDEM Groups.
3. Implement Option 4 to ensure national-level consultation with disabled people informs emergency management policy and planning. (make it a KPI)
4. Mandate accessibility as a key feature (make it a KPI).
5. Mandate disability inclusion as a core requirement in national and regional plans (make it a KPI).
6. Set enforceable minimum accessibility standards. (make it a KPI)

Adequately fund a range of national and local level disability organisations as key partners in resilience building and emergency response management.

We support bold, inclusive reform that places disabled people’s rights at the heart of emergency management. When we plan for the most vulnerable, we strengthen resilience for everyone. We thank you for considering our submission and are ready to assist further.

Kia kaha, kia haumaru tātou — stay strong, and let us all be safe.

Word - Read & Download Submission

PDF - Read & Download Submission